| |
| | NewStandard: 9/18/98 |
 | | Jaworski's initial reply to Haig was: "After what happened to Archibald Cox, why should I accept?" Finally, receiving assurances that he would be free to follow all of the intrigues of Watergate to a conclusion -- even if the trail led into the Oval Office itself -- Jaworski reluctantly accepted the offer. |
 | | According to the judge, Jaworski always "dealt with facts and with the basic data," never with speculative inferences, innuendo or ambiguities "that might flow from those facts." And, again, above all, "Jaworski always sought to be fair," recalled the judge shortly before his death. |
 | | Unlike Jaworski, whose reports dealt exclusively with verifiable and objective facts, Starr's was clearly an "advocacy document" which piled inference on inference, surmise on surmise and conclusion upon conclusion, frequently predicated on the vaguest of ambiguities. |
| www.southcoasttoday.com /daily/09-98/09-18-98/b04op058.htm (1422 words) |
|