LAW-ABIDING FOLKS DON'T FEAR THE TRUTH

In simple terms, the legal dancing around the issue of who in the Clinton White House should be compelled to testify to a grand jury is like trying to waltz when the band is playing a tango. The arguments that have been offered by the president's legal crew don't quite match up to the issues at hand.

For example, when Clinton sought to persuade a federal judge that Secret Service agents shouldn't be forced to testify about the president's personal activities inside the executive mansion, this was the line of reasoning: If agents had to tell everything they know about what goes on in the nation's most exclusive residence, it might put the chief executive in peril. Why, such a breach of confidence between the protected and his protectors could even precipitate an assassination.

Baloney!

Of course, U.S. District Judge Norma Holloway Johnson used more refined language in her decision that literally scoffed at the White House arguments. She said she didn't think having Secret Service agents testify before a grand jury would put a president's life at risk.

Holloway's exact words -- or a portion of them, at least -- would look good chiseled over the entrance to the Supreme Court building and over the front entrance to the White House: "When people act within the law, they do not ordinarily push away those they trust or rely upon for fear that their actions will be reported to a grand jury."

In short, if you haven't done anything wrong, Mr. President, why are you so jittery about having your personal Secret Service agents answer a few grand jury questions?

But the arguing doesn't stop there. There are others close to the president who are being sought out for the information they could provide to a grand jury about the president's actions. Clinton is claiming they are entitled to executive privilege or attorney-client privilege -- or just about any privilege he can think of to keep them out of the secret proceedings of a grand jury.

Kenneth Starr, the independent counsel who wants to hear this testimony, has demonstrated he can engage in push-and-shove with the best of them. He has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to hear arguments this month on the issue of who can and can't be compelled to testify. Even though he received a favorable ruling from the federal judge, he wants the High Court to have its say on the Secret Service and lay the matter to rest.

Interestingly, the White House -- represented, in this instance, by Attorney General Janet Reno's Justice Department -- is doing everything in its power to keep the Secret Service issue out of the Supreme Court's grasp for fear the ultimate decision will require Secret Service agents to respond to Starr's subpoenas.

Those who are critical of Starr and his tactics must be patient. And they must remember that Starr continues to live up to the highest of legal standards, unlike many of the legal beagles who have been drawn in to this fracas by the White House. Starr refuses to air publicly his every strategy, preferring to present what he has learned when the time is appropriate -- and to the appropriate authorities, which in this case could be the House of Representatives in an effort to get a bill of impeachment.