Part One By Murray Waas Key Kenneth Starr witness David Hale's strategy for getting out of legal trouble: Blame President Clinton (08/12/98) Part Two By Murray Waas David Hale lied under oath during his testimony in the Whitewater case to conceal his secret ties to conservative activists (08/13/98) Part Three By Murray Waas How David Hale falsely invoked Bill Clinton's name to win a $50,000 payoff (08/14/98) Part Five By Michael Haddigan and Murray Waas Why there will never be a Whitewater Report from Ken Starr (08/21/98) T A B L E+T A L K Today's headlines: Semen, oral sex and the presidency! How do you think the media are handling the Clinton Crisis? Sound off in the Politics area of Table Talk D A I L Y+Q U O T E I may be crazy, but I'm no cannibal! R E C E N T L Y Democrats running scared By Jonathan Broder Capitol Hill Democrats fear the future (08/10/98) Click here for Viagra (or other drugs) By Greg Critser Your Viagra is only a click away (08/07/98) Just do it, Bill By Fred Branfman The president should tell the truth (08/06/98) Clinton's sexual scorched-earth plan By Jonathan Broder and Harry Jaffe The White House may be ready to declare a "total war" on Congress over the Lewinsky case (08/05/98) New JFK death film By Scott McLemee New Zapruder film doesn't solve JFK case (08/04/98) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Browse the Newsreal Archives - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
		FALSE WITNESS | PAGE 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 - - - - - - - - - - If Watt's account is true, why did the Whitewater investigators who interviewed Watt omit information from their reports that would have put Bill Clinton in a better light? Reign, the FBI agent responsible for writing up the interviews with Watt, declined to comment, telling Salon the matter was part of an ongoing investigation. Other legal experts, while not familiar with the specifics of the Watt investigation, commented that there could be a variety of explanations for why the information was left out. "If something exculpatory does not show up in a '302' [FBI report], there can be any number of reasons for that to be the case," said John Barrett, the former prosecutor who now teaches criminal law at St. John's law school. "It might be an honest mistake by an agent. It might be an honest mistake of recollection by the witness. It could be that there was something more sinister that happened." He added, "My own personal experience with FBI agents is that they are very by the book. A 302 is meant to be a memorandum of the interview. Agents write them as straight as they can to the best of their ability." Another former federal prosecutor agreed there could be a variety of explanations. "To conceal exculpatory information is a crime if that was done purposely," he said. "If that is the case, someone should investigate and formally take evidence. But there are also a full range of possibilities of what could have occurred. You could have a dumb bunny, an agent without a lot on the ball. In any occupation, there is a spectrum of abilities. Independent counsels do not always get first-round draft picks." SALON | Aug. 17, 1998 Investigative reporter Murray Waas covers the Clinton crisis for Salon. SELECT THESE LINKS FOR [ PART 1 ] _ [ PART 2 ] _ [ PART 3 ] _ [ PART 5 ]