‘Stand in the Way of Lynch Mob’ and Drop Charges, Wright Lawyer Asks

House Speaker Jim Wright’s lawyer urged the House Ethics Committee Tuesday to “stand in the way of a lynch mob” and drop major charges against Wright, which he said could drive the Speaker from office without a fair hearing from his colleagues.

From the tone of their questions, however, most members of the panel seemed unmoved by the emotional and legal arguments presented on Wright’s behalf by Stephen D. Susman, a trial lawyer from Houston, at a daylong televised hearing.

The Speaker did not attend but watched most of the hearing on television. His wife, Betty, who is a principal figure in the committee’s charges, had a front-row seat and bestowed a kiss on Wright’s lawyer after his initial presentation, whispering: “You’re wonderful.”

After the committee’s 8 1/2-hour session, Wright told reporters: “We clearly had the better side of the legal arguments. . . . I’m hopeful the committee will listen. If they don’t, I hope the American people will. I’m not going to let the people down. I’m not going to leave any implication that I’ve done anything bad.”

69 Alleged Violations

The committee, which has found “probable cause” that Wright violated House ethics rules 69 times, called the hearing to give Wright’s lawyers a chance to argue for dismissal of the two main allegations. Wright is charged with skirting limits on speaking fees by making bulk sales of his book to special-interest groups that heard his speeches, and with improperly accepting $145,000 in gifts from his business partner, George A. Mallick Jr., at a time when Mallick had a direct interest in federal legislation.

Chairman Julian C. Dixon (D-Los Angeles) said that the committee would meet today to consider how it will respond to the arguments. A decision against Wright’s plea would constitute a major blow to his hopes of surviving as the man second in line of succession to the presidency.

The committee will conduct a disciplinary hearing, similar to a trial, for whatever charges survive. If it finds Wright guilty, it will have to recommend a punishment. Anything more severe than a letter of criticism--such as a reprimand, fine or the ultimate penalty of expulsion from the House--would have to be approved by the full House.

Comments during the hearing by committee members appeared to reveal continuing doubts about Wright’s position. Rep. Chester G. Atkins (D-Mass.), who cast a key vote against Wright during the committee’s earlier proceedings, appeared to stick by his guns in a statement made in the course of a question to Susman.

In addition, each of the panel’s six Republicans appeared skeptical about Susman’s arguments.

Rep. Charles Pashayan Jr. (R-Fresno), however, may have given Wright some reason for optimism when he unexpectedly deplored recent calls by some members of Congress for the Speaker’s resignation.

“Jim Wright has been prejudged in many quarters and especially by some of his own colleagues,” Pashayan said. “I’m frankly upset because this came before Jim Wright has had a chance to present his side of the story.”

Two Democrats, Reps. Joseph M. Gaydos of Pennsylvania and Alan B. Mollohan of West Virginia, appeared during the questioning to be the most outspoken Wright loyalists on the panel. They had voted with the Speaker more than any other committee members during its previous deliberations.

The case against Wright was argued by Richard J. Phelan, the Chicago trial attorney who, as special outside counsel to the committee, directed the investigation of Wright. Phelan asked the committee’s six Democrats and six Republicans to dispense with “legalisms” and focus on the Speaker’s conduct in marketing a book and taking gifts from Mallick.

“What we are dealing with is the integrity of this institution,” Phelan thundered in his prosecutorial style. “This man was giving money, a home, a car and loans to the majority leader of this body and he was doing it for over 10 years. Does this pass the test of credibility?”

Susman, however, asserted that if Mallick made such gifts to Wright, they were not improper because the Ft. Worth real estate developer had no direct interest in federal legislation and was a close personal friend of the Speaker.

“Everyone has a friend like George Mallick,” Susman argued. “Generous, well-intentioned, whose only fault is their eagerness to help. If you can’t accept gifts from people like that, you can’t accept gifts.”

Susman, a tall man with a trace of a Texas accent, appeared to be directing some of his remarks to the public via television and radio rather than to the 12 members of the Ethics Committee sitting as Wright’s judges.

At the outset, he said, he wondered why he was there. “According to the press,” he said, “Jim Wright’s through. Why worry about due process for a dead man? Why should this committee stand in the way of a lynch mob?”

Answering his own rhetorical questions, Susman said: “If Jim Wright is driven from office . . . without his day in court, justice delayed will be justice denied. . . . If lawmakers can’t apply the law fairly, who can? If this committee, because of politics, can’t decide this motion on legal principles, then I don’t think Jim Wright can get a fair disciplinary hearing.”

He argued that House rules exempt book royalties from limits on outside income even if, as alleged, Wright sold the book in bulk to organizations instead of taking speaking fees that would have put him above limits for outside income.

Phelan, however, told the panel that Wright decided to publish the book with an unusual 55% royalty as part of a “sham” device to evade the ceiling on speaking fees.

He insisted that Mallick had an interest in legislation when he prepared a report for Wright on the savings and loan industry. Mallick and his family had taken out a $2.2-million loan from a Texas S&L; that went bankrupt and was taken over by federal regulators.

And Phelan said that Mallick had a stake in federal legislation when he tried to raise capital to revive the Ft. Worth stockyards area, in which he had a financial interest, while Wright was pushing efforts to get federal funds earmarked to help the project.

Before the Ethics Committee found “probable cause” that Wright committed the 69 rules violations, it voted 8 to 4 that Mallick had an interest in federal legislation. Atkins, one of the two Democrats to join with the committee’s six Republicans on that issue, said at Tuesday’s hearing that Mallick’s report to Wright on the S&L; industry contained 80 recommendations for action.

‘Troubles Me Deeply’

If adopted, Atkins said, those recommendations would substantially increase Mallick’s wealth. “That troubles me deeply,” he said.

Susman, however, said that Mallick was only a “fact-finder” who reported the views of others to the Speaker and did not have an interest in the outcome.

Rep. Robert G. Torricelli (D-N.J.), another member of Wright’s legal team, addressed the committee members as “my colleagues” in support of the motions to dismiss the main charges.

Praising the panel for its work thus far, he said: “You have upheld the integrity of the House by bringing the second most powerful man in the land to account for his behavior.” But he said that upholding the charges against Wright would be tantamount to rewriting the rules of conduct retroactively.