Wright Assails Special Counsel’s Integrity

House Speaker Jim Wright (D-Tex.) and a newly expanded team of attorneys launched his defense against misconduct charges Tuesday with a hard-hitting attack on the integrity and legal ability of Richard J. Phelan, special counsel to the House Ethics Committee.

While sparing the panel members, Wright used exceptionally strong language in accusing Phelan of distorting testimony of witnesses and telling “a lie, a falsehood” about the issue of whether his wife, Betty, worked for a total of $72,000 in salary or received it as a gift.

The Speaker said his newly hired lawyers were “profoundly shocked by the lack of professionalism and prevalence of distortion and inaccuracy contained in the Phelan report” on the committee’s 10-month investigation.

Calls Panel Too Busy

Wright said the 12 panel members were busy and placed too much reliance on the Chicago attorney’s analysis of the evidence during the initial phase of their inquiry.

He charged that Phelan ignored testimony that Betty Wright worked from five to seven days a month for the $18,000 a year she was paid for four years by Mallightco, an investment firm that the Wrights formed with Ft. Worth businessman George A. Mallick Jr. and his wife. Instead, Phelan concluded that she may have worked only a dozen days in four years.

“That’s a lie, a falsehood, a distortion and a misrepresentation of the testimony that was given,” Wright told reporters at a news briefing.

But committee Chairman Julian C. Dixon (D-Los Angeles) brushed aside the criticism as a defense tactic and said his 11 colleagues worked diligently to digest the information on the Speaker’s financial affairs.

Another knowledgeable House member said the committee members are seething privately over Wright’s charges that Phelan has misled the panel and, as a result, are considering recommending a formal reprimand of the Speaker--a move that would put his survival in office in grave jeopardy.

And one committee member, Rep. Larry E. Craig (R-Ida.), said: “To charge that Mr. Phelan has distorted this is to assume the committee hasn’t done its homework. I think the committee has done its homework very well.”

Dixon, however, said he was not offended by Wright’s allegations, although he agreed with a questioner who labeled it a part of the Speaker’s new strategy for fighting the ethics charges.

The chairman also said the committee may vote today on whether to pursue its investigation of a Texas oil-and-gas investment that gave Wright a quick profit of $340,000 last year while other investors have yet to receive any income from the well.

In another development, the committee requested court records from a federal criminal trial in Dallas. A witness at the trial testified that a savings and loan executive had told him Wright would stop legislation opposed by the thrift industry if S&L; executives contributed $250,000 to a Democratic congressional candidate in 1985. The Speaker has denied that he ever proposed such a deal.

Committee sources said the panel had requested a copy of a $1,000 check introduced into evidence at the trial. Wright’s name appears in a corner of the check, which was a contribution from the wife of a savings and loan executive to Rep. Jim Chapman (D-Tex.) during his successful race for a House seat.

The committee--supporting Phelan’s recommendations--voted 12 to 0 last month to charge that Wright violated House rules on 69 occasions by improperly accepting $145,000 in gifts from Mallick and by evading a House limit on speaking fees through bulk sales of his book to groups he addressed.

Wright’s enlarged legal team filed a series of motions with the committee Tuesday, seeking disclosure of evidence to be used at a disciplinary hearing early next month and any information that would tend to clear the Speaker of the alleged violations.

In addition, the Speaker’s lawyers asked that Phelan be barred from talking with members of the committee during the trial phase of the case unless one of Wright’s attorneys is present. They also asked the panel to tell witnesses that they will be free to talk to the Speaker’s defense team and asked for any documents relied upon by the committee in drafting the charges.

Stephen D. Susman, a Houston lawyer who just joined Wright’s legal forces, voiced confidence that the Speaker can be cleared, saying, “I think this case is absolutely winnable beyond the shadow of a doubt before a fair jury.”

Another new advocate, Rep. Robert G. Torricelli (D-N.J.), concurred, adding: “Phelan is seeking to open up new areas of investigation because he can’t, as a matter of law, succeed on these issues . . . his case is collapsing.”

The Speaker’s original attorney, William C. Oldaker, said that attempts to negotiate an expedited procedure with Phelan had failed and that Wright now will mount an all-out defense, even if it delays a final decision. Within a day or so, he said, motions to dismiss the major charges will be filed along with a request to argue them before the committee.