Lawyers clash over Wright ethics charges

Press, 25 May 1989, Page 8

Lawyers clash over Wright ethics charges

NZPA-Reuter Washington The House of Representatives ethics committee witnessed a dramatic legal clash yesterday over whether the House Speaker, Jim Wright, was a schemer who evaded Congressional financial rules or a “lynch mob” victim on the verge of being hounded from office. Mr Wright is the highest-elected Democrat in the United States and next in line to the presidency after Vice-Presi-dent Dan Quayle.

Counsel for the Texas Democrat urged dismissal of ethics charges against the speaker, saying they were not supported by the evidence, but the panel’s special counsel said the integrity and public image of the House was on the line.

Mr Wright’s lawyer, Stephen Susman, denied the panel’s charge that Wright’s bulk sales of his book, “Reflections of a Public Man,” had evaded income limits.

Mr Susman argued that copyright income was flatly exempted from rules that specify outside earnings cannot exceed 30 per cent of Congressional salary, contending “it

doesn’t matter whether it’s part of a scheme or a plot.”

But the Committee’s special counsel, Richard Phelan, said there was a pattern of behaviour by Mr Wright in making bulk sales of his book as a substitute for accepting speaking fees that would have exceeded the earnings limits. Mr Wright spoke briefly to reporters as he left Capitol Hill, saying Mr Phelan had distorted some facts in his presentation and added, “I think we clearly had the better side of the legal argument.” ' Mr Susman also

disputed a finding that Mr Wright’s friend, George Mallick, had a direct interest in legislation and so was barred from giving more than SUSIOO (SNZI7O) a year in' gifts to legislators.

The committee has said that Mr Wright,- took $U5145,000 (about $NZ247,000) in gifts from Mr Mallick between 1979 and 1988 — some of it paid as salary to Mr Wright’s wife, Betty, as an employee of a firm set up by Mr Mallick and Mr Wright and their wives. Mr Susman said Mr Mallick was simply a long-standing friend of Mr Wright’s who had never sought favours from him before or after he became speaker in 1986.

The committee will consider the defence motions in closed session today and is expected to rule within two days. If the charges are sustained, the committee would hold a disciplinary hearing that could result in recommendation .of punishment ranging from reprimand to expulsion from office.

Mr Wright’s spokesman, Mark Johnson, denied the Speaker would resign if the committee ruled against him.