News about Babbitt that didn't fit into print

A lengthy "special report" starting on the front page of the Sunday New York Times, January 11, purported to be a comprehensive expose of the problems facing Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt. But the Times omitted some crucial details.

The big question about Babbitt is whether he succumbed to political pressure from the White House to reverse a Bureau of Indian Affairs decision that would have allowed a group of Wisconsin Indian tribes to convert a dog track into a gambling casino-and then whether he lied to the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee about his role in the decision.

The casino was opposed by a rival group of Indian tribes who already operated a casino, didn't want competition, and eventually contributed approximately $250,000 to the Democratic National Committee.

While New York Times reporters Don Van Natta, Jr., and Jill Abramson provided a general overview of the story, they or their editors left out some crucial details.

Times Reported

"[T]he allegations of political influence became more serious when Mr. Babbitt's former law partner, maul Eckstein, testified against him," stating that Babbitt told him that Ickes had ordered him to issue the application decision on Friday, July 14, 1995, and that the Indian tribes had given half-a-million dollars to Democrats. It also reported, "[T]he partners of the losing Wisconsin tribe maintain that they were outgunned," and quoted "Mark Goff, a consultant for the losing tribes."

But Times Did Not Report

The Times did not report that Goff corroborates Eckstein's story. Eckstein testified that he repeated what Babbitt had told him to Goff immediately after he left Babbitt's office and got into a car driven by Goff. Goff told HuMAN EVENTS that Eckstein told him that Babbitt said that "Harold Ickes called," "that there was too much money involved" and that Goff "was quite surprised that the secretary of the Interior had actually talked about money:"

This is important because Babbitt testified under oath that he never mentioned anything about money to Ecksteinmeaning either Babbitt or Eckstein is lying. Eckstein, however, has a contemporaneous witness to back up his claim. Times Reported

Interior Department aides "said that the decision [to reject the casino application] was made solely on the merits and that they were immune to the intense lobbying effort swirling around them. `We make decisions based on the facts and the law,' said Heather Sibbison, the special assistant to the secretary."

But Times Did Not Report

Sibbison, as revealed in HUMAN EVENTS, sent alternative letters about the casino rejection to an aide to then-Deputy White House Chief of Staff Harold Ickes, asking the aide to choose between them and "edit" the chosen one. "Please find attached a draft response letter [about the casino decision] to members of the Minnesota delegation. I am sending it in double-spaced format on the theory that it will be easier for you to edit and for the typist to read . . .

"[A]nother way to approach the response [to the application rejection] would be to wait a little longer and then just announce that the issue has been resolved. I also drafted a letter along those lines, and am including it in case you would prefer to take that route. If there is anything else we can do to be of assistance, please do not hesitate to call."

Copyright Human Events Publishing, Inc. Jan 23, 1998
Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights Reserved