The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

MS. WARNER: Good evening. I'm Margaret Warner in New York.

MR. LEHRER: And I'm Jim Lehrer in Washington. After our summary of the news this Tuesday, we have full coverage of and reaction to the new claim Tonya Harding was involved in planning the attack on Nancy Kerrigan, and we have two views of the new Clinton nominee for the top civil rights job. NEWS SUMMARY

MS. WARNER: Figure skater Tonya Harding's ex-husband implicated her today in the attack on rival skater Nancy Kerrigan. He did so as part of a plea bargain agreement with prosecutors in Portland, Oregon. Jeff Gillooly pleaded guilty to racketeering charges in the January 6th clubbing attack on Kerrigan. Under the agreement, he'll be sentenced to two years in prison and fined $100,000. In a statement, Gillooly said that Harding took part with him and others in planning the assault. Harding, who's continued to train for the games, has said she only learned of the attack after it took place, though she's admitted she kept silent for days afterward. Today Harding issued a statement accusing Gillooly of lying to try to destroy her career. We'll have more on the story later in the program. Jim.

MR. LEHRER: President Clinton today nominated Boston lawyer Deval Patrick as Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights. The President's first nominee for that job, Lani Guinier, withdrew amid controversy. Patrick is 37 years old. He worked for the NAACP Legal Defense Fund and is currently in private practice in Boston. He said this at a White House ceremony this afternoon.

DEVAL PATRICK, Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights Designate: I am humbled because I know that I am standing here on the shoulders of so many women and men who have reached out to me in so many different ways over the years, and more than that, on the shoulders of those courageous advocates of every type and kind who have had the guts to stand up in some court somewhere and give the Constitution life. I pledge to be true to that legacy and also to the legacy of the American people in the expression of their highest and most generous sense of justice.

MR. LEHRER: We'll have more on the Patrick appointment after the News Summary. The U.S. government today accused China of violating fundamental human rights. But the State Department report said China had taken some positive but limited steps during the past year to improve its record. President Clinton has tied renewal of China's favorable trade status to improvements in human rights. Other countries which were criticized in today's report included Sudan, Iraq, Iran, North Korea, and Haiti. Several U.S. allies were also cited, Mexico for killings, torture, and illegal arrests by police, Israel for mistreatment and torture of Palestinians in the occupied territories, Egypt for arbitrary arrests and torture of detainees, and Saudi Arabia for torture of prisoners and restrictions on various freedoms, including speech and religion.

MS. WARNER: The nation's governors ended their four-day meeting in Washington today with an agreement between Democrats on health care reform. It stopped short of endorsing President Clinton's proposal but does include a Republican concession requiring employers to make coverage available to all workers. Republican leaders in Congress have opposed the so-called employer mandate. President Clinton and Senate Republican Leader Bob Dole both addressed the governors group. Dole told the governors they may have laid out a framework on health care reform that both political parties could rally around and talk about.

SEN. ROBERT DOLE, Minority Leader: My view is unless there's some bipartisan bill, there may not be any bill. And I still believe that Democrats and Republicans can come together on a bill this year. It won't look like any one bill out there now, but I hope it's going to have the strongest elements of all the different packages, and we can put that together. And they may not turn the system upside down as envisioned by some, but I think it will make a big, big difference.

MS. WARNER: President Clinton is asking Congress for more money for earthquake-ravaged Los Angeles. White House officials said he will ask Congress to grant $9.5 billion in aid. That's 2 billion more than he originally requested. The White House said federal damage estimates have increased and more damage has been caused by aftershocks.

MR. LEHRER: The Vice Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board announced his resignation today. David Mullins will leave February 14th to join an investment management firm. His departure leaves President Clinton with two openings to fill on the Fed Board. Construction spending rose a record 7.9 percent last year the Commerce Department reported today. The increase for December alone was 2.6 percent.

MS. WARNER: The chief of the Irish Republican Army's political wing is still withholding his endorsement of a British Irish peace proposal for Northern Ireland. Speaking in New York today, Gerry Adams once again urged the British government to begin private talks with his group, Sinn Fein, to clarify the peace agreement that was hammered out last December between London and Dublin. The plan offers Sinn Fein a role in the negotiations on Northern Ireland's future once the IRA lays down its arms. But Adams' comments today suggested Sinn Fein still wants additional assurances first. Adams spoke at a news conference in New York.

GERRY ADAMS, Sinn Fein: Sinn Fein is absolutely committed to a negotiated settlement of the Anglo-Irish conflict. Sinn Fein is prepared and has been involved in the high risk business of moving that situation forward. We seek to move it forward once again. We are at a very critical phase of the peace process. The British government must be persuaded to clarify the outstanding issues, to explain how the overall situation can be moved forward, and to engage in dialogue with the people and the party which I represent.

MS. WARNER: Adams has been banned from the United States for the past 20 years. He's here on a special 48 hour visa granted by the Clinton administration. Britain has consistently refused the IRA's demands for private talks. British Foreign Sec. Douglas Hurd was in Washington today, and he had this reaction to Adams' statement.

DOUGLAS HURD, Foreign Secretary, Great Britain: Both the British and Irish governments agree that Sinn Fein can only take parts about the future of Northern Ireland after violence has ended, but violence has not ended. Attacks continue. There was a mortar attack near Muri this morning. So far -- so far, Mr. Adams has refused to condemn such violence. His remarks so far to the media here, as elsewhere, have been remarks of ambiguity and evasion.

MR. LEHRER: Foreign Sec. Hurd also endorsed air strikes against Serbs and Bosnia if they attack peacekeepers in two towns. The United States endorsed the U.N. plan yesterday. Hurd made his statement after meeting with Sec. of State Christopher. The meeting came amid reports thousands of troops from Croatia had crossed into Bosnia. They were believed to be reinforcing Bosnian Croats fighting the Muslim army. U.N. Secretary-General Boutros-Ghali said the Security Council would meet to consider sanctions against Croatia.

MS. WARNER: PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat and Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin are giving conflicting predictions of when the Palestinian autonomy agreement will be done. Both comments follow a weekend of what Arafat called breakthrough talks between himself and Israeli Foreign Minister Peres in Geneva. Arafat, who's still in Switzerland, predicted the deal could be signed in Cairo next week. He said the peace process was in danger if it was dragged out too long, but Peres, meeting with Sec. of State Christopher in Washington today, refused to predict when an agreement might be complete and the Israeli pullout from occupied territories could begin. And Rabin told American Jewish leaders in a conference call last night, "We are moving slowly. It will take more time than we expected."

MR. LEHRER: And that's it for the News Summary tonight. Now it's on to the Tonya Harding story and the new civil rights choice. FOCUS - CLINTON'S TEAM - RIGHT CHOICE?

MR. LEHRER: First, a look at the man President Clinton chose today to head the civil rights division of the Justice Department. His name is Deval Patrick. He's a 37 year old graduate of Harvard Law School, a former staff attorney for the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, now a partner in a Boston law firm. President Clinton's first choice for this job, Law Professor Lani Guinier, was forced to withdraw after attacks on her views on racial quotas. Today the President was asked if his new appointment shared Lani Guinier's views.

REPORTER: Mr. President, conservative groups are already attacking Mr. Patrick, the same groups that attacked Lani Guinier, saying that he is the Stealth Guinier. How are you going to, to sell this nomination and make sure that your view of his record gets out accurately?

PRESIDENT CLINTON: Well, I think that this nomination may be about those groups and whether they're proceeding in good faith, i.e., you know, before those groups said, well, we don't object to Lani Guinier's career as a lawyer, we just don't agree with her writings about future remedies. So now when they say "Stealth Guinier," what they mean is that both these people have distinguished legal careers in trying to enforce the civil rights laws of the country. I hope that Mr. Patrick would plead guilty to that. And the truth is a lot of those people are going to be exposed because they never believed in the civil rights laws, they never believed in equal opportunity, they never lifted a finger to give anybody of a minority race a chance in this country. And this time, if they try that, it's going to be about them, because they won't be able to say it's about somebody's writings about future remedies. If they attack his record, it means just exactly what we've all suspected all along, they don't give a riff about civil rights. Well, those of who care about civil rights were elected by the American people to take care of 'em. That's what we intended to do.

MR. LEHRER: The attack against Lani Guinier was sparked by an article written by Clint Bolick, vice president of the Institute for Justice in Washington. On the other side of him tonight is Elaine Jones, the executive director of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund. You are also the man who coined the phrase that Mr. Deval Patrick is a "Stealth Lani Guinier," is that right?

MR. BOLICK: That is right.

MR. LEHRER: What do you mean by that?

MR. BOLICK: Well, I think that Bill Clinton intentionally went out to try to find a nominee who is as liberal as Lani Guinier, who has the same ideological background as Lani Guinier, but who has none of the Law Review writings. And I think that he may have found him in Deval Patrick. This time we don't have opposition based on writings. We have questions about Deval Patrick's views on very important civil rights issues.

MR. LEHRER: Do you know what his views are? You're not opposing him based on what you know his views are, is that right?

MR. BOLICK: That's right. In fact, we are not opposing him. We are saying that the Senate Judiciary Committee ought to raise very serious questions, but coming from the Legal Defense Fund, as Lani Guinier did, he comes from an organization that has taken very strong views on issues of race consciousness, race quotas, forced bussing in school districts. And I think it's legitimate to raise the question: Does Mr. Patrick believe in those positions, or does he believe the positions that Bill Clinton took during his campaign, namely that he supports equal opportunity, not equality of results.

MR. LEHRER: Ms. Jones, what do you think about that, that position that Mr. Bolick is taking?

MS. JONES: Well, I say to that there goes Clint Bolick again with his buzzwords, "bussing, quotas." That has nothing to do with this nominee. Deval Patrick is an American success story, one that would make all of us proud, born on the South side of Chicago, who, who came up through the ranks, who understood the importance of education, and who applied himself, got a scholarship to preparatory school, went on to Harvard, and graduated with honors, applied himself, went to Harvard Law School, and never forget from whence he came, always during that time reached back to help other young boys and girls, worked on scholarship programs, and helped encourage others. The President has selected well. We are fortunate as a nation that Mr. Patrick, who is a corporate lawyer now in Boston, is a partner in one of the nation's most prestigious firms, is willing to put all of that aside and give us public service. We are fortunate.

MR. LEHRER: You don't think we're fortunate, Mr. Bolick?

MR. BOLICK: I think he has a stellar background. In fact, it sounds a lot like Clarence Thomas's background which, of course, Elaine Jones attacked Clarence Thomas on his views. And that is the question that we're raising here, precisely the same question. He's obviously qualified, but the question is: What are his views? Civil right -- there is no more important issue in our society, in my view, than civil rights. We need to begin an era of racial healing. But if we continue down the road of race conscious remedies, which the Legal Defense Fund continues to press very vigorously, then we are never going to get to that point. And it's important to know where Deval Patrick stands.

MR. LEHRER: Elaine Jones, are you aware of where Mr. Patrick stands on this issue that he's raised?

MS. JONES: These are issues that are in the mind of Mr. Bolick. This question of -- he raises them every time anyone comes up for the civil rights division. I mean, I'm sure, Jim, if your name were put forward, you know, you would be a quota king. I don't know why, but you would be. Now, the -- Thurgood Marshall could not pass Clint Bolick's test.

MR. LEHRER: Is that true?

MR. BOLICK: Actually, I would say that, that Thurgood Marshall as a Supreme Court Justice toward the end of his career embraced bussing, embraced quotas. It's very -- I --

MS. JONES: So the answer is yes.

MR. BOLICK: So I think the answer probably would be yes.

MS. JONES: But, you know, what's interesting, Clint Bolick talked about the Legal Defense Fund, and out of the mainstream, I even heard him say, you know, the Legal Defense Fund for 53 years, I think about the district courts as we've had some 13 district court judges that come from our staff and our board, another 25 lawyers who worked with us to become federal district court judges, over 100 law professors, law deans, university presidents, over 50 state court judges. I mean that is an illustrious record, and we've worked within the courts. Now, it's interesting also when I listen to Mr. Bolick, Mr. Bolick talks about mainstream, Mr. Bolick opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1991 which gives all Americans, both male and female, protections against sexual harassment in the workplace. He called it a fraud. Now he can have his views, but he also indicates that at an earlier time his view that you should legitimize prostitution. I mean, that was Mr. Bolick's view. I don't know whether it still is, but he talks about mainstream!

MR. LEHRER: All right. What is your -- what is it that the NAACP Defense Fund that Ms. Jones runs and that Mr. Patrick used to work for, give me a specific of a position that you object to?

MR. BOLICK: I'll give you several. First of all, Deval Patrick - - spent such civil rights experience as he had consists primarily of defending criminal defendants and of opposing capital punishment, which is fine. To me, the civil rights issue --

MR. LEHRER: On civil rights grounds.

MR. BOLICK: On civil rights grounds. To me, the civil rights issues there revolve primarily around victims of crime. The Legal Defense Fund has argued decades after segregation has been eradicated from school districts and over the objections of black parents that bussing should continue indefinitely in city after city. The Legal Defense Fund has argued that racial quotas and minority contract set asides are constitutional. The Supreme Court has rejected that view.

MR. LEHRER: On racial quotas today, Carl Stern, who is the Attorney General's press spokesman, was asked about that, and he said that Mr. Patrick's views are the same as the President's, and they are opposed to racial quotas.

MR. BOLICK: Well, if that --

MS. JONES: I'm sure that won't matter to Mr. Bolick.

MR. BOLICK: It seems like many of those who take this view define quotas in such a narrow fashion as to be basically non-existent. Already, the Clinton administration has taken effort -- has taken steps to reverse the previous policy of limiting the considerations of race in college scholarships. Is that the road we're going down? If so, I don't think the American people thought that's what they were getting when they elected Bill Clinton.

MR. LEHRER: As I understand it, your position is that you don't know anything specifically about Deval Patrick that --

MR. BOLICK: Intentionally so.

MR. LEHRER: Okay.

MR. BOLICK: Bill Clinton nominated someone intentionally without --

MR. LEHRER: So your point though is that you want the Senate to ask these questions.

MR. BOLICK: That's exactly right.

MR. LEHRER: Do you have any objection to his being asked for his position? You don't have any objection to that, do you?

MS. JONES: The Senate is going to do its duty, and I fully expect that. And, you know, the President fully expects it, and after the Deval confirmation hearing, I mean, we expect that he will be overwhelmingly confirmed. But you want to know something about Deval Patrick? Because I know Deval Patrick. I mean, as a corporate lawyer for the past eight years in Boston, he has spent over 30 percent of his time litigating cases for free on behalf of poor people, a silk stocking firm litigating cases for free. One case that he brought he represented numerous, over 10,000 elderly, mostly women, homeowners, who were the victims of a scam, a banking scam, so they would refinance their homes in order to get home improvements, and then when they couldn't pay at the usurious rate, then the homes were taken. That incensed Deval.And these were people in Rockbury and Mattipan and Boston who were just being rooted out of their homes. He brought that litigation, and Deval settled that case for relief to over 10,000 people and over $11 million to construct new, low-income housing. That's Deval Patrick.

MR. LEHRER: Is that relevant to you?

MR. BOLICK: It is. I spent 100 percent of my time on cases representing low income people, and as a result of that, I'm very sympathetic to that. Nonetheless, the issue in this nomination is: Where does Deval Patrick stand on the issues that tough every single American? Is he going to draw an end to race consciousness? There's nothing in his career to suggest that, that he intends to do that.

MR. LEHRER: Now the President said -- we just ran the clip -- that the issue that is going to come out in the Deval Patrick matter is you.

MR. BOLICK: That's exactly right.

MR. LEHRER: And your group.

MR. BOLICK: I found that very, very curious. We would like to have the spotlight on us more than it already is.

MS. JONES: I'm sure.

MR. BOLICK: But I would say that in my young career, I've probably already done more than the President has done in his career. He didn't even sign a civil rights bill in Arkansas, and as a result, I think it's very interesting to see the President has shifted the focus from his nominee, which is where the focus belongs, to the people who are raising questions about his nominee.

MR. LEHRER: Do you think the President was right, Elaine Jones, in saying that the issue should be Mr. Bolick and his group, not Deval Patrick?

MS. JONES: Most certainly, most certainly, because the issues that Clint Bolick is raising have nothing to do with Deval Patrick. And Mr. Bolick's agenda, obviously, is something -- he's going to oppose anyone who's really interested in enforcing civil rights. And this nation, because that civil rights agenda impacts on all of us in the United States, I don't care what our color, I don't care what our race, or our background.

MR. LEHRER: It's an important job. Is it an important job?

MS. JONES: It's a very important job, and to say that -- for Clint Bolick to say, put his record against President Clinton's is laughable. It just will not pass the laugh test. I mean, for Clint Bolick to oppose the Civil Rights Act, you know, and the President is struggling with this issue of civil rights and making some headway, and he's made a lot of headway by nominating Deval Patrick. He's put women and minorities and Asians and Hispanics on the federal bench. I mean, he really is making some in-roads, and now the people of this country and the U.S. Senate can help him by confirming Deval Patrick.

MR. BOLICK: It's very interesting to see that President Clinton passed over far more qualified people, including the career deputies in the civil rights division who are quite liberal and yet would not have sparked any sort of confirmation fight.

MS. JONES: Now, now the truth comes out.

MR. BOLICK: Similarly, similarly, I think there are some very thoughtful liberals such as Randall Kennedy of Harvard, Steven Carter of Yale, who have written very thoughtfully about these issues. In fact, Clinton was about to nominate John Payton, the D.C. corporation counsel, but he was apparently vetoed by the Congressional Black Caucus because he wasn't liberal enough. It seems to me that, that the President has gone back to the same well from which he drew Lani Guinier. And I have to ask the question: Why did he do that? Why couldn't he have picked a more qualified person who would have taken a more moderate view?

MS. JONES: The President had a right, you know -- both Lani Guinier and Deval Patrick are outstanding lawyers who understand civil rights issues and who are consensus builders. I mean, still - - Deval Patrick believes in coalition building, he believes that that civil rights division protects all of us, and it's interesting that when Clint Bolick had his chance, he was in there in 1986, you know, and he was very busy turning the clock back. He says that the President, Mr. Clinton, could have reached down in the department and brought up someone. I know when Mr. Reagan became President, there were a lot of people who were senior and experienced, but he then reached down and brought in Brad Reynolds. I didn't see anyone saying anything about that.

MR. LEHRER: All right. We're going to leave it there, and we're going to see what happens when this nomination --

MR. BOLICK: You shall.

MR. LEHRER: -- goes to the Senate. Thank you both very much.

MS. JONES: Thank you, Jim. FOCUS - CAREER ON ICE?

MS. WARNER: Next tonight: Should Tonya Harding be allowed to skate in the Olympics? Today's news developments increased pressure on the figure skater to withdraw from the Olympic squad voluntarily and heightened pressure on U.S. Olympic officials to take action if she won't. Her former husband, Jeff Gillooly, said through his lawyers today that Harding helped plan the January 6th assault on her figure skating rival, Nancy Kerrigan. Correspondent Lee Hochberg of Oregon Public Television has this report.

MR. HOCHBERG: Tonya Harding's ex-husband, Jeff Gillooly, pleaded "guilty" today to plotting the attack on Nancy Kerrigan.

JUDGE: Are you guilty of the allegations as stated by your attorney?

JEFF GILLOOLY: I am.

JUDGE: What is your plea to the charge of racketeering?

JEFF GILLOOLY: Guilty.

MR. HOCHBERG: In a Portland court, he submitted a sworn statement that declared Harding was part of the group that plotted the attack. He pleaded guilty charges of racketeering, a charge meaning he with others engaged in unlawful activities. Through his attorney he admitted to seven different illegal incidents relating to the assault of Kerrigan.

RONALD HOEVET, Gillooly's Lawyer: The first incident alleges an intent to assault or injure Nancy Kerrigan. The second incident alleges the illegal recording or interception of a conversation between a group of people. The third incident alleges a conspiracy to commit burglary in the first degree. The fourth incident alleges the actual assault on Nancy Kerrigan in Detroit. The fifth incident alleges an intent or conspiracy to commit perjury. The sixth incident alleges a similar offense relating to the perjury that was committed by Tonya Harding on January 7, 1994. The seventh incident alleges conduct resulting in the destruction of physical evidence which was intended to hinder the apprehension of the members of this enterprise.

MR. HOCHBERG: Gillooly is expected to receive a reduced sentence of two years in prison and a $100,000 fine in exchange for his promise to testify against Harding. Later today, Gillooly's attorney, Ron Hoevet, summarized Gillooly's story of Harding's involvement in the attack and the cover-up.

RONALD HOEVET: What did Tonya Harding know and when did she know it? What did she do to further the assault on Nancy Kerrigan, and then to cover it up? The key date is December 28, 1993. That morning, Jeff met with Shawn Eckhardt, Derrick Smith, and Shane Stant in Eckhardt's home. Tonya knew that the purpose of this meeting was to discuss how they could prevent Nancy Kerrigan from competing for the U.S. Women's Figure Skating Championship. Tonya dropped Jeff off at that meeting and picked him up after it was over. Jeff took to that meeting approximately $3,000 in cash, the name of the rink where Nancy Kerrigan practiced, and her photograph. Tonya had personally obtained the name of the Toni Kent Arena a day or two before the meeting. After the meeting while driving toward home, Tonya approved the plan that had been discussed and gave the okay for the assault on Nancy Kerrigan. The final decision was hers to make. That same afternoon, Tonya called the Toni Kent Arena from her home to determine Nancy Kerrigan's practice schedule. Later that same evening, Jeff and Tonya returned to Eckhardt's home. Jeff paid Eckhardt $2,000, and Tonya provided additional information about Nancy Kerrigan, including a magazine article which contained her full-page picture. When the assault had not taken place by New Year's Eve, Tonya became upset. About midnight on January 1, 1994, she confronted Shawn Eckhardt and Jeff at the Ice Chalet in Klackimus Town Center. She complained that no one seemed to be able to do this thing for her and demanded her $2,000 back from Eckhardt. After Tonya arrived in Detroit and learned that Smith and Shane Stant had also traveled there, she personally obtained the room number of Nancy Kerrigan and her practice schedule. She forward this information on to Jeff in Portland, who faxed it to Eckhardt, who then relayed it to Smith and Stant in Detroit. After the assault on Nancy Kerrigan on January 6, 1994, the FBI received an anonymous tip while Jeff and Tonya were in Detroit. The tip implicated Jeff, Tonya, Eckhardt, and Smith in the crime. When Jeff and Tonya returned to Portland the night of January 10, 1994, they were surveilled by the FBI and other law enforcement officers. The authorities watched as Jeff, Tonya, and Eckhardt met to create a cover story. They watched as Jeff, Tonya, and Eckhardt made telephone calls to Smith on Monday night and again Tuesday morning from public phones with a talk and toss card to get the cover story straight. They watched as Jeff and Tonya drove by Eckhardt's house again and again Tuesday night and early Wednesday morning in an attempt to monitor Eckhardt's interview with the FBI. They watched as Jeff and Tonya drove to Elmer's Pancake House and reconnoitered the parking lot to see if the FBI was there. Before entering the restaurant to meet with Eckhardt, who was wired, Jeff handed his wallet and watch to Tonya, because both of them believed he was going to be arrested inside. Jeff and I have known each other less than three weeks. In those few days, however, we have traveled a long way together from denial to acceptance. I know that Jeff deeply regrets his involvement in this crime. He knows that he and others have brought pain and fear to Nancy Kerrigan, her family, and her fans. By this plea and cooperation agreement, Jeff hopes to bring closure to his own involvement in these events. Finally, Jeff has a message for Tonya. He hopes that she will now do what he has done and move quickly to resolve the charges that will surely be brought against her. Denial is no longer plausible. The truth about this bizarre crime has now been revealed. Thank you. Are there any questions? The motive was clear to both of them in about the middle of December last year. Tonya had skated well in Japan, but in her technical program she had finished seventh, which resulted in a total finish of four. She believed that it had been politics, not her skating ability, that had resulted in that finish in Japan. In addition, it was clear to both Jeff and Tonya that Nancy Kerrigan was being featured by the promotion leading up to the United States Women's Figure Skating Championship, featured as the inevitable winner. This crime was born of the bitterness that those facts and beliefs created in the mind of Jeff and in the mind of Tonya. There were a series of discussions that ranged first from simply making a threat over the phone to Nancy Kerrigan, to making a threat in person, to finally at the conspiratorial meeting on the 28th, to physically assault her. And it was decided at that time that a blow would be struck to her landing leg, the long bone on her landing leg. Whether Tonya Harding ought to skate in the Olympics, whether she has violated some unsportsmanlike or unethical rule of the Committee, she lied the last time she talked to you, folks, and she lied about her involvement in the cover-up. Her sin is not failing to come forward. We know beyond any doubt than she actively participated in the cover-up. I believe in due process more than the next guy. I'm a criminal defense lawyer. It's my job to ensure that people, whether they're guilty or innocent, are treated fairly by the system. I demand on behalf of Jeff and on behalf of many other people that the U.S. Figure Skating Association and the Olympic Committee figure out a way to give her that due process so that this 13 year old girl, who is an innocent as well, can skate on the Olympic Team with Nancy Kerrigan.

MR. HOCHBERG: So what does all of this mean for Harding? Her attorney today released a statement on her behalf that says Jeff Gillooly's accusations appear to evidence a continued practice of abusive conduct intended to disrupt Tonya Harding's life and destroy her career. Tonya Harding denies Mr. Gillooly's accusations and all media speculation and rumors that suggest she was involved in the Kerrigan assault. Under Oregon law, testimony of alleged accomplices is not in itself enough to convict Harding. Ed Jones of Oregon's Criminal Defense Lawyers Association.

ED JONES, Lawyer: A co-conspiratory saying you're involved is by itself not enough. There has to be some other evidence that substantiates what that person is saying.

MR. HOCHBERG: So far, the prosecution hasn't charged her with anything. They have subpoenaed all videotape of Harding's statements aired on local television stations since the assault hoping to find inconsistencies that challenge her credibility.

DENNIS RAWLINSON, Harding's Attorney: [January 16] Tonya Harding categorically denies all accusations.

MR. HOCHBERG: On January 16, speaking through her lawyer, Dennis Rawlinson and skating coach Diane Rawlinson, Harding denied she or Gillooly were involved in the assault.

DIANE RAWLINSON, Harding's Coach: Tonya totally believes that Jeff is innocent. If she discovers that there is anything different than that, she will distance herself from Jeff.

MR. HOCHBERG: Two days later, on January 18, Harding was grilled by the FBI for some 10 hours. According to Gillooly's brother, that's when Harding first admitted to authorities that she knew about the plot and she implicated Gillooly. After the session, she announced she and Gillooly's on-again, off-again marriage would be off again. The next day from her father's Portland apartment, she told reporters she could not discuss what she knew about the attack.

REPORTER: Tonya, there's an affidavit out today that Shawn Eckhardt made that Gillooly --

TONYA HARDING: [January 19] I can't -- don't ask me any questions,because now I can't answer 'em, so -- you know, I just came out to say hi.

MR. HOCHBERG: Then last Thursday she publicly changed her story.

TONYA HARDING: I had no prior knowledge of the planned assault on Nancy Kerrigan. I am responsible, however, for failing to -- for failing to report things I learned about the assault when I returned home from National. I know I have let you down, but I have also let myself down.

MR. HOCHBERG: Harding said she does not believe she has committed a crime. Under Oregon law, there is no obligation to tell law enforcement authorities what one knows about a crime.

ED JONES: Just knowing and not telling aren't enough to make her a conspirator. To be a conspirator, she'll have to have agreed to do the crime, or to be participated in the doing of the crime.

MR. HOCHBERG: While the legal battle goes on in Oregon, the question for Harding and her fans is: Will she skate in the Olympics? The United States Figure Skating Association has convened a panel to assess whether Harding violated the Association's code of ethical behavior. The panel began meeting today. Harding's attorney said today any attempt to keep Harding off the Olympic Team might cause them to seek an injunction. And the Nike Corporation has pledged $25,000 to help finance any legal fight she needs to wage to defend her spot on the team. The United States Olympic Committee can remove Harding from the team as late as February 21, two days before the Women's Figure Skating Competition begins.

MS. WARNER: Late this afternoon, Tonya Harding's lawyer said that Ms. Harding continues to deny the charges. Attorney Robert Weaver told reporters he was appalled at the comments made by Mr. Gillooly's lawyer this afternoon. He said they contributed to a media whirlpool and that Ms. Harding will not respond to charges except in a court of law. He urged the U.S. Figure Skating Committee not to remove Ms. Harding from the Olympic Team based on the assertions of Mr. Gillooly. So should Tonya Harding compete in the Olympics, which begins February 23rd in Norway? We have four views on that. Ira Berkow is sports columnist for the New York Times. Filip Bondy is a sports writer and columnist for the New York Daily News. Gary Visconti was a member of the 1964 and '68 Olympic Figure Skating Teams. He's now a skating coach and also president of the Southern California Olympians, an alumna group of Olympic athletes. He joins us from Los Angeles. And Jill Pilgrim is a sports lawyer and a member of the governing body for Track and Field in the United States. Welcome all of you. Mr. Berkow, are these charges credible?

MR. BERKOW: Well, they may be credible, and they may not be credible. We don't know. There are no facts, hard facts right now. And it's interesting that Tonya Harding's lawyer said that, that anything that has to be proved will have to be proved in a court of law, which is normally the way we do things in this country.

MS. WARNER: Mr. Bondy.

MR. BONDY: Well, I think what we do have as fact is Tonya's own confession, public confession, that she, in fact, was responsible for covering this thing up. We don't know -- at this point I agree with Ira -- we certainly can't convict her of planning it, but we can say that she was, in fact, involved in covering up the incident. And I would argue that that is enough to breach the sportsmanship contract that she has with the U.S. Figure Skating Association.

MR. BERKOW: What is a sportsmanship contract, Filip?

MR. BONDY: Well, it's appropriately vague. I have it here.

MR. BERKOW: It's very inappropriate. It's vague. It's general. It's broad, but it has nothing to do with the competition, itself. We're talking about a skating event. Tonya Harding, according to her, and if we do believe they're innocent until proved guilty, then we have to go along with what she has to say, that she had no prior knowledge of, of the assault, therefore, if she had no prior knowledge, she had no effect on the results or on the results of the National Championships, or on the results of the Olympics.

MS. WARNER: But what about Mr. Bondy's comment that she has admitted that she stayed silent at the very least?

MR. BERKOW: But that is not an issue as far as influencing the events themselves.

MR. BONDY: It certainly is an issue of sportsmanship.

MS. WARNER: Do you agree, Ms. Pilgrim?

MR. BERKOW: But it is not necessarily an issue of sportsmanship.

MS. WARNER: Will you let Ms. Pilgrim in, gentlemen?

MS. PILGRIM: Well, I think that my basic view is that she is entitled to a hearing and to present her points and her evidence and any evidence of innocence that might be available to her. I think it doesn't -- it's certainly not, as it's stated, good sportsmanship not to divulge the attack or knowledge after the fact of the attack. But I'm not so convinced that that's enough to say you're going to lose your opportunity to be in the Olympics that you've worked for for so many years.

MS. WARNER: Mr. Visconti, in Los Angeles, do you find these charges credible?

MR. VISCONTI: Right now, looking at what we have, they're creditable, but whether they're going to be proven is another story. We are all judged by the company we keep, and if Tonya did know immediately after the incident in Detroit, I feel personally that she should have gone to the authorities immediately and vindicated herself and talked about what she knew. That's No. 1.

MS. WARNER: And do you think that because she failed to do that, should that be enough to disqualify her?

MR. VISCONTI: In itself, no, but I can foresee Tonya skating in Olympic Games and with due justice of law if things are brought up against her, it would take, of course, time, it will be after the Olympic Games. But unfortunately, this is all going to take time. As it stands right now, as an Olympian, as a president of the Olympians here on the West Coast, she should skate in the Olympic Games. But I think the United States Skating Association and the U.S. Olympic Committee are waiting for the proper authorities to come up with proof and evidence that she was totally involved.

MR. BONDY: Well, you're never going to get proof positive before a trial, and so I would argue that you're going to have to make some subjective judgments along the way, and that in this case, what she has admitted to -- don't forget, there are other victims here. Nancy Kerrigan is going to go through considerable trauma if, in fact, she has to skate with Tonya Harding. There is another skater who was completely innocent of this who would be eligible to skate, Michele Kwan, and she in a sense could be called a victim of, of a conspiracy as well if she's kept out of it in the broadest sense of the term. So you do have other people. The Kerrigan coaches have asked Harding to withdraw, and so you do have an initiative here to get Harding off the team.

MS. PILGRIM: Can I interject some rule of law here? I mean, I think that public opinion is just one aspect of this. There is an Amateur Sports Act that guarantees the right of athletes and others to compete in the Olympics. And the purpose of that Act, and what I'm really concerned about here, is this kind of lynch mob mentality that says before anything is proved just based on accusations, based on accusations of individuals who have a lot to gain by making those accusations, we are going to take this woman off the team.

MR. BONDY: But we're basing it on an admission, not an accusation.

MS. PILGRIM: Well, that's one aspect of it. And I too agree with Mr. Visconti that just the admission of after-the-fact knowledge is not in itself enough.

MR. BERKOW: And she did admit that she made a mistake. Now, I'm not sitting here and deciding as judge and jury whether she did or did not do any of these things. But the thing is that she admitted a mistake. So do we -- and if that's all she did -- and we don't really know whether she did any more than this -- do we hang her for this? And by hanging her for this, in effect, we, we call a death sentence on her participation in the Olympics.

MR. BONDY: But we're not sending her to jail.

MR. BERKOW: Wait. But if it turns out that she had absolutely nothing to do with it, then she was not allowed to skate in the Olympics.

MR. BONDY: But she said she had something to do with it.

MR. BERKOW: She had nothing to do with prior knowledge, only afterwards.

MR. BONDY: I'm just talking about afterwards.

MR. BERKOW: Only afterward which has, again, nothing to do with the event itself.

MS. WARNER: What about that argument, Mr. Bondy, that there's nothing lost by letting her compete and then if the courts later convict her, it can be taken away?

MR. BONDY: There is something to be lost by letting her compete. Again, I remind you that Nancy Kerrigan has to put up with this and is not very pleased with it by what her coaches have said. There's another skater who would skate at the Olympics who will not skate there if Harding skates there. So there are people who lose a great deal if Harding does skate. Again --

MR. VISCONTI: I agree 100 percent. I agree 100 percent. I know all three of the girl skaters and their coaches. And is this -- think about the message that we're giving to the young Americans who are Olympic-bound or have Olympic aspirations. I think we're in a very grave situation here. I've been involved with the world of skating for 39 years, and I think that the authorities should try most expediently to try to come to a decision with some solid facts.

MS. WARNER: Well, Gary Visconti, how can the U.S. Olympic Committee proceed here now?

MR. VISCONTI: How can they proceed?

MS. WARNER: In this -- in less than three weeks, how can they make such a determination?

MR. VISCONTI: I think they have to wait to gather the facts from the authorities, the law, the FBI, the state agencies. That's the only way they can do it.

MS. PILGRIM: There's another avenue here. What they can do is initiate a proceeding, a hearing, I believe, on the U.S. Figure Skating Association level.

MR. VISCONTI: That's correct, Jill.

MS. PILGRIM: So what they can do is initiate a hearing and, and let that hearing proceed and not wait for the criminal process. And I think they should. But ultimately I think the onus at this point -- I mean, it's very serious what's happened. There are all kinds of implications. There's a hard luck story for every person who makes an Olympic Team. There is one or two people behind them who just didn't make it. And I think what needs to happen now, if Tonya Harding is truly guilty, she needs to withdraw. If she is not guilty, I support her effort to fight for her position on the team.

MR. VISCONTI: I, I personally have spoken with about 15 of my close friend in the Olympian alumni, and I think for the sake of the Olympics, for the sake of everyone involved, and for the sake of our country as far as competing top notch, I personally would advise her to withdraw at this time. And that does not at all show that she's guilty.

MR. BERKOW: I have a totally different view of this. I see the Olympics not as a sacred right, because we've known what the Olympics have been all about. There's been so much hypocrisy, so much of cheating going on. I mean, I see it as a sports event, and I know there are a lot of flags being waved, and there are a lot of anthems being played. But I still see it as a sports event. And when Gary talked about this -- a message being sent to the young skaters, I think he's wrong, as far as I'm concerned, in the message. The message is greater than that, and the message has to do with the American, with the fundamental principles of this country, and that is, you're innocent until proven guilty and due process.

MS. WARNER: What about that, Mr. Bondy, that really the legal standard should apply here, and anything less just --

MR. BONDY: Well, I'm astounded that I appear to be in the minority as far as believing that covering something like this up should not be enough to bump somebody from the Olympics. I'm astounded that here's one of the most heinous --

MS. PILGRIM: All you have is an accusation. You're taking --

MR. BONDY: No, no, no. We're talking about the admission now.

MS. PILGRIM: You're taking after-the-fact knowledge --

MR. BONDY: Right, after the --

MS. PILGRIM: -- then, then adding to it that she covered up. I mean, cover up to me implicates her in doing a lot of things and, you know, that's what happens. You take a little bit of information, and you expand it. And then you have, you have something that's bigger than what was really stated in the --

MS. WARNER: What if, what if the district attorney's office does release some of these, I guess, tapes of conversations or videotape that they have that Mr. Hoevet, Gillooly's lawyer, just referred to? So a cover-up is established. Then what would your position be?

MS. PILGRIM: She's entitled to a hearing at which she can explain what she said, why she said it, what the context of it is. You can take any piece of tape and present it, and then say it meant one thing when it really meant something else. She's entitled to present her defense or her explanation if, in fact, there is one.

MR. BERKOW: And even though all this sounds credible, and it may very well be, but we have to also understand that today Mr. Gillooly admitted to an intent to commit perjury and to conspire to perjure. And he also took a plea bargaining fee -- the maximum sentence was, I think, 20 years and $300,000. He took two years and $100,000. So he had some motivation for some of the things he was doing today.

MS. WARNER: Let me just ask Mr. Visconti this. Apparently, according to these reports, her lawyer is saying she will only answer the charges though in a court of law. Does that tie the U.S. Olympic Committee's hands then?

MR. VISCONTI: Umm, I'm not an official of the Olympic Committee, but it is my personal opinion being involved, that if there was a hearing and if she was brought to Colorado Springs, or wherever the hearing was, she must answer honestly -- that's No. 1 -- and the facts that she gives them, of course, will be creditable into a decision. Whether that decision is going to be able to be made prior to the women's skating event on the 23rd of February is another story. We do have a 48-hour grace period that we can replace Tonya within 48 hours prior to the women's event.

MS. WARNER: And must she participate if they call her?

MS. PILGRIM: If they call her to be on the team?

MS. WARNER: No, if they call her to come to a hearing.

MS. PILGRIM: I think she would be pretty foolish not to appear and defend.

MR. VISCONTI: I agree with you. I agree with you 100 percent, yes.

MS. PILGRIM: I can speak from my experience sitting on arbitration panels for USA Track & Field where we have hearings on a regular basis mainly on issues of, of drug doping. And I can tell you that I've sat on a panel of arbitrators where all the evidence and information that was presented to me before the hearing appeared to implicate the athlete, and then, then there have been witnesses who have come in and have given testimony that I felt intuitively was -- were lives. And then the athlete has sat in front of me and very openly appeared to tell the truth and change my opinion, because people around them tried to cover up for the mistakes that they made, and the athlete came in and said, look, this is what happened and was very honest. And I've sat on panels where that's happened, so I know that it is very important to have that hearing and to, to get all the facts on the table.

MR. BERKOW: And we've seen in so-called obvious cases, open and shut cases, the Menendez trial recently, the prosecutor said this is an open and shut case. The jury couldn't come -- couldn't convict. We saw this in the first Rodney King trial. We've seen this in the Bobbitt case.

MR. BONDY: But, again, we're not trying to send Tonya Harding to jail here. We're trying to bump her from what you, yourself, said is just a sporting event.

MS. PILGRIM: Why are you not trying to send her to jail? If she did something illegal in your theory, you should send her to jail.

MR. BONDY: That's a different process, a completely different process and a far more serious one.

MR. BERKOW: Again, she admitted to a mistake as far as -- which had nothing to do at this point with the, with the activities and the sports events involved. Because of that, I say, let her skate in the sports event in Norway.

MS. WARNER: Well, Mr. Berkow raises a point which is: What is the U.S. Olympic Committee's major responsibility? I mean, are they, are the factors that are most important the responsibility of the athletes, is it to sportsmanship, is it to the U.S. chances for competing successfully, what are they supposed to really look at, Mr. Berkow?

MR. BERKOW: Well, the U.S. Olympic Committee is going to try to have the so-called "cleanest" kinds of Olympics, send the best people possible. Of course, Tonya Harding won the national championship. Even if Kerrigan had been in it, Tonya Harding would have come in -- if Kerrigan would have won -- Tonya Harding would have come in second. Both of them would have gone to the Olympics. But yeah, the USOC, besides wanting to keep an image, they have to be very conscious of their image, there's money involved for all these people, they want to try to send the best and cleanest and purest possible team.

MR. BONDY: Here is the -- here is the --

MR. BERKOW: They would be more than happy to get Tonya Harding out of this thing.

MR. BONDY: It's -- yeah, they would be, I believe, and --

MR. BERKOW: And Leroy Walker said so.

MR. BONDY: It has a code of ethics. Members must exemplify the standards of fairness, ethical behavior, and genuine good sportsmanship in any of their relations with others, and any person who [whose] acts, statements or conduct is considered detrimental to the welfare of figure skating is subject to the loss of the privilege of the registration.

MR. BERKOW: This may pertain to all Olympic athletes. This may pertain to all Olympic athletes, and you've been around enough to know that if this pertained to all Olympic athletes, we might send three.

MR. BONDY: That's absolutely true. And believe me, the U.S. Figure Skating is probably guilty of invasion of privacy on a number of levels that we can only begin to get into now in terms of monitoring the athlete, however, again, I would argue that that is irrelevant to this particular case.

MS. WARNER: Let me get the former Olympic athlete in here. Go ahead, Mr. Visconti.

MR. VISCONTI: Ira, I'm just thinking, do we have a precedent on this? Do you -- between the four of us, can you think of any international event such as this, that's ever been in the last 30 years?

MR. BERKOW: Along these lines?

MR. VISCONTI: Along these lines.

MS. PILGRIM: Where someone's been attacked by --

MR. VISCONTI: Yes. I cannot think of one, Jill.

MR. BERKOW: No, I can't. But as far as not allowing someone to participate in the Olympics and then something happening after, of course, there's the Butch Reynolds case in which he contended that he was wrongly accused --

MR. VISCONTI: Yes.

MR. BERKOW: -- of using drug-enhancing chemicals, and he won $27 million in a United States court. He's never going to --

MS. PILGRIM: And the right to be on the team.

MR. VISCONTI: You know, Jill, I think we'd be in a lot better situation if we had six months prior to the Olympics.

MS. PILGRIM: Oh, absolutely. I mean --

MR. VISCONTI: We'd feel a lot more comfortable. But we shouldn't let the time --

MS. PILGRIM: Time is definitely on Tonya's side.

MR. BONDY: Tonya is counting on that.

MR. BERKOW: Well --

MS. WARNER: Let me close by asking you one question about public opinion, because apparently it is swinging definitely against Tonya Harding. Even this weekend a CNN Poll found, I think, 58 percent of Americans didn't want her on the team. Umm, the head of the USOC said public opinion would be a factor. Should it?

MR. BERKOW: I don't think public opinion should be a factor at all. The people who are -- the officials and administrators who are in charge of doing what's right ought to do what's right no matter how many people are screaming the way they are.

MR. VISCONTI: Based on the facts, right, Ira, based on the facts?

MR. BERKOW: Absolutely, Gary.

MS. PILGRIM: That point of view is the reason for the Sports Act, to protect the rights of athletes, because if you leave it to the officials, you have competing interests, some of them financial, and some of them not related to fielding the best team, then you have situations when the, the appropriate people who have earned their spot on the team don't go to the Olympics. And we want to take that discretion out of the hands of those officials.

MR. VISCONTI: Jill, we have to be careful, Jill, you know, that in a situation like this, this is not an elected position. Tonya Harding was not elected by the American people as the U.S. skating champion. She earned it.

MS. PILGRIM: Umm hmm.

MR. VISCONTI: So that's No. 1. So public opinion because of the media swaying one way or another you could bring some facts out or others not out, that shouldn't really enter into it. She earned the right to be on the team, and she's on the team. Now, if it goes back to that while she earned the right to be on the team, she did some damage to other competitors, that's the story.

MR. BERKOW: And if she conspired -- and if she concealed afterward, then she should be judged again in a court of law and, and made to stand any kind of punishment for concealing the conspiracy. As far as the events are concerned, that's a different story.

MS. WARNER: The polls also show one last question to you, Mr. Bondy, that most Americans now think athletes are so motivated by greed that they'll do anything to win. Are you surprised at that kind of a finding?

MR. BONDY: I'm certainly not surprised by the finding. I personally don't think it's true, but I'm not surprised that the public perceives it. A lot of it does have to do with the media coverage of athletes, of, of the close, the close coverage of contractual figures. We talk about how much money athletes make. We never talk about how much money the owners make. And, and I think that that's -- that's part of the problem, and it's part of the problem that the media, itself, has created, but again public opinion aside in this case, I think that we have to consider the facts that we already have.

MR. VISCONTI: I can foresee at the Olympic Games if Tonya and, and Nancy Kerrigan compete, it will probably be the most watched event since the Super Bowl. So the network is going to win.

MS. WARNER: That's all the time this event has. Thank you very much. RECAP

MR. LEHRER: Again, the other major stories of this Tuesday, President Clinton nominated 37 year old lawyer Deval Patrick to head the Justice Department Civil Rights Division and the State Department said China has made some limited progress on human rights and in a report issued today, the Clinton administration said China still engages in torture and arbitrary arrests. Good night, Margaret.

MS. WARNER: Good night, Jim. That's the NewsHour tonight. I'll be back tomorrow night. I'm Margaret Warner. Thank you, and good night.