WHO'S SORRY NOW?

Has anyone noticed the outbreak of regrets that seems to have followed
former President Clinton everywhere since he left office?

Following a Clinton speech to a Morgan Stanley conference in Florida that
left company investors fuming, company Chairman Philip J. Purcell said the
decision to invite him had "clearly been a mistake." Former No. 2 Justice
Department official Eric Holder has said he was sorry he hadn't paid more
attention to a proposed pardon for fugitive financier Marc Rich when the
issue crossed his desk.

In Los Angeles lots of people are now unhappy about the roles they played
in gaining a last-minute presidential pardon for a drug kingpin named
Carlos Vignali. A two-year investigation by state and federal officials led
to his conviction on narcotics charges for his role in a drug ring that
transported more than 800 pounds of cocaine from Los Angeles to Minnesota.
There the traffickers thoughtfully converted the drug to crack for sale on
the streets.

Mr. Vignali's father turns out to be a big political donor (to Republicans
as well as Democrats) who applied pressure to local politicians and
prosecutors to press for commutation. Those officials are now backing away
from the services they provided, and Roman Catholic Cardinal Roger Mahoney
has announced that he made "a serious mistake" in writing to Mr. Clinton on
Vignali's behalf.

It is against this backdrop that House and Senate committees are scheduled
to conduct hearings into the pardon of Rich, who has lived in Switzerland
since just before his indictment in 1983 on tax evasion and on making
illegal oil deals with Iran. Even Democrats have felt free to criticize the
pardon as "brain-dead" now that Mr. Clinton is safely out of office and
their criticism too late to have much political import.

The House Government Reform Committee learned enough at hearings last week
to know it needs to learn more. Among other things, it is seeking more
information about meetings between President Clinton and former White House
counsel and, later, Rich attorney Jack Quinn. It is also seeking
information about the bank accounts of Denise Rich, Marc Rich's ex-wife,
the better to find out whether she was serving as a conduit for political
contributions from Rich, contributions that would be illegal if he has in
fact renounced his U.S. citizenship. Finally, it is weighing the
possibility of seeking immunity for Mrs. Rich that would allow her to
testify before the committee without fear of incriminating herself in a
crime. To the extent that the Senate committee has made news, it has to do
with Sen. Arlen Specter's passing mention of the "I"-word on Fox News
Sunday, the suggestion being that Mr. Clinton might yet be impeached.

Unless the Republicans conducting these hearings want to add their names to
the "we're so sorry" list above, they should be leery of the "I"-word,
which suggests a political agenda before the facts are in. And they better
be careful of seeking immunity given that prosecutors, reportedly "livid"
over the pardon, see it as a threat to possible criminal investigations.
Remember that Mr. Clinton ignored the wishes of prosecutors when he gave
Rich a pardon, and some day even he may come to regret it.