THE FIEDLER INDICTMENT : Political Fight Turns Into a War of Words : Analysis

The truth of the matter may wait for a courtroom verdict, but over the weekend, the two combatants in the controversy over California’s Republican U.S. Senate primary--indicted Rep. Bobbi Fiedler and her accuser, state Sen. Ed Davis--argued their cases in the media.

Both made numerous appearances on radio and television, swapping charges in their distinctive styles--Davis, the sometimes self-righteous former police chief with a passion for legal detail, and Fiedler, the cool-under-fire politician who is a skilled--if at times inaccurate--persuader.

Fiedler and her top aide, Paul Clarke, were indicted Jan. 23 by a Los Angeles County Grand Jury on charges that they tried to lure Davis out of the Senate race by offering him a $100,000 contribution to help retire his campaign debt.

When the indictment was announced, Fiedler and Clarke--normally quite accessible to the press--were told by their attorneys not to talk until they had seen the evidence.

But that strategy changed, says Fiedler media adviser Don Dornan, because “even if this thing is behind us in a couple of weeks, the Senate race will have gone over the hill if we are not able to give our side of things to the media.”

Davis, normally one of the most quotable politicians in California, lapsed into legal and police jargon when pressed to discuss the indictment when it was announced. But he, too, changed his strategy as he watched Fiedler and Clarke begin to give their side of the story.

It reached a peak over the weekend in Los Angeles as radio and television stations clamored to get Davis and Fiedler on the air.

Fiedler made her first extensive public comments on local television and radio stations--and provided ammunition for critics who charge that she often plays loose with the facts.

Appearing on KABC radio Monday, Fiedler cast doubt on the grand jury that indicted her, saying that to her surprise she learned that “someone who is accused of something of this kind really doesn’t have a chance to present their side of the issue at all” to the grand jury.

What she did not tell the KABC listeners is that she and Clarke were both invited to appear before the grand jury but turned down the opportunity. Fiedler told reporters she declined to appear because her lawyers would have had to wait outside in the hall--standard procedure for anyone appearing before a county grand jury. The lawyers can be consulted on every question asked by the grand jury.

In radio and television appearances Sunday, Fiedler said that both the California attorney general and the U.S. attorney had looked at Davis’ allegations and concluded, in her words, “There is nothing here.”

But those offices made no such conclusion, says Gilbert I. Garcetti, chief deputy district attorney for Los Angeles County.

Garcetti also said Fiedler misstated the facts when she told the radio and TV audiences that the Los Angeles district attorney’s office was required to investigate her no matter what it thought of the Davis allegations.

“Absolutely wrong,” said Garcetti. “This office could have called off the investigation at any time (if it had concluded) we were wasting our time. That was not the case.”

Davis, the former Los Angeles police chief, stepped up his attack through the news media Friday, telling KABC radio listeners that while some people may view him as a bully for his accusations against Fiedler, he had no choice because of his reverence for law.

‘Reverence for Law’

“Reverence for the law should be the political religion of the land,” Davis intoned as he hooked his thumbs in his suit vest and leaned toward the microphone.

What Davis did not tell the KABC listeners is that some legal scholars and political professionals believe the state law used to indict Fiedler is vague. Some were even surprised to learn of its existence.

In an interview with KTTV in Los Angeles, Davis provided a glimpse of the bitterness that has existed between the Davis and Fiedler campaigns for some time.

He said he never telephoned Fiedler to discuss matters directly--thus perhaps avoiding an investigation--because Clarke had ridiculed his campaign and led political reporters to believe he was fading as a candidate.

Clarke has often told political reporters that Davis was out of money and out of energy, while the Davis campaign once put out a brochure under the title “Bobbie Says.” It appeared to be an endorsement of Davis by Fiedler, but in reality it was a message to Republicans from Davis’ wife, who spells her name with an “e” on the end.

In yet another television interview the other day, Davis revealed the indignation that has driven him to pursue the investigation of Fiedler.

Davis said: “When someone comes to me, a former law enforcement officer who has led an honorable life, and says, ‘We will give you $100,000 to drop out of the race,’ that is dirty politics. That’s why there is a law against it. We have things like Watergate when politicians forget their ethics.”

However, a key point in the case is the contention of Fiedler and Clarke that they were led to believe Davis had already decided to quit the Senate race. Thus, they argue, they broke no law because any discussions of financial assistance for Davis were based on that assumption.

Davis and Fiedler say they have not talked to each other for months, but KABC’s Michael Jackson gave them the opportunity Monday when he got Davis on the phone just as Fiedler was getting up to leave.

Jackson’s producer urged Fiedler to sit back down and talk to Davis. She declined, saying she was late for a television interview. But Jackson pointedly informed his listeners moments later that Fiedler’s next appointment was a 10-minute drive away, and she had an hour to get there.