Tucker, along with Jim and Susan McDougal, is on trial right now for allegedly defrauding the government out of millions of dollars in loans. That case should go to the jury today or tomorrow, and the betting is that the government has a good chance at convicting only Jim McDougal. No sooner had those fraud charges been filed last year against the governor than Tucker was whacked with another four count indictment - this one having to do with a questionable cable TV deal. The betting here is that Tucker will lose that case.
Federal prosecutors aren't spending millions of dollars of taxpayer money to go after the likes of Tucker and the McDougals. As I said weeks ago, sources close to Special Prosecutor Kenneth Starr have told me that the fraud trial that started here weeks ago is ultimately aiming at President Clinton.
'We wouldn't be down here if we weren't after the President,' a source of mine once told me. In fact, I quoted the source - who I didn't name - as saying that the Tucker/McDougal fraud trial is intended to soften up the defendants so they'd cooperate in the Clinton portion of the Whitewater investigation. They'd be offered a plea agreement, I was told, if and when, the three were convicted. Starr's chief deputy, a guy named W. Hickman Ewing, confirmed the Presidential aspiration of the investigation last week to the Los Angeles Times.
"W. Hickman Ewing, Starr's chief deputy, acknowledged that the independent counsel's office sees this trial (against Tucker and the McDougals) as a way to obtain more evidence against the President," the Times wrote. "According to Ewing, Starr hopes that, by winning a conviction of Tucker and the McDougals, he can persuade the three to give incrimminating evidence against Clinton." Ewing has denied speaking with the Times. But let's just say that I have reason to believe the quote is accurate. The McDougals, of course, were the Clintons' partners in the Whitewater real estate boondagle. So it is obvious that they'd have stories to tell about the President and Mrs. Clinton. And, as I've said before, there is a questionable loan for something called Flowerwood Farms that could connect the President to a fraud.
But what could Jim Guy Tucker know about wrongdoing by Bill and Hillary Clinton? Arkansas sources say two families aren't particularly close, even though Tucker served as Clinton's lieutenant governor. And Tucker has never been in any business deals with the Clintons.
In fact, Tucker was about to give Clinton a run for his money in the Democratic primary for governor in 1990. Then he suddenly dropped out, leaving Clinton free to remain governor and, eventually, move on to bigger and better things.
'Tucker made a deal with Clinton,' says Larry Nichols, who claims he had discussions with Tucker about supporting him in his quest to unseat Clinton. Nichols, who is a dyed in the wool Clinton hater, says Tucker wanted Nichols to unearth some dirt on Clinton. But suddenly Tucker backed off and pulled out of the Spring primary race.
Nichols says a deal was made. Tucker would become lieutenant governor and take over running the state when Clinton made his expected run for the Presidency in 1992. No matter what happened in that Presidential bid, Clinton would back Tucker in the next governor's election. Nichols says he told all of this to Starr's investigators. He also says he told Starr's people that Tucker got something more substantial than a promise for leaving the 1990 race, for which he had already spent considerable amounts of money.
Starr's office is already known to be looking into the financing of Bill Clinton's 1990 run for governor. And it has already found some questionable transactions. I don't know whether Starr also believes the allegations that Tucker took a dive in the election. But I do know that Starr has a copy of a very strange real estate deed, filed by Tucker, around the time he was bowing out of the race against Clinton.
The 'warranty deed' was first filed by Tucker with the Pulaski County, Ark. circuit clerk in 1986. According to the deed, Tucker paid $10 for a substantial number of properties in the Flowerwood Farms development being put together by Jim McDougal.
The $10 price may not be significant because real estate often changes hands at nominal amounts of money, plus 'other considerations.' It's a handy way of hiding the true value of property.
What is significant is that Tucker's deed was changed in June of 1990 - around the time that he was considering leaving the race against Clinton. The 1990 deed has the notation at the bottom that the purpose is 'to replace description of Lot 58 on Page 2 of Exhibit A.' But there isn't any noticable change to that particular item in the new deed.
So, was there another reason why Tucker filed a new deed? Were the financial arrangements of his property payments change? And did any of this have anything to do with Tuckers race against Bill Clinton? I'm not sure if Starr's office has answered any of those questions. But investigators do have copies of the suspicious real estate deed. Starr could be waiting until Tucker is more inclined to cooperate before asking him a very important question: Were you paid off so that Bill Clinton's run for the Presidency wouldn't be derailed?
(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).