Squeezed Bird May Warble Sour Notes : The Whitewater probe is too important to jeopardize with tainted testimony.

Whitewatergate special prosecutor Robert B. Fiske Jr. is too experienced a lawyer to be making such a big mistake. He is damaging the credibility of a key witness in the Whitewater scandal by trying the witness before questioning him about President Clinton’s role.

The witness is David Hale, a former Arkansas judge who has been indicted for small-business loan fraud. Hale has indicated that he has information about Clinton’s role in possibly illegal financial dealings. Fiske himself has said that to investigate Whitewater allegations against Clinton, “it is imperative that we interview defendant Hale or compel his testimony.” Fiske added: “This cannot be done until the present case (against Hale) has been resolved.”

Perhaps Fiske is simply caught up in the traditional dirty tactics of prosecutors and isn’t thinking. When a defendant has knowledge that bears on a case other than his own, prosecutors prefer to first convict the defendant and then question him about the other case, prior to sentencing on the first. Since the prosecutor’s recommendation will affect the length and severity of sentence, the witness can be “squeezed” to tell the prosecutor what he wants to hear.

Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz has noted that this squeeze tactic allows prosecutors to enlist perjury in pursuit of other defendants. By prosecuting the witness first, before hearing what he has to say, and holding the sentence over his head like the sword of Damocles, prosecutors can get the squeezed witness not only to sing, but also to compose.

We certainly do not want Clinton to join the long list of Americans who have been implicated by squeezed witnesses. But, of course, we don’t know what Fiske’s motives are. Perhaps he wants the squeeze hold on Hale in order to compel exonerating testimony.

The Whitewatergate allegations swirling around the first couple, and their aides’ suspicious behavior in removing files from a dead man’s office and then lying about it, are far more serious for the country than the prosecution of a small-timer for petty loan fraud.

To prevent questions about the truth of Hale’s Whitewater testimony, and to dispel questions about his own integrity, Fiske must drop the current prosecution of Hale, grant him immunity and put him on the stand about Whitewater. Hale’s testimony will be a lot more credible--whether it implicates or exculpates Clinton--if Fiske is in no position to squeeze him.

Giving Hale immunity will make it difficult to successfully prosecute him on the loan-fraud charge. But we have to decide which is more important, putting Hale away for small-business loan fraud or getting to the bottom of Whitewatergate.

Nothing is more important than the integrity of the process by which a sitting President is investigated. If Hale gives exonerating testimony about Clinton after Hale is convicted but before he is sentenced, there will be screams of bought testimony and coverup. Fiske should not risk the perception of his own integrity on such an outcome.

If, on the other hand, the public perceives that Fiske squeezed implicating testimony out of Hale, it will discredit the entire Whitewater investigation.

Fiske might contend that he doesn’t intend to question Hale until after he is sentenced, but this, too, raises questions about Fiske’s motives. It permits partisans to impugn the credibility of a convicted jailbird who can be described as “embittered.”

The Whitewater allegations are serious. We must get to the bottom of them. If a significant percentage of the public comes to the belief that we are governed by a crook, cynicism will poison the political system. To maintain public confidence in our system as well as confidence in his own integrity, Fiske must not jeopardize the credibility of the testimony of a key Whitewater witness by putting Hale in the classic prosecutorial squeeze.