Regarding the March 21 editorial, ”Leak inquiry should be shut off”:
Did the writer who is so emotional about a probe into the ”confidential relationships reporters cultivate” and ”trampling over the 1st Amend-ment” have any concern when the press was trampling over any considerations of confiden-tiality, or ethics, to dig up any dirt they could find on Clarence Thomas? Not likely. The writer`s terminology of a witch hunt would much more properly be applied to the treatment by the press of Mr. Thomas.
The leak was of confidential FBI information and subjected the nominee to treatment he quite correctly characterized as a lynching. The lurid charges of Anita Hill were thus tried in the sensational atmosphere of a televised congressional hearing rather than in a legal way, which would have preserved the confidentiality of the charges until proven.
This malicious leak is definitely a proper subject of inquiry, and the senator responsible richly deserves to be identified. Maybe his constituency will take it as lightly as your writer and he will be thought of as a hero. On the other hand, he may still have constituents with some regard for law and justice in these matters who would like to throw him out. Let`s let the voters decide-not the press.
