"She comes not to expose political corruption, but to bury it."
- i.e., Janet Reno is obstructing justice and acting as a political agent of the Clintonistas/Dems-
from the lead editorial of the New York Times:
July 19, 1998
Law School for Janet Reno
By studying the transcript of last week's Senate Judiciary Committee
hearing, it is possible to reconstruct one of the more remarkable
internal documents of the Clinton Administration. That is the tightly reasoned,
27-page legal memorandum in which Louis Freeh, the Director of the
Federal Bureau of Investigation, told Attorney General Janet Reno that she
was failing in her duty to appoint an independent counsel to investigate
President Clinton's fund-raising.
The memo, as described by Senator Fred Thompson, lists seven key points
that refute every reason Ms. Reno has advanced for blocking an independent
investigation of the China connection, Vice President Al Gore's telephone
solicitations, Clinton's White House coffees and other tawdry aspects of the
Democrats' 1996 fund-raising. There is not room for the entire list here, but
Freeh starts by pointing out that the law is based on the view that it is a prima
facie conflict of interest for "the Attorney General to investigate her superiors"
in the White House. Freeh also cites the legislative history of the Independent
Counsel Act to show that Ms. Reno's theory that she had to have "an actual
conflict, instead of the appearance of a conflict," is imaginary. Finally, he
reasons that the Attorney General has a responsibility to appoint an
independent counsel when the F.B.I. Director, as her "chief investigator has
concluded that there is a political conflict of interest."
A handful of Republicans and Democrats have known about the Freeh memo
for some months. Freeh probably wants it more widely known on grounds of
principle and also to avoid having his career tainted by the Attorney General's
refusal to follow Federal law. Frustration among Senate Republicans is
mounting. There is talk of using budget pressure or putting a hold on Clinton
Administration nominations to force Ms. Reno to act. The most aggressive
proposal comes from Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania. He has drafted
a petition for a writ of mandamus, which is a court order that requires a
public official to carry out a legal duty. Specter says he believes he can sign
up a majority of Republican senators and that this group would have standing
to petition a Federal court, possibly as early as August.
What drives the Republicans is the conviction that Ms. Reno is allowing the
Justice Department's investigation of foreign contributions and Chinese
Government meddling in the 1996 election to crumble. Only an outsider, they
believe, will follow the many trails that lead to the White House. But there is
also an undercurrent of lawyerly disbelief, especially among senators who
were practicing attorneys. They simply cannot comprehend that Ms. Reno
could so persistently misread the discretionary provision of the Independent
Counsel Act, which basically assumes voluntary recusal on the part of an
Attorney General once a Justice Department investigation touches on the
President or other high officials.
That accounts for Senator Hatch's by-the-numbers tone in lecturing Ms.
Reno last week. "You have conflicts of interest. There may have been crimes
committed," he said. "And that's why the independent counsel statute was
passed to begin with, and that is to take it out of your hands, so you don't
have to be accused of conflict of interest."
Ms. Reno didn't get it. When the current leader of her own campaign
investigation, Charles LaBella, quits later this summer, many senators expect
him to send Ms. Reno a report recommending appointment of an
independent counsel. The fact that LaBella has spent the last nine months
studying the evidence is not expected to influence Ms. Reno. She comes not
to expose political corruption, but to bury it.
nytimes.com |
