Fiske Sends a Message: Don’t Interfere : Probe: Whitewater special counsel is praised for quickly taking charge of case. Lawyers say it’s shaping up like a textbook investigation.

Special counsel Robert B. Fiske Jr. was not just collecting evidence with his surprise subpoenas to the White House and the Rose Law Firm. His primary purpose, according to sources familiar with his strategy, was to send a stern message to President Clinton’s top aides and other key players in the Whitewater controversy that he is alert to any attempt to obstruct justice.

Fiske, a former New York prosecutor appointed in January to conduct an independent investigation of the Clinton family’s investment in the Ozark real estate development and related issues, has already won widespread praise from Democrats as well as some Republicans for the speed with which he has taken charge of all aspects of the case.

He has not only issued subpoenas in response to reports of document shredding at the Rose Law Firm and questionable White House contacts with regulators, but has also muted demands for wide-ranging congressional hearings and achieved a promise of full cooperation from the President.

Judging from Fiske’s actions so far, lawyers familiar with the delicate task of investigating a White House-related case said that he appears on his way to conducting a textbook investigation.

“He’s doing an excellent job--thorough and aggressive,” said Samuel Dash, the Washington lawyer who made a reputation investigating the Watergate scandal during the Richard Nixon Administration. “He’s wanting to be all business. . . . He’s casting a wide net.”

While Fiske has declined to discuss his strategy, lawyers both inside and outside his inner circle said his decision to interview White House aides and Rose Law Firm couriers was an important first step intended to make it clear that any efforts to cover up possible crimes will be treated as seriously as the crimes themselves.

In the Watergate and Iran-Contra scandals, prosecutors learned too late that crucial evidence had either been destroyed or kept from them. What Fiske is trying to prevent, the experts say, is another instance comparable to the famous 18-minute gap on Nixon’s Watergate tapes or the shredding of documents by White House aide Oliver L. North as the Iran-Contra scheme unraveled.

“He wants everyone to know that, if they tamper with evidence, he will not treat them lightly,” said one knowledgeable source who declined to be identified. “He must feel that there is some advantage to scaring the people at the top.”

Last week, Fiske subpoenaed top White House aides to testify before a grand jury in Washington about meetings with Deputy Treasury Secretary Roger Altman, the government official responsible for overseeing the Resolution Trust Corp. investigation of the failed Madison Guaranty Savings & Loan, which was owned by the Clintons’ partner in the Whitewater Development Corp.

White House officials have said they were simply getting a status report on the RTC inquiry, but Republicans in Congress contend that the meetings created at least an appearance that the White House was trying to interfere.

In Little Rock, Fiske called two Rose Law Firm couriers to testify before a grand jury after they acknowledged shredding documents that they said belonged to Deputy White House Counsel Vincent Foster. Before he apparently committed suicide last summer, Foster was in charge of closing the books on the Clintons’ Whitewater investment.

Lawrence E. Walsh, the Iran-Contra special prosecutor who spent five years trying to sort out efforts by aides to President Ronald Reagan to conceal evidence, praised Fiske for his quickness in issuing subpoenas.

“He’s very decisive,” said Walsh, who was criticized for taking too long to investigate the secret sale of weapons to Iran and the diversion of money to Nicaraguan rebels. “He’s made a decision to issue a subpoena much faster than I did. I think that is very good.”

Nor has Fiske’s investigation deviated much from a standard technique in white-collar criminal cases: interviewing low-level functionaries before taking depositions from top players. Therefore, it is widely assumed that he will wait until later to talk to Clinton and First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Several White House aides said they were unaware of any effort by Fiske so far to schedule an interview with the President. Clinton’s personal lawyer, Donald Kendall, declined to comment.

If Fiske interviews the President, as he has said he will do, it could set something of a precedent. Even though Nixon was forced to relinquish tapes of his Watergate conversations, he was not interviewed by investigators until after he left office. Reagan answered written questions about the Iran-Contra affair and let investigators read his personal diaries, but he did not testify while in office.

Clinton has not indicated that he would reject a request for an interview from Fiske. Last week, the special counsel said the White House had pledged to cooperate fully with his investigation.

As legal scholars note, the legal issues posed by an interview of Clinton on the subject of Whitewater are much different than the issues that faced Nixon in Watergate and Reagan in Iran-Contra.

Fiske’s inquiry, which focuses on the personal finances of Clinton before he was elected President, does not involve executive prerogatives or national security concerns that prevented prosecutors from questioning Nixon or Reagan.

In most investigations involving a President, there also is the predictable tension between the role of the independent investigator and the oversight function of Congress. In the Iran-Contra affair, the decision of a special congressional investigating committee to grant limited immunity to key figures in the case later undermined Walsh’s ability to prosecute them.

In Walsh’s final report on the scandal, issued last December, he asserted that the public good was served by the Iran-Contra congressional hearings, even though it made his task much harder.

“When a conflict between the oversight and prosecutorial roles develops . . . ,” he wrote, “the law is clear that it is Congress that must prevail.”

In recent weeks, Republicans in Congress, most of whom were previously critical of Walsh, have cited this quote as proof they should be conducting unfettered hearings into the Whitewater controversy. But the Democratic majority is resisting any congressional investigation of the matter.

In an interview, Walsh objected to Republicans using his quote to support their call for a congressional investigation of the Whitewater dealings.

He noted that Iran-Contra--unlike Whitewater--involved a direct standoff between the President and Congress. Reagan was accused of violating two restrictions imposed on him by Congress--one limiting the sale of arms to foreign countries and the other banning aid to the Nicaraguan rebels.

“I see nothing in this case that suggests an ongoing confrontation with the Congress,” Walsh said. “What is it about this case that is so urgent that Fiske cannot finish his job before they hold hearings?”

Dash, on the other hand, praised Fiske for proposing a compromise instead of simply opposing congressional hearings. The Whitewater special counsel has suggested that Congress can conduct hearings into the White House-Treasury Department meetings after he finishes his interviews with the participants.

Dash noted that Fiske, who was appointed by the executive branch, has no constitutional right to request a delay in congressional oversight hearings into activities of the executive branch.

Fiske’s charter, drafted by Atty. Gen. Janet Reno, gives him wide latitude to investigate anything remotely relating to the Whitewater matter, and he has indicated through his actions so far that he intends to use that authority.

As a result, members of Congress are questioning whether Fiske can conclude his investigation within one year, as he has promised.

Republicans are anxious that the fruits of his inquiry be made public before the next presidential election.

But Fiske is said to be confident that he can finish his investigation, prosecute any offenders and issue a final report long before the 1996 election.