Hillary's Webb.

Hubbell cops a plea.

Mr. York is an investigative writer with The American Spectator.

To anyone familiar with the charges against him, Webster Hubbell gave an impressive performance outside the federal courthouse in Washington on June 30.

Hubbell, the former Clinton confidant and Justice Department official who has already served time in jail for defrauding his law clients, had just pleaded guilty to felony charges arising from the sham real-estate deal known as Castle Grande. But he was angry at reporters, who, he said, had gotten the story all wrong.

"The media reported . . . that I had agreed to plead guilty to lying to regulators, to cover up Mrs. Clinton's transactions and involvement in the IDC Castle Grande real-estate transaction," Hubbell said, his voice quivering. "That is absolutely not true. Mrs. Clinton did nothing wrong, and what I pled to has nothing to do with Mrs. Clinton or Castle Grande or the failure of Madison Savings and Loan."

Really? According to court papers, Hubbell pleaded guilty to Count One of the 15-count indictment against him (the other counts were dropped as part of the plea deal). It's worth wading through the legalese of the indictment to compare his speech on the courthouse steps with the exact charge to which he pleaded guilty (please note that the "1985-1986 billing partner" refers to the First Lady).

From in or about March 1989 until on or about December 27, 1995, in the District of Columbia and elsewhere, Defendant Webster L. Hubbell . . . did knowingly and willfully falsify, conceal, and cover up by scheme material facts about and related to the true nature of Defendant Webster L. Hubbell's, the Rose Firm's, and the 1985-1986 billing partner's relationships to and with Seth Ward, Madison Guaranty, Madison Financial, and the IDC/Castle Grande transactions, and he did make materially false and fraudulent statements and representations to the FDIC and the RTC about the true nature of Defendant Webster L. Hubbell's, the Rose Firm's, and the 1985-1986 billing partner's relationships to and with Seth Ward, Madison Guaranty, Madison Financial, and the IDC/Castle Grande transactions.

So despite what Hubbell said, he did plead guilty to lying to regulators. And the charges had everything to do with Mrs. Clinton, Castle Grande, and the failure of Madison Savings and Loan.

But Hubbell, through his lawyer, John Nields, is not yielding an inch. Nields says Hubbell admitted to just one specific crime out of the many detailed in Count One: failing to tell regulators about a relatively minor conflict of interest involving an Arkansas company called Precision Industries. "It is unambiguously true that the only thing Webb admitted that he did is the Precision Industries thing," Nields says. "But if he admits that he did any of the things in Count One, he's guilty of Count One. It doesn't mean he did all of those things."

This is the kind of legal reasoning that allows defendants to go in front of the cameras and claim they're innocent. But Hubbell's denials can't conceal the fact that the plea was-at least in one sense-a victory for independent counsel Kenneth Starr. Count One is a summary of some of the most serious charges in the Whitewater scandal. Even at this late date-more than five years into the probe- Hubbell's admission of guilt validates the premise of the independent counsel's investigation. There was a Whitewater cover-up; it started in Little Rock, continued through the 1992 presidential campaign, and then moved to Washington with the Clinton administration.

On the other hand, Hubbell's no-jail plea bargain was a surrender by Starr, because it forced the independent counsel to concede that he couldn't win a Whitewater trial.

Starr's two most recent prosecutions, against Susan McDougal and Julie Hiatt Steele, both ended in hung juries. Especially in the McDougal case, the evidence of guilt was overwhelming. Yet Starr still lost. It seems highly unlikely that he would have done any better with Hubbell, a reality Starr admitted when he spoke to reporters after the plea hearing. "Recent experience has indicated to us that it is extraordinarily difficult to identify and find jurors who are able to set aside totally their understandings and preconceptions," he said. The ongoing furor over his investigation-generated by the White House campaign against Starr and his prosecutors-"has made it exceedingly difficult for the administration of justice to be carried on in an orderly way."

A Hubbell trial promised to be even more difficult than McDougal's and Steele's because the judge assigned to the case is deeply hostile to Starr. James Robertson, a Clinton appointee, has thrown out several of Starr's charges (only to be overturned by higher courts when Starr appealed). Robertson has also been openly critical of the independent counsel, sometimes using phrases that could have come straight from James Carville. Even if Starr had gone through with the trial and won, it's hard to imagine Robertson sending Hubbell to jail. Put all those factors together and Starr had lots of reasons to make a deal with Hubbell.

But what about Hubbell's side of things? If he could count on winning, what was his incentive to plead guilty to a felony? He's already taken a beating: jail, disbarment, and few job prospects outside Lippo-related businesses (which allegedly funneled him hush money after he was forced from the Justice Department). Why not go to trial and force Starr to endure another embarrassing hung jury? After the mistrial, the independent counsel would have to announce, as he has before, that he would not retry the case. Then it would all be over.

It might have worked-but Hubbell had his own reasons to settle. As part of the deal, Starr agreed to drop criminal tax charges against Hubbell's wife, his lawyer, and his accountant. Also, Hubbell will save a bundle in legal fees by not going through with the trial. And with the agreement, he's finally out of Starr's sights, giving him what Nields calls "absolute, total, final closure."

But Hubbell could have gotten all of that by making a deal months ago. Why plead now? Perhaps because a new incentive had entered the picture: the New York  Senate campaign of Hillary Rodham Clinton.

The Castle Grande indictment referred to the First Lady more than 30 times; the charges implied that she had been as deeply involved in illegal activities as Hubbell. The trial had been scheduled for August 9, which would have fallen right in the middle of Mrs. Clinton's summertime "listening tour" of New York State. Starr had already placed her name on the witness list, and she was sure to be asked about her extensive decade-of-greed financial dealings-not something any candidate would care to discuss.

Nields says the Clinton campaign "wasn't a factor at all" in Hubbell's decision. But long after his departure from the administration, Hubbell stayed in contact with White House representatives and has been careful to obey their wishes. Just remember the famous prison tapes of conversations between Hubbell and his wife.

"Marsha [White House official Marsha Scott] said you're not going to get any public support if you open up on Hillary," Hubbell's wife told him at one point.

"I would not do that," Hubbell responded, later adding the famous line, "So I need to roll over one more time."

Now Hubbell has rolled over yet again. But he's also rolled Kenneth Starr. In his post-plea statement, Hubbell made it clear that he won't cooperate by giving prosecutors information on the Clintons. "I told the Office of Independent Counsel, as I told them five years ago," Hubbell said, "that I have no knowledge of any wrongdoing on behalf of the president or Mrs. Clinton." Such defiance must rankle the independent counsel, but given the odds against him, Starr had to accept the deal and bring the Whitewater investigation to an end-with Hubbell's stone wall still standing.