Weekly corruption update:
Published in the Aug. 9, 1999 issue of The Washington Weekly
Copyright 1999 The Washington Weekly (http://www.federal.com)
Reposting permitted with this message intact
Subject:
Chairman Burton Details DOJ Cover-Up of Chinagate
Date:
Sun, 8 Aug 1999 12:26:41 -0400 (EDT)
From:
Washington Weekly <wweekly@federal.com>
CHAIRMAN BURTON DETAILS DOJ COVER-UP OF CHINAGATE
[Testimony of Chairman Dan Burton Before the Subcommittee on
Rules and Organization of the House, Thursday, July 15, 1999]
Shortly after I became Chairman of the Committee on Government
Reform, I began an investigation of campaign fundraising
irregularities. Today, I will not go into the findings of that
investigation. Instead, I will share some of my insights into how
the Justice Department has failed to do its job, and how the
Attorney General and her political appointees have placed
roadblocks in front of my Committee. What began as an inquiry
into illegal campaign fundraising has now become, in part,
oversight of the Justice Department's failure to do the business
of the American people.
Before I summarize my findings, I would like to note my concern
over the death of the Independent Counsel law. The Independent
Counsel law was not perfect. It had its flaws. But we have far
more serious problems now that it has expired. What happens when
an Attorney General must investigate her boss or political party?
Remember, in the campaign fundraising scandal, the main targets
were not only high ranking government officials, but also the
people who ran a political party. The party itself was directly
implicated. And the Attorney General's professional career was
primarily as an elected official of that same party. There
couldn't be a clearer conflict of interest, and that is precisely
what FBI Director Freeh and chief prosecutor LaBella told the
Attorney General.
In my view, there is no way that the head of the Justice
Department can investigate her boss and her political party and
maintain the confidence of the American people. By conducting
what has clearly been a failed investigation, Janet Reno further
eroded the people's respect for the Department of Justice. In my
view, this is Attorney General Reno's legacy P through
incompetence and partisan zeal, she has managed to bring the
Justice Department to shame and disrepute. Confidence in the
Department's ability to work for the American people is at an
all- time low.
In the next few weeks, I will introduce legislation to create a
bipartisan panel to choose a pool of qualified individuals who
can be called upon to serve as Justice Department special
prosecutors. This process will avoid the constitutional problems
of the Independent Counsel law, but it will permit individuals
from outside the Administration to supervise sensitive Justice
Department investigations.
Now let me summarize my concerns with the Justice Department and
Attorney General Reno. Before I start, though, let me play a
tape. I think it is a very good introduction to how this Justice
Department operates:
[Tape Text]: La Bella: My favorite piece is these two message
slips that I got when I was out of my office. At 12:10 on May
20th I got a call from Chairman Burton. Very important,
please return the call. At, the same day, 12:10, the same
time, it must have been the next phone call, . . . a call
from Craig Iscoe who is in the deputy attorney general's
office, saying don't talk to Dan Burton. Don't talk to
Congressman Burton. So that really says it all. That's
Washington in a nutshell.
FIRST. I am well aware that the Department obstructed
investigations prior to my tenure as Chairman of the Government
Reform Committee. At the beginning of the Clinton Administration,
the de facto head of the Justice Department, Webster Hubbell, had
boxes of Whitewater evidence in his basement while his staff was
trying to decide what to do with criminal referrals that depended
on the very evidence that Hubbell was withholding. When Michael
Dukakis said that a fish rots from the head down, he must have
had Janet Reno's Justice Department in mind.
SECOND. Throughout Chairman Clinger's tenure, the Justice
Department repeatedly stonewalled him. The Travelgate
investigation was maintained as an "open" case even after a
criminal trial completely exonerated Travel Office Director Billy
Dale. These delays needlessly hampered Chairman Clinger's
efforts. In fact, that is a recurring pattern P the Department
keeps investigations open long after it has stopped doing any
work, and then tells Congress that it can't cooperate because the
investigation is ongoing.
THIRD. When Chuck La Bella and Louis Freeh recommended the
appointment of an Independent Counsel, Janet Reno took the
political low road. She sided with her boss and her party. To
this day I imagine that she doesn't even care about the damage
that decision has caused to the Department's reputation. I have
read parts of the Freeh and La Bella memos, and I can tell you
that what they said was really troubling.
Janet Reno's political staff was using a higher threshold for
senior White House political staff than for other citizens. This
is what LaBella said: "The task Force has commenced criminal
investigations of non-covered persons based only on a wisp of
information." He continued by noting that the threshold was much
higher for Clinton Administration political appointees.
It is also clear that investigations would have commenced much
earlier if the people under scrutiny were not White House
officials. Again, here is what LaBella said: If these allegations
involved anyone other than _______, an appropriate investigation
would have commenced months ago without hesitation." I want you
to keep Mr. LaBella's concerns on this point in mind in a few
minutes when I talk about how Janet Reno's politicos allowed
Charlie Trie a major opportunity to destroy evidence when they
refused to authorize a search warrant, even though they had
evidence that his employee was destroying documents.
In addition, the Department went through legal contortions to
avoid moving forward on investigating those at the highest
levels. Again, here is what LaBella actually said in his memo:
"The contortions that the Department has gone through to avoid
investigating these allegations are apparent."
As I've said before, I am deeply troubled by the use of double
standards, with the political colleagues of the Attorney General
getting the benefit of the more lenient standard.
Let's not beat around the bush here. Taken as a whole, these are
allegations of corruption. When you fail to investigate members
of your own political party, or when you apply different
standards to Administration officials than to other citizens, and
when you go through contortions to avoid investigating members of
your party, you are behaving corruptly.
La Bella and Freeh concluded that an Independent Counsel was
necessary. In return, Attorney General Reno's political staff
overruled and belittled them. Even though all agreed he was the
most qualified candidate, Chuck LaBella was even denied the U.S.
Attorney position in San Diego. Janet Reno overruled Freeh and
LaBella and continued giving preferential treatment to her
political allies. Although Washington is a town where the
President debates the meaning of the word "is," where I come
from, failure to apply the law evenhandedly, and giving your
political allies special treatment is corruption.
FOURTH. Speaking of corruption, over a year ago, we gave
information to the Justice Department about a friend of the
Attorney General. This information alleges that the Attorney
General's friend illegally obtained sensitive, classified
information from the Justice Department. According to information
received by the Committee, this friend of the Attorney General
even suggested paying money to a Justice Department employee who
helped obtain some of the illegal information. One document we
have says that the person the author talked to "confirmed that
Steel Hector was hired due to the relationship with the Attorney
General." Steel Hector is a big Miami law firm where Attorney
General Reno once worked. The memo goes on to point out that Reno
and the sister of the lawyer hired are "good friends." Other
documents indicate that the Department changed a policy related
to release of information so that this person could help her
client. This policy change, according to one memo obtained by the
Committee was made personally by the Attorney General. Still
another document talks about a "confidential and reliable source"
within the Justice Department. And still another memo obtained by
the Committee states that the confidential source within the
Department would not come forward publicly "due to her pension
may be at risk if she was exposed. She added an offer may have
been made as to severance pay by the client if that resulted."
The "she" here is the lawyer who is friends with the Attorney
General.
Janet Reno has steadfastly refused to investigate her friend.
Again, this is corruption.
FIFTH. On a related note, Janet Reno's political appointees
dropped the ball completely when it came to prosecuting a
Democratic fundraiser who raised illegal campaign money in
Venezuela. To make matters worse, her political appointees have
interfered with our investigation of this matter. Last winter, we
asked the Justice Department to provide information for this
investigation on DEA policies relating to computer access. For
six months, a Justice Department official refused to provide this
information, claiming the DEA would not provide it to him. Just
two days ago, we found out that the DEA had never been informed
that the Committee wanted this information. As soon as the DEA
found out about the Committee's request, they worked to give us
an answer. But in the meantime, the Justice Department kept the
Committee from finding out critical information for six months.
Is it a coincidence that this information relates to our
investigation of a Democratic fundraiser from Miami?
SIXTH. Let's talk about the Department's handling of the Charlie
Trie investigation. Campaign Task Force investigators knew that
Trie's bookkeeper was destroying documents relating to Trie. They
asked for a search warrant. FBI agents were even sent to Little
Rock to execute the search warrant. Janet Reno's handpicked
political advisers turned down the request. Months went by
before the search took place. I just wonder if Attorney General
Reno is proud of the head start that she gave Mr. Trie. It really
is hard to know whose interests she is representing.
SEVENTH. Speaking of Charlie Trie, it is impossible to leave out
the slap on the wrist that the Justice Department has agreed to
give both Charlie Trie and John Huang. The Department has
promised them no prison time at all P maybe some community
service, but no prison time. The Justice Department even promised
to give John Huang back his voting rights. When U.S. Attorneys
outside of Washington, D.C. have prosecuted conduit contributors
recently they have managed to get prison time or, at the very
least, home incarceration. Why the kid gloves treatment for
Presidential friends Huang and Trie?
EIGHTH. I also wonder what happened to the Attorney General's
promised investigation of leaks within the Department. I have yet
to hear her condemn those of her employees who leaked material
damaging to the campaign finance investigation. I intend to ask
for all records relating to these so-called investigations. When
the White House accused Independent Counsel Starr of leaks, the
Justice Department went to work investigating vigorously. When
the Attorney General's political people run interference for the
Administration, the Department is noticeably silent. This Justice
Department investigates if there is political benefit, but it is
silent when real crimes have been committed.
NINTH. Turning to national security, it was the Attorney
General's political staff who reviewed search warrant requests
for records at Los Alamos. It appears that her political people
weren't really all that concerned with national security. The FBI
tried to get permission for wiretaps of Wen Ho Lee three times.
They wanted to find out if he was passing information to the
Communist Chinese that would endanger the security of every man,
woman and child in this country. The Justice Department turned
the FBI down all three times.
TENTH. One of the greatest hurdles facing the Committee is the
routine failure by the Department to produce documents in a
timely manner. Earlier I mentioned a specific example involving
DEA documents. The excuses are endless. And the Department hides
behind legally unsupportable readings of the Federal Rules of
Criminal Procedure. At all times, the Department has behaved as
though it was defense counsel for the President, and not a
servant of the Constitution and the American people.
ELEVENTH. When law and politics collide, the political appointees
at the Justice Department seem to ignore the law. Take for
instance an anecdote from the recent Bob Woodward book. In May of
1996, White House Counsel Jack Quinn was voted in contempt of
Congress by my Committee for failure to turn over subpoenaed
documents. This is what Mr. Woodward says in his book: "Quinn was
confident he wouldn't be sent to jail. Lawyers in the Justice
Department had assured him they would not prosecute even if the
full House of Representatives cited him for contempt." How many
layers of corruption does this statement reveal? First, Justice
Department lawyers decided they would simply ignore the law P
that they would do a favor for the President's lawyer. Then they
told Jack Quinn what they had already decided. I bet that there
are a lot of criminal defendants and defense attorneys who would
like that sort of help from the Justice Department.
TWELFTH. In August 1998, Committee investigators interviewed Jack
Ho. Jack Ho helped one of Charlie Trie's associates funnel
$25,000 in foreign money to the DNC. In the course of
interviewing Ho, Committee staff learned that Ho had never been
contacted by the Justice Department. After the Committee informed
the Justice Department of Ho's existence, the Department
scrambled to interview him. Mr. Ho later told the Committee that
in the course of his Justice Department interview, investigators
told him that he did not have to cooperate with the Committee.
Not only does the Justice Department obstruct us, the Attorney
General's people have gone out of their way to tell others not to
cooperate.
THIRTEENTH. When we asked to talk to lawyers at the Department
who could shed some light on why the Attorney General's advisers
decided to let the statute of limitations expire on Florida
fundraiser Charles Intriago, we were given a stiff arm. Five
years ago, when Democratic Chairman Dingell wanted to talk to the
same types of lawyers, he was given full access. Once again,
just like the flip-flop over supporting and then opposing the
Independent Counsel statute and the use of different standards
for top White House officials, I wonder why the Attorney General
makes decision to benefit Democrats and then changes her policies
or her mind when she is investigating Democrats?
Janet Reno has run the most politicized Justice Department since
the Teapot Dome scandal of the 1920s. This Department might even
be worse. The legacy she will leave is one of public cynicism and
professional frustration. There have been times that even the FBI
hasn't been able to trust the Attorney General's political staff.
I, for one, think there should be a major house cleaning, and
that someone of the stature of FBI Director Freeh should be put
in charge of the Department to restore the integrity that has
been lost over the last six years. It couldn't happen a minute
too soon.
I welcome your questions.
Published in the Aug. 9, 1999 issue of The Washington Weekly
Copyright 1999 The Washington Weekly (http://www.federal.com)
Reposting permitted with this message intact |
