TRAFICANT’S JAM Since we last spoke with James Traficant in September, when the Ohio congressman told us he was at “the zenith of my jackasshood,” he’s had a tough go of it. Before last fall’s election, when Democrats still had hopes of gaining a majority in the House, Traficant swore allegiance to GOP speaker Denny Hastert over Dick Gephardt, prompting one Democrat to speculate that Traficant would be made “chairman of the sub-subcommittee on public restrooms.” In fact, the congressman whose hair defies gravity and whose wardrobe just defies, didn’t fare so well. Vengeful Democrats have seen to it that Traficant is the only congressman since 1905 not to get a committee assignment. Republicans also no longer court him. And to really complicate his life, the feds are now implying that he’s no better than Bob Torricelli. A federal grand jury last week handed down a 10-count indictment, accusing Traficant of everything from taking bribes to demanding kickbacks from his congressional staff. The news is hardly unexpected. For over a year, Traficant has claimed he had a “bullseye on my back,” and that the Justice Department, which he calls a “f — ing whorehouse,” was out to get him. Though Traficant is not a lawyer, he is famous for representing himself in his periodic tangles with the feds. Last fall, he told us he had consulted with “my client,” and had again elected to go pro se. As a public corruption aficionado, The Scrapbook believes this could be the best show since former Louisiana governor Edwin Edwards told prosecutors, when they asked if he was lying, “No, and if I were, you’ve got to assume I wouldn’t be telling you.” During Traficant’s first trial in the early 1980s, when he became the only defendant ever to win his own acquittal in a RICO case, he convinced a jury that he had not accepted bribes from the mob but, rather, was taking their money “out of circulation” in a secret one-man sting operation. Traficant did this in high style, munching cough drops, cursing his way across the courtroom in short sleeves, and asking the judge to help him muddle through the procedures for getting her removed. During that trial, Traficant declared, “I am prepared to present a statement certifying I am not insane.” The Scrapbook is no lawyer, but we offer the congressman some helpful advice: Go with the insanity defense. We’ve saved our interview notes, and we think you can make your case. _ KHOBAR REVISITED In our November 24, 1997, issue, Matt Labash told the harrowing saga of Air Force general Terry Schwalier, commander of the base in Saudi Arabia where terrorists killed 19 of Schwalier’s airmen in the Khobar Towers bombing. Secretary of Defense William Cohen hung Schwalier by his thumbs, ignoring the recommendations of Air Force chief of staff Ron Fogleman (who resigned in protest), and suppressing two comprehensive military reports that exonerated Schwalier — all in the name of accountability. While Schwalier had a star revoked, and his military career was ruined, everyone seemed to forget about holding accountable those who’d caused the deaths: namely, the terrorists. Everyone, apparently, except outgoing FBI chief Louis Freeh. In Elsa Walsh’s exhaustive account in last week’s New Yorker, largely told from Freeh’s point of view, it’s clear that as was customary in the Clinton administration, there was plenty of cowardice to go around. Walsh reports that Freeh’s obsessive pursuit of the Khobar killers bordered on being “theological” and almost led him to urge indicting Iranian government officials, widely believed to be behind the bombing. But despite Clinton’s own vow that “the cowards who committed this murderous act must not go unpunished,” his administration, in the interest of diplomacy, seemed to hang back. In fact, Freeh’s low regard for Clinton, according to the New Yorker’s account, was exacerbated by the administration’s handling of the Khobar affair. While Freeh was trying to pry evidence out of the always circumspect Saudis, Clinton was making overtures to a new Iranian government, leaving doubts about American resolve. The State Department, meanwhile, was making it harder for FBI agents to travel for the investigation. And when Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah arrived in Washington for a meeting with Clinton, in which he was warned there would be some “very important questions” about Khobar, a self-pitying Clinton, mired at the time in the Monica Lewinsky affair, failed to press the case (prompting Freeh to appeal covertly to former president Bush to intervene with the Saudi royal family). Freeh was finally permitted to ask questions of suspects being held in Saudi custody, who not only admitted their involvement, but described how the Iranians had ordered and financed the attack. Freeh took these reports to national security adviser Sandy Berger, who seemed primarily concerned with heading off press attention, while casting aspersions on statements linking the bombing to the Iranian government. Berger claims he just wanted to make sure the suspects’ statements were admissible. But as Walsh writes, in some of the piece’s most damning language, “Berger, Freeh later thought, was not a national-security adviser; he was a public-relations hack, interested in how something would play in the press. After more than two years, Freeh had concluded that the administration did not really want to resolve the Khobar bombing.” By last fall, the Saudis finally consented to allow suspects to testify if the United States brought indictments against Iranian officials. But Freeh decided not to take any chances. Instead of pressing for indictments under Clinton, he waited for a change of administrations, and even asked for a new federal prosecutor to be assigned to the case. While Freeh is hopeful that the Bush administration will not oppose the indictments, he may have done the families of the Khobar victims a valuable service with his elegantly simple policy: When it comes to trusting Clintonites to do the right thing instead of the politically expedient one, don’t. _ WARMING UP TO IRAN? If Louis Freeh (see item above) wants to get Iranian officials indicted for the murder of the 19 U.S. airmen in Saudi Arabia in 1996, maybe he’d better try to hurry things along. Brent Scowcroft, the first President Bush’s national security adviser and mentor to the current President Bush’s NSC adviser, argued in Friday’s Washington Post that the time is ripe to lift U.S. sanctions against Iran. His reasoning is less than compelling. Iran has done nothing to deserve what even Scowcroft thinks would be an “unrequited gesture.” But the Clinton administration was unenthusiastic about the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act, and European companies are therefore being allowed to make money pumping Iranian oil under a waiver from the U.S. government. Americans, he argues, should be allowed to do the same! Sure, this would bring “economic benefit to Iran,” but it “might encourage the forces of moderation.” Yeah, and it might just as readily encourage the forces of despotic extremism. Let’s hope this is just a trial balloon. In which case, this is just a trial hatpin. _ EASTLAND HO! Careful readers will note on this issue’s masthead the addition of Terry Eastland as publisher. Mr. Eastland is a former Reagan administration official, a constitutional scholar, and an experienced magazine publisher — as well as a Weekly Standard contributor. He will, I trust, be a marked improvement over his predecessor as publisher (me), strengthening an already strong business team. My colleagues and I heartily welcome Mr. Eastland aboard. — William Kristol May 21, 2001; Volume 6, Number 34
