Syndicated articles written by New York Post reporter John Crudele are reproduced via the Colts Neck (NJ) Reporter with permission of the author. Copyright © 1996 - All Rights Reserved.

An "October Surprise?"
- by John Crudele, October 9, 1996

Any legal action against the President or Mrs. Clinton would obviously be disruptive to the financial markets. So, naturally, Wall Street is thrilled to hear from other publications that Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr is supposed to have said he will not pursue any charges against the two until after the November election. Forget the fact that the election is only six weeks away and people are now assuming that the President and Hillary Clinton will be indicted after the election, which Wall Street will then have to deal with. (Isn't it amazing how far perception has come? Just six months ago, when I was saying that the Clintons were in trouble, my esteemed colleagues were debating if the Clintons would be indicted, not when.) But Wall Street might want to ease up on the relief over Whitewater. Despite what you've been reading elsewhere, Starr hasn't really said he won't take action against the Clintons before Nov. 5. In fact, that information contradicts a lot of what I'm hearing from sources close to the Starr investigation.

For instance, one source tells me that indictments (and I don't know of whom) were possible the week before the recent Democratic convention. They never came. But other sources have been saying that something will break before Election Day.

What did Starr really say about pre-election indictments? Early this year Starr said on C-SPAN that he'd like everything about the so-called Whitewater matter to be known before the election. Later he only said he was mindful of Department of Justice guidelines regarding election years. But it turns out there are no written guidelines in the Justice Department with regard to prosecuting before an election. "There are no guidelines like that," said a spokesman for Justice. "It's a judgement call" and the prosecutor only has the obligation "to be fair". A frustrated press, lacking any kind of solid information on the Starr investigation, interpreted Starr's acknowlegement that he understood the guidelines to mean that he'd lay off until after the vote. That's a leap of faith by the press and the Democrats who are pulling their strings. And it is obvious from the White House's recent step-up in attacks on Starr that it is expecting something also.

Wall Street shouldn't assume this pre-election period (which includes the anniversary of some very serious market turbulence) will be calm.

(John Crudele is a financial columnist with the New York Post. His mailing address is P.O. Box 610, Lincroft, N.J. 07738. Click here to send him e-mail).