Bombshell in The House

The surprise was not in the tone of the document: it had been widely tipped to be "devastating," and it was. The charges for the most part had also been well rehearsed. Nonetheless, when the House ethics committee at last released its report on Speaker Jim Wright, the findings of the ten-month investigation still qualified as a bombshell. Bad enough were the accumulated allegations of venality: details of Betty Wright's alleged no-show job, accounts of the Speaker's staff shamelessly peddling his book, the description of a wildly lucrative -- and suspicious -- oil-well deal that few had known about before. More important, and more ominous for Wright, was the fact that all six Democrats on the committee joined the six Republicans in finding "reason to believe" that the Speaker had violated House ethics rules by failing to avoid "even the appearance of impropriety."

That unanimity crippled efforts by Wright and his allies to portray the report as a partisan Republican attempt to smear a powerful political opponent, and it tilted the odds against the Speaker. Only a few weeks ago, Wright had seemed likely to hold on to his job. Now close observers of Congress, such as lobbyists and Democratic powers outside the legislative chamber, think the best he can expect is to retain the speakership until late in the year, before being pushed into resignation. House Republican Whip Newt Gingrich, who first called for the Wright investigation, went even further, predicting that Wright would become such an embarrassment for the Democrats that Majority Leader Tom Foley of Washington "will be Speaker by June."

Wright, to be sure, would have none of that. On occasion during the week he looked haggard, and he told reporters wryly, "I believe I have had easier times." But he made himself conspicuous, bustling about the halls of Congress and on at least two occasions visiting the White House, most of the time wearing a defiant grin; like many politicians, he can smile on cue, whatever his inner feelings. He emerged from a closed meeting of the Democratic Caucus to report, "I told them I intend to fight and I intend to win." He renewed a demand that the ethics committee call a hearing at which he could state his case publicly (Wright and attorney William Oldaker have already appeared before the committee in private).

Wright is not without ammunition for this battle, though his defense is in part technical and legalistic. Having found "reason to believe" that House rules were violated, the congressional equivalent of an indictment, the ethics committee must now judge whether there is "clear and convincing evidence" of the violations. In a couple of cases, the situation remains murky. One question, for example, is whether Fort Worth businessman George Mallick, who showered gifts on Wright and his wife, had a "direct interest" in legislation. If he did not, then Wright's acceptance of the gifts was no violation of House rules.