Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Did Slick Boink Monica? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: DD™ who wrote (16892)	7/15/1998 7:18:00 AM
From: Zoltan!	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 20981

Whither Justice? Attorney General Janet Reno deserves tough questioning when she appears today before the Senate Judiciary Committee. The biggest question is the same one people have always asked about her tenure: Is Janet Reno's Justice Department part of the problem or part of the solution? The problem is not primarily culpability; it is accountability. Sufficient, serious questions have been raised about the manner in which this White House raised money for the last Presidential campaign that the public at least deserves some answers. It can use the voting booth this fall and in 2000 to vote thumbs up or down on those answers. But instead of providing a solution to a problem of public trust, Ms. Reno's Justice Department continues to perform in a manner which ensures that these questions will drift away like so many soap bubbles. Yesterday, as an example, her department hoisted what surely appears to be another boulder onto the stonewall around the Starr investigation. Justice announced that it would appeal to the full U.S. Court of Appeals the recent order by a three-judge panel that Secret Service officials testify in the independent counsel's criminal probe of the Lewinsky affair. The Justice Department's attempt to create an entirely novel "protective function" privilege on President Clinton's behalf has now been rejected twice by the courts. Though the appeals panel noted the idea was not entirely unreasonable, it concluded that the investigatory needs of this case outweighed any such privilege. Translation: There's enough here to merit getting to the bottom of it. Relatedly, a federal appeals court ruling is imminent on yet another White House privilege claim--that of Clinton counselor Bruce Lindsey that his conversations with the President are protected by attorney-client privilege and therefore he may refuse to answer questions before the Starr grand jury. Translation: Because Bruce Lindsey has a law license, anything he and Bill Clinton ever talk about is "privileged." Ergo, the Clinton-Lindsey partnership is accountable to no authority under U.S. law. As a consequence, these matters will most likely wander the long and winding road toward a final reckoning with the Supreme Court sometime around October. Talk show hosts will conclude that the American people are tired of it all. Translation: Stonewalling works. It might be truer to say that people are not so much tired as they are discouraged. They become discouraged, for example, when they read a story on the New York Times front page yesterday that the Justice Department's campaign finance task force is on a slow boat to oblivion. Some 21 months after allegations of significant improprieties surfaced, Times' reporters Don Van Natta and David Johnston write, "law enforcement officials concede they have no big cases to show for their effort and express doubts that they will obtain evidence to warrant prosecution of senior White House or Democratic Party officials." Justice officials doubt they will ever get answers to "the heart of the inquiry: whether there was a plot by the Chinese military behind contributions to the Democratic Party." Earlier this year, Senator Fred Thompson's investigating committee voted out a report identifying six campaign finance figures--senior DNC operative John Huang, Indonesian tycoons James and Mochtar Riady, fund-raisers Charlie Trie and Maria Hsia, and businessman Ted Sioeng--as having ties to the Communist regime in China. The principals have denied the accusations, and Democrats on the Thompson Committee contended the evidence was inconclusive. With the exception of the glad-handing former Little Rock restaurateur Charlie Trie, no one who could remotely be termed a central figure has been indicted. The others rounded up by the Justice task force are all small fry, as reflected in Monday's indictment of Thai businesswoman Pauline Kanchanalak for making more than $600,000 in illegal donations to Democratic Party entities from 1992 through 1996. Ms. Kanchanalak lit out for Thailand a long time ago, destroying records on the way out. Ms. Reno's appearance before the Judiciary Committee should serve as a reminder that Monica Lewinsky is not Mr. Clinton's only problem. The heart of the campaign finance scandal, as we have noted before, rests in the Oval Office, not in Beijing. The President himself launched John Huang's career as a senior DNC fund-raising emissary at a September 13, 1995, meeting that included Mr. Huang, James Riady of Indonesia, Arkansas operator and Asia-traveling middleman Joseph Giroir, and Bruce Lindsey, who as we know is bound by attorney-client privilege. Indeed, the unifying theme of all Mr. Clinton's problems--from the Whitewater investigation to the present day--is one of obstructive intent. Don't ask the Clinton team about anything because they don't have to tell--and never will. For the record, the Judiciary Committee should make this Administration's Attorney General explain one more time why her Justice Department is the solution to the needs of public accountability. interactive.wsj.com