Counsel’s Reach in Espy Inquiry Raises Outcry

Haskell Blake, a pilot for Northwest Airlines, was stunned when two FBI agents showed up on his doorstep recently to question him about his activities when he was an employee of Tyson Foods more than 11 years ago.

The agents said they were assisting in an independent counsel’s investigation of Agriculture Secretary Mike Espy, who has been accused of improperly taking gratuities from Tyson Foods and other agriculture companies.

But Blake said the agent asked him a broad range of questions that seemed entirely unrelated to the Espy matter:

Was he aware of any drug use by Tyson family members? Did he ever offer bribes to officials in Mexico when he flew there on business for Tyson Foods? Did he ever take envelopes filled with cash to the Arkansas governor’s office in Little Rock?

Blake is one of numerous Tyson employees, both past and present, who have been interviewed recently by investigators in connection with the Espy inquiry being conducted by independent counsel Donald C. Smaltz, a noted Los Angeles attorney.

The broad scope of the questioning--combined with a few provocative public statements by Smaltz regarding the investigation--have precipitated an outcry from lawyers representing President Clinton, the Administration and Tyson Foods, all of whom question whether Smaltz has gone far beyond his original assignment.

“These questions are simply outrageous, and they demonstrate that your investigation is totally out of control and unlawful,” Tyson attorney Thomas C. Green said in a letter to Smaltz, referring to the Blake interview. “. . . Furthermore, inquiries such as these smack of a witch hunt.”

From the outset of his investigation, Smaltz has said that he intended to expand his probe, as necessary, to get to the bottom of all related allegations. But he declined to comment on the current criticism.

Of course, it is by no means unusual for a special prosecutor to be criticized for his conduct of an investigation. Iran-Contra prosecutor Lawrence E. Walsh was roundly condemned by critics of all political persuasions for the scope, length and cost of his inquiry into Ronald Reagan Administration misdeeds.

And it is far from clear that Smaltz is ranging outside his legitimate bounds. The original court order on his appointment includes a catch-all provision authorizing him to look into any “other allegations or evidence of violation of any criminal law” developed during the Espy probe and “connected with or arising out of that investigation.”

But Smaltz, a Republican, has distinguished himself by drawing criticism much sooner than any prosecutor previously appointed to investigate a major political case.

When he was appointed by the U.S. Court of Appeals on Sept. 10, Smaltz predicted he would need only six months to investigate allegations that Espy illegally accepted sports tickets, transportation and entertainment from Tyson and other companies regulated by the Agriculture Department.

But recently, as he expanded his probe, Smaltz acknowledged that he might not be finished until sometime in 1996. He has hired 30 employees and now maintains two offices, one in Washington and the other near Tyson headquarters in Springdale, Ark.

Espy, meanwhile, has resigned under pressure from the White House as agriculture secretary, effective Dec. 31. He is expected to be replaced shortly by former Rep. Dan Glickman of Kansas.

Among other things, Smaltz has subpoenaed from the state of Arkansas the names of Tyson employees with workers’ compensation cases pending against the company and has asked many of them about their knowledge of any illegal activities by the company.

One disgruntled ex-Tyson employee interviewed by Smaltz was Joe Henrickson, 43. Dismissed last year as a pilot for the firm, he alleges that during the 1980s he sometimes acted as a courier carrying envelopes filled with cash from Tyson to Gov. Clinton in Little Rock.

In an apparent effort to corroborate Henrickson’s story, investigators called on two other former Tyson pilots: Blake, who now lives in Indianapolis, and Lonnie Grover of Little Rock. According to John A. Dowd, a Washington attorney who represents both Grover and Blake, they denied any knowledge of cash payments to Clinton, as alleged by Henrickson.

Smaltz has also drawn criticism for several statements in support of the allegations made by Henrickson. “Based on the way the story unfolded,” he told Time magazine, “it has a ring of truth to it.”

In separate letters to Smaltz, both White House counsel Abner J. Mikva and David E. Kendall, the President’s personal lawyer, noted that the rules of conduct for federal prosecutors forbid them from commenting publicly on evidence.

“By commenting favorably and publicly on the credibility of a witness telling unsubstantiated tales, you smear individuals who, having no access to your information, cannot exonerate themselves,” Kendall wrote.

Responding to the Time story, Smaltz issued a statement Monday saying that he discussed the matter with the magazine only because it had obtained a confidential investigative document. He added: “It is far too early for any conclusions or inferences to be made as to our office’s evaluation” of the evidence gathered so far.

Times staff writer John Broder contributed to this story.