September 15, 2000

GWEN IFILL, host: I'm Gwen Ifill. Good evening, and welcome to WASHINGTON WEEK. The presidential campaign went spinning into hyperspace this week. Every day, a new revelation. Fund-raising irregularities, rats in television ads, debates over debates, candidates singing on late-night TV. What ever happened to campaigns that went according to script? What's really happening here, Rick Berke?

Mr. RICHARD BERKE (The New York Times): Well, you may laugh, Gwen, but this is serious business for the presidential candidates. Governor Bush is especially vulnerable. He is at risk of losing his greatest asset, his personal image.

IFILL: This week in politics; plus, the dramatic release of Los Alamos scientist Wen Ho Lee; and new questions about the federal death penalty, all tonight on WASHINGTON WEEK IN REVIEW.

ANNOUNCER: This is WASHINGTON WEEK IN REVIEW for Friday, September 15th, 2000. Now here's moderator Gwen Ifill.

IFILL: You know, there's a lot to talk about this week, but here's my pick for truly the oddest moment in a very odd week.

(Excerpt from "The Late Show With Conan O'Brien")

IFILL: There you have it, vice presidential candidate as lounge act. This week's politics: The polls show the Democrats have reason to be happy; the ad wars have become rodents-driven; and there are new questions about exactly how the Democrats raise their money. The two major candidates for president finally agree to debate; and after all the toing and froing, it ends up just the way the Debate Commission planned it. Why did the Bush camp drop their objections?

In a New Mexico courtroom this week, the federal judge who released Wen Ho Lee after nine months in jail also apologized to him. Prosecutors, the judge said, embarrassed the nation. How did a celebrated espionage case collapse so completely?

And also at the Justice Department, a new report shows stark racial disparities in the application of the federal death penalty.

Here to sort through these stories, the reporters and columnists covering them: USA Todays' Joan Biskupic, who covers the Supreme Court; Los Angeles Times national security correspondent Robert Drogin; Gloria Borger, who covers policy and politics for US News and CBS News; and Richard Berke, chief political correspondent for The New York Times.

Analysis: Controversial Republican anti-Gore television ad

GWEN IFILL, host:So, Rick, you looked at the story behind the numbers; you know what it is that's happening with George W. Bush; obviously, not a whole lot good. You know what's happening with Al Gore; at least for now, a lot good. What's really happening?

Mr. RICHARD BERKE (The New York Times): The--the big surprise to me--we did a poll--The New York Times/CBS News this week did a poll, and I went through all the numbers; and the biggest surprise to me was the fact that suddenly there's been a transformation in Al Gore's likability. It's been his problem for months and months, and even years, that people just didn't warm up to him; the old cliche that he's wooden and--and boring and dull. You look at these--these numbers now; suddenly, everything has changed. These underlying numbers show that he's seen as a leader, he's seen as credible, he's seen as likable. And Governor Bush has not suffered at all; Governor Bush is still up there at the same level, but they've evened out. And that was Gore's biggest vulnerability, because on issues the Democrats have it all over the Republicans and they have for months.

IFILL: But who are the voters who are changing their minds or making up their minds?

Mr. BERKE: Well, it's interesting, the women who--who danced around with--with Bush for months in the summer and during the primaries are fleeing to Governor Bush--I mean, to--to Vice President Gore. Independents are going to Gore. I mean, Bush is still doing very well with men in different regions of the country, in the--in the South and in areas in the Midwest. He's hung onto that. But we have, right now, the close--something that's a real rarity in presidential politics, which is the closest presidential race in 20 years, a real horse race.

IFILL: And--and with only 53 days to go, every day's distraction is a bad distraction.

Mr. BERKE: Right.

IFILL: Now, Rick Berke, you were right in the middle of one of them this week. By now you've seen this Republican anti-Gore ad, the word `rats' flashed on the screen for a 30th of a second, apparently part of the word `bureaucrats.' Subliminal strategy or innocence and overblown detail?

Mr. BERKE: Well, it's hard to know what the motivations were of the ad makers. They say it was purely accidental, but I spoke to a lot of experts, Republicans, Democrats, outside analysts...

IFILL: Let me just back up; it was your story on page one of The New York Times that started this whole mess.

Mr. BERKE: I guess so. I guess I'm to blame...

IFILL: No...

Mr. BERKE: ...for better or for worse.

IFILL: One way or the other.

Mr. BERKE: OK. So I talked to experts about that, and they said there's no way something like that, even though it was for just one frame of an ad--there's no way that slips in there by mistake. What the motivation was, some people say, was a sinister Nixonian plot by the Bush campaign. Other people said it was just a little prank. Who knows what the motivation is? But what people tell me is that kind of thing doesn't happen accidentally.

Ms. GLORIA BORGER (US News & World Report): You learn a lot about a campaign about the way they handle these kinds of issues, and th--there was some sense, perhaps, that Bush should have fired the person who did this ad or--h--how did they handle it?

Mr. BERKE: Well, there was a lot of concern the next day af--after our story ran; all the networks were running it repeatedly. You know, you'd see `rats' all over. You couldn't escape `rats.' I'm sick of it myself. But anyway, so Governor Bush went on one of the morning shows and was asked about the commercial, and he said, `That's the first I've ever heard of it.' And then Diane Sawyer--it was "Good Morning America"--said, `Well, wait a minute, your campaign's been putting statements out denying culpability here since last night.'

Ms. BORGER: Oops.

Mr. BERKE: And then he said, `Oh, well, they actually told me on the way--on the way into the studio.' But it just didn't look like he was prepared. And when he talked about--in fact, when he talked about--at the press conference that day about subliminal ads, he mispronounced the word `subliminal' four times. And that kind of thing, when--when there's a lot of heavy coverage on the networks, that kind of thing doesn't help a candidate's image.

Ms. JOAN BISKUPIC (USA Today): Well, Rick, did you figure out who actually was responsible, though? And how much was George Bush himself actually looking at some of these ads ahead of time?

Mr. BERKE: Well, the ad was actually produced by the RNC by Alex Castellanos, a veteran tough ad--ad man who has a history of--of tough ads. The--but the Bush campaign has consulted with him. The Bush campaign signed off on the ad. I don't think Governor Bush himself was told of the `rats' or knew about it until--until afterward.

IFILL: I have to ask you about your role in this, Rick, because you--you personally have come un--under attack from other news organizations, and certainly by the Republicans, in having been a tool of the Gore campaign in this.

Mr. BERKE: Right. Well, let me tell you how--how it came about. The Gore people called me last week, and they said, `We want you to view this tape of a commercial. We--we don't want to tell you anything more about it. Judge for yourself.' So they showed it to me. I'm looking at it. I don't notice anything unusual about it. Then they slow it down; I still don't notice. It takes me a while sometimes--you know, go figure. It took me several viewings to notice the `rat.'

And then--and then, they--they were saying, `Isn't this incredible?' And I said, `Well, wait a minute, I don't know what we're gonna do with this.' So what I did is I made--I started calling around and calling experts, saying, `Is this unusual?' And they said, `Yes, it is.' And I also showed it to people at my office. I showed it to one editor in--and I said, `Look, there's something unusual about this commercial.' She picked it up immediately and at regular speed; she said, `Oh, my gosh, there's "rats" there.' So I simply wrote the story in a dispassionate way, giving all sides and--and--and let people judge what they will about it.

Mr. BOB DROGIN (Los Angeles Times): Rick, I--I covered the--the 1988 campaign, the Bush-Dukakis campaign, and they used some very tough ads. There was the Willie Horton and school prayer and pledge of allegiance and flag burning and whatnot. Is this much--so much worse? And--but also, those ads worked for Bush...

Mr. BERKE: Right.

Mr. DROGIN: ...in that campaign. Is this one working for him, or is it gonna backfire?

Mr. BERKE: Well, this--this idea--I don't even know if the whole idea of--of putting `rats' in there is such a smart thing because besides call--causing this--this backlash and this uproar, I think, you know, does it really have that subliminal effect on people? I don't know. So I don't even see this as a particularly nasty ad.

IFILL: Or even a purposeful move. But we'll see. And I guess we'll hear more about it--or maybe not, if we're lucky.

Analysis: Debates over presidential debates; and what candidates can expect to result from them

GWEN IFILL, host: Gloria Borger, on to the debates. Finally, they've agreed, three debates for the presidential candi--candidates, one for the vice presidential candidates, exactly the same schedule we heard about in January. So what was...

Ms. GLORIA BORGER (US News & World Report): We've had a month over nothing, right?

IFILL: What was all this about?

Ms. BORGER: Nothing.

IFILL: Yeah.

Ms. BORGER: I think in the end what it was about, Gwen, was the fact that the Bush campaign realized that it had created an absolute monster. In challenging the Presidential Commission on Debates, what they did was they got the American public to take notice and say, `Wait a minute. Maybe George W. Bush is actually afraid of debating Al Gore in prime time.' It was very destructive to their campaign. It was a distraction that they didn't need. Their own candidate got off message. They are still debating the exact format. For example, do you do it before a live audience? Who's the moderator? Do you have more than one moderator?

But this afternoon they came out of a session in which they were all smiles, and the--the chairman of the Bush campaign came out and said, `We are really looking forward to debating Al Gore.' And I think everybody sitting around this table, at least, is looking forward to watching that debate.

Ms. JOAN BISKUPIC (USA Today): How much do you think it will matter? I mean, they're neck and neck in the polls. The last time we saw each of them was on the c--their convention stumps, and that seemed to have a lot of impact with voters. What do you think we're gonna get out of this?

Ms. BORGER: I think these debates matter a great deal. I think that the American public has clearly started to focus on this campaign. But I looked at some of the numbers about the amounts of people watching these debates. And don't forget, the networks have agreed to run them all at the same time; so has public television. And so you're going to have a huge audience. In some campaigns, the--the--in some campaign years, the rule has been that twice as many people watch the first presidential debate as watched each candidate give his speech at his convention.

Ms. BISKUPIC: Convention.

Ms. BORGER: So this is a tremendous Super Bowl-size audience, and, really, it's quite important because it's the first time the public is really get--taking the measure of these men together.

Mr. RICHARD BERKE (The New York Times): I want to know about the big mystery in Washington today, and that is how did a videotape...

Ms. BORGER: There's another rat, yeah.

Mr. BERKE: ...of--of--right. Right. How did a videotape of Bush practicing make its way into the hands of T--Tom Downey, who is one of Al Gore's closest friends, who is helping him with debate prep? What's that all about?

Ms. BORGER: This is a--this is a very strange campaign week. Here is Tom Downey, who is a good friend of Al Gore's, who was actually supposed to play George W. Bush in--in a mock debate that they always have when they practice. He's at his office; he gets this little thing in the mail, `Thought you might like this,' signed by some--some woman. And he--he opens it up, he sticks the--it's a--it's a stack of papers and a videotape. He sticks the videotape in, and it's Senator Judd Gregg playing Al Gore, debating with George W. Bush. Clearly, Bush has begun his debate preparation. Downey pushes the stop button--or so we're told.

Mr. BERKE: Do you really think he pushed the stop button?

Ms. BORGER: Well, that's what we're told.

Mr. BERKE: I don't believe it. I don't believe it.

Ms. BORGER: We're being cynical here. I said, `and so we're told.' Calls his attorney, and his attorney alerts the authorities and says, `We are in possession of spo--stolen documents.' So who did it? Nobody knows at this point. The Bush people verified this was real stuff, which shows you how serious this is.

IFILL: Well, and it's also serious because it wasn't all good news for Al Gore this week. There were questions raised...

Ms. BORGER: Right.

IFILL: ...about Al Gore and his fund-raising tactics...

Ms. BORGER: Mm-hmm.

IFILL: ...in past years. He managed on the same day, in kind of an amazing turnaround, to condemn Hollywood and take a lot of money from Hollywood in the same night, yesterday...

Ms. BORGER: Six and a half million dollars.

IFILL: Exactly. And the Bush people are all over that, calling him hypocritical.

Ms. BORGER: Right.

IFILL: and that will certainly raise its head in the debates, won't it?

Ms. BORGER: I--I think it will. I think what you're going to see in the debates, as you're going to see in the retooled Bush campaign, is really an emphasis on what they call `issue contrasts,' which means we're finally gonna start hearing about the differences between the candidates. Clearly, as Rick was saying, the character issue is not working anymore for the Bush campaign against Al Gore. They have decided to make a concerted effort to talk about the issues starting this weekend and going for the rest of the campaign. So you're going to hear that in the debates. `My Social Security plan vs. your Social plan. My Medicare plan vs. yours.'

One thing you really have to say about George W. Bush is that he has raised issues in this campaign that Republicans have been afraid to raise in previous presidential campaigns, such as Social Security, partial privatization; such as Medicare; such as education, which traditionally has not been a Republican issue. And so you're gonna hear an awful lot of talk about that. And he will raise campaign fund-raising. It's an issue that also came up this week with Al Gore and the Clinton administration and the question of whether th--there was some kind of quid pro quo with trial lawyers because of a Clinton veto of a bill. So that's gonna be raised again.

IFILL: Bob, do you have a question for Gloria?

Mr. BOB DROGIN (Los Angeles Times): I just--what--what's riding on these debates at this point? Rick was saying earlier this is the closest race in 20 years, so what do--what do we--what are we expecting here? How are we handicapping this so far? What are the stakes?

Ms. BORGER: I think that for the Bush campaign everything right now is riding on these debates. The benefit they have, quite frankly, is that the expectations for George W. Bush are so low and the expectations for Al Gore are very, very high.

IFILL: Thanks, Gloria.

Analysis: Dramatic release of Los Alamos scientist Wen Ho Lee

GWEN IFILL, host: Well, Los Alamos scientist Wen Ho Lee walked out of the federal courthouse in Albuquerque this week after pleading guilty to just one of 59 charges brought against him nine months ago. Even the president of the United States said, in effect, that Lee got a raw deal.

(Excerpt from videotape)

President BILL CLINTON: (From September 14, 2000) It's very difficult to reconcile the two positions, that one day he's a terrible risk to national security and the next day they're making a plea agreement for an offense far more modest than what had been alleged.

(End excerpt)

IFILL: Bob Drogin, you were in that Albuquerque courtroom when this decision--when this plea agreement was laid out and--and listened to the judge, actually, say things a lot harsher than the president had to say. What went wrong with the government's case, and why?

Mr. BOB DROGIN (Los Angeles Times): I think basically this case was built on a very shaky foundation and began to crumble very quickly. They alleged some very serious crimes, and over a period of time it wasn't very clear how serious that was, the downloading that--the material that he took. They were--the government was unable to find the motive for this. They were never able to find any evidence that he had given this material to anybody, so they couldn't really figure out if there was any damage that was actually caused. They had a chief witness who, to be charitable, had a credibility problem. After he...

IFILL: Who happened to be an FBI agent.

Mr. DROGIN: A supervisory FBI agent...

IFILL: Yeah.

Mr. DROGIN: ...and the chief witness in this case. And he had to recant cert--you know, major testimony that the judge had used. They had a judge who was openly skeptical of the government claims as this was going on and was increasingly ruling on behalf of--in favor of the defense on issues of selective prosecution, on issues of use of classified data. So in the end, I think the government decided they were gonna cut their losses because, frankly, if this case--they stood a good chance of either, one, losing the case entirely; or, even if they won, having Wen Ho Lee go to jail and never find out what actually happened with this material.

Mr. RICHARD BERKE (The New York Times): Bob, in keeping with our theme of the night, which is mysterious, nefarious plots, what's--what's--what happened with the--the Chinese espionage? What's--where--where did that go?

Mr. DROGIN: You know, that's a good question. The answer is, as best I can tell, as best anyone can tell, we know nothing more--the government knows nothing more about how China obtained nuclear secrets in the 1980s today than they did when they started this investigation back in 1996. It began when the CIA obtained a document from a--what turned out to be a Chinese double agent in 1995. It sparked this long investigation. Last year, they decided, you know, that it wasn't Wen Ho Lee. So we know that, but beyond that it's unclear.

Ms. JOAN BISKUPIC (USA Today): Bob, the judge in this case played a very important role beyond just the legalities. It seemed like there was a lot of drama in the courtroom. Judge Parker was very, very outspoken and very, very angry at the government. Were you in the room? What was that like?

Mr. DROGIN: You know, it was--it was really quite an extraordinary scene. Let me just see if I can paint this picture for you, 'cause, you know, he's a--he's a--a very dignified man with silver hair and--and long, flowing robes. And he comes in and he sits down. And Wen Ho Lee comes up and he swears in with his hand flayed out like that. And he's a--he's a very short man, and he's--he's literally a head shorter than his two attor--than his two attorneys. The judge proceeds to go through the long plea agreement and keeps asking Lee if he agrees with it, if he understands it; and Lee's English, really, frankly, isn't all that good and has to keep asking him to repeat.

And finally, they get to the guilty plea. And then we all think, OK, the judge is gonna thank the lawyers and everybody goes home. And instead, he lays into the government in a way that I think that was just extraordinary.

Ms. BISKUPIC: Very unusual. Yeah.

Mr. DROGIN: It was just a blistering attack. And the--the defense lawyers were--were speechless; the prosecutors were slack-jawed. Those of us in the audience were bug-eyed. And, you know--and at the end of it, it was just utter pandemonium. I don't think any of us had ever heard anything quite like it.

Ms. GLORIA BORGER (US News & World Report): What can Wen Ho Lee do now? Can he sue the government? Can--or is that part of his plea agreement, that he can't? I mean, here's a man who has been kept in prison, without bail, for months. What can he do?

Mr. DROGIN: He--he's got very limited options. He has a lawsuit--a civil lawsuit against the government, basically claiming violations of his priv--of the Privacy Act. This is claiming that there was leaks to the media, damaging stuff, and leaks about polygraph tests and whatnot. And it's for monetary damages. There's not a whole lot more. He can't sue the government. There--there is immunity for the prosecutors and the FBI. But there could be some suits that bring out some of these documents that have now been squelched because of the agreement. Some of the civil suits could bring some of that out. It might be very interesting.

IFILL: But we shouldn't overlook the fact that he did plead guilty to a felony, and he did admit, basically, copying all of these sensitive files. We think they were sensitive. Were they sensitive, and what happens to that one felony that's now on his record?

Mr. DROGIN: Well, he--he...

IFILL: He's still guilty of something.

Mr. DROGIN: Oh, he--he's a convicted felon, there's no question. I--I have to say, having watched him go home, he was greeted more as a conquering hero than a convicted felon, even though they saw this as David vs. Goliath case. What can he do? You know, wh--where this goes--he--he took all of this material. He has now assured the government that he didn't give it to anybody, he didn't in harm--intend to harm the United States and--and, you know, that he will tell them what he did with it. And they have to accept that. They're going to investigate that. If--if he lies or if they find a problem with that, they can prosecute him again.

IFILL: Listening to them to--this week, it sounded like they were waiting for him to lie so they could come back and start it all over again.

Analysis: Question of racial disparity in death penalty sentencing

GWEN IFILL, host: Joan Biskupic, you've covered death penalty cases or death penalty--the death penalty debate in your role in covering the Supreme Court. But this week it was the Justice Department that came out and basically said what a lot of people had suspected, or at least charged, was that in federal cases there are these racial disparities in death penalty sentencing.

Ms. JOAN BISKUPIC (USA Today): Right. This has been quite a year for national scrutiny on the death penalty. And we had two developments this week, one with the Justice Department and one on the Hill. At Justice, Attorney General Reno had commissioned an internal study of cases over the past five years where US attorneys had forwarded the names of people who would be eligible for the death penalty, where they were seeking capital punishment in--in case--mostly murder--out there. And there were 682 cases over the past five years. In all those, only 20 percent of those people were white; 80 percent were racial minorities. And in those cases, US attorneys had recommended death for 183 of those people; and again, it was the same sort of disparity where only 26 percentage were w--percent were white, 74 percent minority. And then for the class that Reno actually said should get the death penalty--you know, it was all part of their scrutiny there at the Justice Department of who should actually get it--again, there was this dis--disparity; 72 percent of the people were racial minorities.

So in the end, Janet Reno gets this report; it was done internally, which is different from what we're gonna see in terms of the next step; and she says she's very troubled by it. And the first question i--is: Are you going to call for a moratorium? You know, obviously, that's what we saw earlier this year with Governor Ryan in Illinois when he saw some problems with it. And Janet Reno said, `No, this is different. I've looked at these individual cases. In all of them, the individuals who were--who were subjected to potential capital punishment and then who did get the death penalty warranted it, but I do think there's problems with bias.' She said that `There must--there must be something in the system that's creating this, so I'm gonna go back and look at it again.' What she suggested is have an external study. She's gonna look for an outside outfit through the National Institute of Justice to look at it, and then go back to the US attorneys themselves to figure out their screening process.

IFILL: But what--what bugs--explain to me exactly what that means. I mean, it seems to me she says there shouldn't be a moratorium, but there's gross unfairness. But we're talking about federal cases, when in state cases, which are most des pe--death penalty cases, there's this big review under way. What is the practical policy effect, I guess?

Ms. BISKUPIC: Well, it's interesting. You know, Janet Reno acknowledges these racial disparities, but she lays them back on, really, kind of core societal problems. She talks about poverty; she talks about lack of education; she talks about just all sorts of problems that inner-city kids and blacks and Hispanics face. So she's saying the system as a whole isn't fair to racial minorities and our piece of it might not be fa--be fair either, but it's not--we're not seeing bias in our home place yet.

Mr. BOB DROGIN (Los Angeles Times): Joan, the federal government hasn't executed anyone since 1963. Are they planning to start up again? I mean, what's...

Ms. BISKUPIC: Well, yes, there are...

Mr. DROGIN: ...what's going on here?

Ms. BISKUPIC: ...there are a couple dozen people on the federal death row now. There's a man who's scheduled to be executed in December. He's, right now, involved in a clemency plea. And it's more than just sort of the federal issue here because so much has been happening in the states, and so much has been happening nationwide over this ultimate punishment. So there's a lot of momentum building nationally, but I think it also reflects the thousands of people on state death rows.

Ms. GLORIA BORGER (US News & World Report): What about the DNA technology and making that available to everybody so that you could avoid mistakes on death penalties?

Ms. BISKUPIC: That's an interesting question, and that's another thing that has fueled this year's controversy. We only now have this kind of DNA technology to go back and look at cases and see, are innocent people actually in prison? And on the Hill, as you know, Senator Patrick Leahy and--actually, it's bipartisan; there are Republicans working with him, too, to actually have a law that allows convicted death row inmates to go--to have access to DNA testing to see if they can prove actual innocence. That bill will probably not move before the election, but the whole DNA debate has sort of added to the--this problem of whether innocent people are in prison or not.

Mr. RICHARD BERKE (The New York Times): Joan, I know the technology is new and we're looking at it in a different way now, but it seems like I've heard about these disparities for years. Is this really anything new?

Ms. BISKUPIC: Well, it's new because the Justice Department did it on federal condemned inmates, but reality is that there have been academic studies through the years; there have been state studies through the years; and they've always shown these kinds of racial disparities. And, in fact, the Supreme Court in 1987 handled a case where the defendant's claim was that, `Look at how many people in my jurisdiction have ended up--blacks--who've gotten the death penalty compared to the, you know, comparable number of whites.' And the Supreme Court said, `That doesn't matter. You know, you can point to racial disparities, at least back then in 1987, and that will not get you--you, in your individual case, any kind of freedom.'

GWEN IFILL, host: Well, gosh, it feels like it's back to school. We've got all of this information, we can't talk about it at all, so we're gonna have to leave it there for tonight.

Thanks for watching. See you next week on WASHINGTON WEEK. Good night.