[Senate Hearing 106-1073]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 106-1073
THE CHARLES LA BELLA MEMORANDUM
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATIVE OVERSIGHT AND THE COURTS
of the
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
MAY 2, 2000
__________
Serial No. J-106-78
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
75-238 WASHINGTON : 2001
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpr.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah, Chairman
STROM THURMOND, South Carolina PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont
CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts
ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania JOSEPH R. BIDEN, Jr., Delaware
JON KYL, Arizona HERBERT KOHL, Wisconsin
MIKE DeWINE, Ohio DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California
JOHN ASHCROFT, Missouri RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin
SPENCER ABRAHAM, Michigan ROBERT G. TORRICELLI, New Jersey
JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York
BOB SMITH, New Hampshire
Manus Cooney, Chief Counsel and Staff Director
Bruce A. Cohen, Minority Chief Counsel
------
Subcommittee on Administrative Oversight and the Courts
CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa, Chairman
JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama ROBERT G. TORRICELLI, New Jersey
STROM THURMOND, South Carolina RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin
SPENCER ABRAHAM, Michigan CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York
Kolan Davis, Chief Counsel
Matt Tanielian, Minority Chief Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS
Page
Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., a U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont. 3
Sessions, Hon. Jeff, a U.S. Senator from the State of Alabama.... 8
Specter, Hon. Arlen, a U.S. Senator from the State of
Pennsylvania................................................... 1
Thurmond, Hon. Strom, a U.S. Senator from the State of South
Carolina....................................................... 7
WITNESS
La Bella, Charles G., Supervising Attorney, Campaign Financing
Task Force, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC......... 9
SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD
Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC, letter
to Attorney General Janet Reno, dated July 22, 1999............ 37
La Bella, Charles G., memorandum, November 30, 1997.............. 138
La Bella, Charles G., Supervising Attorney, Campaign Financing
Task Force and James DeSarno, Assistant Director, CAMPCON Task
Force, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Washington, DC, Interim
Report, July 16, 1998.......................................... 41
Specter, Hon. Arlen, a U.S. Senator from the State of
Pennsylvania, letter to Attorney General Janet Reno, dated
September 29, 1999............................................. 38
THE CHARLES LA BELLA MEMORANDUM
----------
TUESDAY, MAY 2, 2000
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on Administrative Oversight
and the Courts,
Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:33 a.m., in
room SD-106, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Arlen Specter
presiding.
Also present: Senators Thurmond, Sessions, and Leahy.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ARLEN SPECTER, A U.S. SENATOR FROM
THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA
Senator Specter. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. The
hour of 9:30 a.m. having arrived, the subcommittee on
Department of Justice oversight will now proceed.
This hearing had originally been scheduled for May the 3rd
but was moved back a day when the committee had scheduled
hearings on the matter involving young Elian Gonzalez so that
notice was given for today's hearing. Our hearing today will
focus on the report of Charles La Bella, on his recommendation
to the Attorney General for the appointment of independent
counsel to inquire into campaign financing for the 1996
Presidential election covering both Republicans and Democrats.
It is part of a broader series which also involved a report
from FBI Director Louis Freeh dated November 24, 1997, where
Director Freeh, like Mr. La Bella, recommended that the
Attorney General appoint independent counsel. It is the
intention of the subcommittee to hear from Director Freeh on
this subject and on his memorandum of November 24, 1997, where
he recommended independent counsel.
Another memorandum has been prepared by FBI General Counsel
Larry Parkinson dated November 20, 1998, and it may be that we
will call Mr. Parkinson as a witness as well.
It is not within the subcommittee's choosing to have a
hearing in the midst of the Presidential election. Very
strenuous efforts have been made to obtain this La Bella report
for a long time. The La Bella report is dated July 16, 1998.
One week later, on July 23, 1998, I wrote to the Attorney
General requesting a copy of the La Bella report and received
no response.
On July 22, 1999, Senator Hatch and I wrote to the Attorney
General requesting all documents relating to the 1996 Federal
election campaigns which would have comprehended the La Bella
report, and the staff of the Department of Justice responded by
providing a smattering of information but no La Bella report.
On September 29, 1999, a follow-up letter was written to
the Attorney General requesting documents which included the La
Bella report, and again no response.
The La Bella report has not been made available to
committees looking into campaign finance reform such as the
Governmental Affairs Committee, but very heavily redacted
copies were made available to chairmen and ranking members of
some congressional committees with the prohibition against
taking notes and the prohibition against having any copies.
I finally had consent to have my Judiciary Committee
counsel David Brog invited to the DOJ offices to review the
partially redacted copy of the report on March 15 of this year,
and when he got there, he was denied access to the report. And,
finally, the Judiciary Committee on a party-line vote, 10-8,
issued a subpoena on the La Bella report and the Freeh report
and the Parkinson report and the Brian report, and other
documents were turned over to the committee under an
arrangement where they were deposited in S-407, which is not in
strict compliance with the subpoena; but at the risk of not
receiving the documents at all, they were received in S-407
under restrictions which first limited access even to members
of this subcommittee, which has subsequently been broadened,
but prohibiting taking out of those reports from S-407, which I
think is not a valid restriction but in the interest of caution
have not challenged that determination. So we will be
proceeding today without having documents present, but I have
read them, others have read them, so we are in a position to
proceed. And we will deal with the broader public disclosure of
those documents at a later time.
The issues which are involved here relate in very
substantial measure to soft money and the so-called issue ads,
and it was even before the La Bella report when efforts,
unsuccessful efforts, were made to obtain information from the
Department of Justice on this issue.
Slightly more than 3 years ago, I questioned the Attorney
General in a Judiciary Committee hearing about the so-called
issue ads on soft money, and the following day, May 1, 1997,
wrote her a lengthy letter, which I will cite only one of the
ads, because it sets the foundation for Mr. La Bella's
testimony. And this is one of the so-called issue ads:
``Protecting families. For millions of working families,
President Clinton cut taxes. The Dole-Gingrich budget tried to
raise taxes on 8 million people. The Dole-Gingrich budget would
have slashed Medicare $270 billion, cut college scholarships.
The President defended our values, protected Medicare, now a
tax cut of $1,500 a year for the first 2 years of college. Most
community college is free. Help adults go back to school. The
President's plan protects our values.''
Now, inexplicably, at least in my judgment, this has been
categorized as an issue ad which can be paid for by soft money,
which does not count against so-called campaign contributions.
I wrote to the Attorney General on May 1. She wrote back on
June 19 declining to comment, saying the matter was for the
Federal Election Commission. The subject was pursued by me with
the Attorney General at a later hearing, pointing out that
there were criminal provisions to the violations and that the
Department of Justice and the Attorney General as chief law
enforcement officer had jurisdiction there, but, again, to no
avail in receiving a response.
Today's hearing will involve discussion, extended
discussion of the independent counsel statute, and on one
specific provision where, under a 1987 amendment, the Congress
added a provision that the Attorney General shall not base a
determination that there are no reasonable grounds to believe
that further investigation is warranted upon a determination
that such person lacked the state of mind required for the
violation of criminal law involved unless there is clear and
convincing evidence that the person lacked such state of mind.
That provision of law was added because on so many occasions
the Department of Justice had declined to proceed with an
investigation under the independent counsel statute on the
excuse that there was not a showing of criminal intent. And the
conference report cited the example of Attorney General Edwin
Meese in theEnvironmental Protection Agency case where the
Attorney General declined to appoint independent counsel, request
independent counsel, to investigate whether Edward Schmults, the Deputy
Attorney General, had obstructed a congressional inquiry, with Attorney
General Meese saying there was a lack of evidence of criminal intent,
notwithstanding very substantial evidence to the contrary, which led to
this rule of law in the statute that there could be no declination to
proceed in the absence of clear and convincing evidence that there was
not criminal intent since that had been the excuse in the past.
Now, that is, believe it or not, a somewhat abbreviated
statement of some of the very complex issues we will be facing
in today's hearing, but I thought we ought to lay some of the
groundwork, which I have just done.
I yield now to the ranking member of the full committee,
Senator Leahy.
STATEMENT OF HON. PATRICK J. LEAHY, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE
STATE OF VERMONT
Senator Leahy. Well, thank you, Senator Specter. I
appreciate you making the opportunity for me to make an opening
statement. As we know, Senator Torricelli, who is the ranking
member of this subcommittee, had made it clear some time ago
that he could not be available today. And I am aware of the way
schedules were changed around.
The chairman has outlined for the committee the scope of
the campaign finance investigation he wished to pursue in the
earlier statements and would hope this would not be dealing
with campaign finance generally but would be targeted at the
three convictions obtained by the Justice Department's campaign
finance task force pursuant to plea agreements with John Huang
and Charlie Trie and Johnny Chung. And, of course, it is within
the rights of the Republican majority to review the plea
agreements and sentences in these three cases if that is their
priority, if that is how they choose to focus the attention of
this committee. And I have stated that before. It is their
determination and their right to have as many investigations as
they want.
Incidentally, it is nice to see you again, Mr. La Bella.
Mr. La Bella. Nice to see you, Senator.
Senator Leahy. And I enjoyed our other talks we have had
with Senator Hatch and you earlier.
To the extent that the plea agreements for Johnny Chung and
Charlie Trie and John Huang are deserving of this
subcommittee's scrutiny, Mr. La Bella actually may be able to
resolve the concerns of some of our members. Mr. La Bella, you
were the supervisor of the task force September 1997 to June
1998. During that time the plea agreement for Mr. Chung was
negotiated by attorneys of the task force. It was approved and
signed by Mr. La Bella.
In addition, as I understand it, the Trie case, in which an
indictment was returned on January 29, 1998, was well underway,
and given the publicly expressed criticisms of the resolution
of these matters achieved by Mr. La Bella's task force, I hope
that the subcommittee will use the opportunity to voice their
concerns to Mr. La Bella, and I think he should have the
opportunity to respond.
Frankly, I think that is far afield from the limited focus
on those three plea agreements to use this hearing in the
subcommittee to reiterate the recommendation of Mr. La Bella
that the Attorney General appoint an independent counsel. That
topic has been explored with the Attorney General before this
committee and with Mr. La Bella before other committees of this
Congress. Indeed, as I understand, Mr. La Bella has offered
public assurances that, whatever his disagreements with the
Attorney General, he believes that her integrity and
independence were beyond reproach. He also recently reiterated
that whatever his frustration with the Department of Justice,
he does not believe that the Attorney General in any way,
shape, or form was protecting anybody, or anyone else at the
Justice Department was politically protecting anybody. We can
go over that ground again, but I thought his answer was pretty
clear on that.
Now, on the other hand, a review of the shortcomings in the
campaign finance law would be helpful. According to a recent
press account, Mr. La Bella identified in his investigation
certain flaws in the current campaign finance laws, including
the fact that serious campaign finance offenses are only
misdemeanors and the applicable statute of limitations only 3
years. I agree with Mr. La Bella that these are serious flaws.
That is why I cosponsored S. 1991, a bill that would amend the
Federal Election Campaign Act in just these areas and treat as
felonies violations involving improper contributions
aggregating more than $25,000 in any calendar year. And it
would increase the statute of limitations to 5 years, which is
the standard statute for Federal offenses.
It would give increased direction to the Sentencing
Commission in the area of Federal election violations, and
hopefully we might go into questions of that.
We may well be embarking on a much more free-ranging
endeavor than previously announced. This inquiry has moved from
examining events in Mount Carmel, TX, to the ongoing matter of
Wen Ho Lee, to the plea agreement in the case of Peter Lee. It
is now turning its attention to fundraising activities in the
1996 Federal elections. These have been explored for a number
of years by other congressional committees. They are under
active review at the Department of Justice. In fact, they have
a task force to conduct a thorough analysis and investigation.
And that task force, which for a time was headed by Mr. La
Bella, had launched 121investigations by the end of last year.
Perhaps we should review all 121.
But as of March 31 of this year, the task force had
initiated 24 prosecutions, obtained the conviction of 15
individuals and one corporation. I hope we will not be going
back and second-guessing every one of those.
Questions about the financing of the 1996 Federal elections
have already been the subject of multiple, expensive,
overlapping, repeated, and continued congressional hearings.
For example, in 1997, the Senate Committee on Governmental
Affairs held 32 days of hearings, calling 70 witnesses, at a
cost to the taxpayers of $3.5 million to investigate campaign
finance violations relating to the 1996 Federal elections. And
that doesn't count the millions of dollars spent by those
people who were called.
Then they had another hearing this fall to review the
investigation of Charlie Trie. The House Committee on
Government Reform and Oversight has been investigating campaign
finance violations since June 1997. Chairman Burton has
included over 45 days of hearings. In November 1998, the House
committee issued a four-volume interim report and in 1998
reports spending already $4 million. That was a year and a half
ago.
The Senate Judiciary Committee has already focused
extensively on the campaign finance question in hearings with
Attorney General Reno on April 30, 1997, July 15, 1998, March
12, 1999. We have talked to her about her decision not to call
for the appointment of an independent counsel. We have talked
to her about this to some extent. The chairman actually
threatened to sue her over her decision and, of course, that is
up to him.
Now, we have not questioned her about the times that she
has recommended the appointment of independent counsel over the
last 7 years. I do find it disappointing that we are revisiting
the matter of campaign fundraising in 1996 as we approach the
general elections of November 2000. I wish we were looking at
some of the other matters. We have at least showed some wisdom
in cancelling the Elian Gonzalez hearing tomorrow, as though
there is anything more to know, a hearing which I think would
have been a form of congressional child abuse to call that
little boy up here, Lord knows why, and fortunately, cooler
heads prevailed.
But in the last 2 weeks, we have witnessed the anniversary
of the shooting deaths of 15 at Columbine High School in
Littleton, CO. We have seen the senseless shooting of children
at the National Zoo here in Washington. We had the apparent
hate crime shooting spree last week, saw the shooting of a
Jewish woman, two Asian Americans, a man from India, an
African-American man, but we can't bring up sensible gun safety
laws. We have bottled up action on updated hate crimes
legislation, the Violence Against Women Act reauthorization,
and we won't fill the 79 judicial vacancies. Those are all
things this committee could do. We won't move forward on hate
crimes. We won't move forward on violence against women. We
won't move forward on the juvenile justice bill which is
bottled up in a conference because the gun lobby tells us not
to, but we will continue on campaign finance violations.
We can investigate but apparently not legislate. We know
that a lot of investigations go on. Independent Counsel Kenneth
Starr up to September 30 spent $52 million. We still don't know
how much more he spent, but his successor has spent another $3
or $4 million. As of May 1999, the Justice Department had
detailed 96 employees to help Mr. Starr in his investigations.
Ninety-six, 78 of them FBI agents. He still spent $1.5 million
on other investigators.
We love to investigate. I wish we would legislate. I wish
we would move the hate crimes legislation. I wish we would move
the violence against women legislation. I wish we would move
the juvenile justice bill, notwithstanding the gun lobby's
opposition to it, at least vote on it up or down. But if we are
going to have investigations, we can go on for them, I am
pleased at least that this committee finally showed enough
sense to say that tomorrow we wouldn't be dragging poor Elian
Gonzalez and his father or anybody else before us to rehash
that matter over and over again.
So thank you, Mr. Chairman, for letting me sit in for
Senator Torricelli.
Senator Specter. Thank you, Senator Leahy.
One other comment with respect to timing because, as noted
earlier, we had made very substantial efforts to get the La
Bella report early on. It had been the subcommittee's hope to
conclude any inquiries on the campaign finance matters early
on. When we were talking about structuring the subcommittee
last October, the suggestion was made that we would put
campaign finance ahead of Chinese espionage, try to conclude it
late March, early April. But that bipartisan agreement could
never be worked out. So while there may be talk about the
millions spent by the Governmental Affairs Committee and the
millions spent by the independent counsel run by Mr. Starr,
this subcommittee spent zero, no money, or extra money.
Staffing has been done with the Senators so that we have
proceeded as best we could, and I think rather expeditiously,
with major reports on Wen Ho Lee and hearings on Dr. Peter Lee
and other matters.
Now, Mr. La Bella, if you will stand for the administration
of the oath? Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you will
give before this subcommittee of theJudiciary Committee of the
Senate of the United States will be the truth, the whole truth, and
nothing but the truth, so help you God?
Mr. La Bella. I do.
Senator Specter. Mr. La Bella, we appreciate your being
here. For the record, you are under subpoena. For the record,
your report and all related memoranda and documents are also
under subpoena.
We had sought a relaxation of the rules put on by the
Department of Justice on not bringing reports over here, but at
least for the moment, we do not have that. The Department of
Justice is being represented by Ms. Cheryl Walter, whom I met
yesterday for the first time, a little after 6 p.m. She brought
over a long ream of material so that they wouldn't be given to
us after the hearing, she said, but before the hearing. Staff
worked long hours into the night to review that material. I
wish I had it so I could at least weigh it or show it. And we
would ask again, Ms. Walter, that you reconsider our request to
bring those documents over. One way or another we are going to
do it. It would be more convenient to do it now.
The Department of Justice has not lodged any objection to
our subpoena as to Mr. La Bella. I don't think the Department
of Justice would have any standing or any objection to our
subpoenaing Mr. La Bella's report, which we intend to ask him
about. Is there any comment, Ms. Walter, that you would care to
make on behalf of the Department of Justice?
Ms. Walter. No, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Specter. Thank you.
We have been joined by our illustrious, distinguished
President Pro Tempore of the U.S. Senate, former chairman of
this committee and most other committees in the Senate. Senator
Thurmond, would you care to make an opening statement?
STATEMENT OF HON. STROM THURMOND, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE
OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Senator Thurmond. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I am pleased that Mr. Charles La Bella is
with us today to discuss his memorandum regarding the need for
an independent counsel to investigate campaign finance
irregularities. Mr. La Bella was personally chosen by Attorney
General Reno in September 1997 to lead the Department's
investigation into campaign fundraising abuses because the
matter was being poorly handled by the Department's Public
Integrity Section. At the time, he was widely praised by the
Department of Justice. He was a distinguished career prosecutor
who had a reputation for being aggressive, tough, fair, and
effective.
Less than a year later, he strongly urged the Attorney
General to appoint an independent counsel in a now famous
document that the Department of Justice has made every effort
to keep secret. Even though his views were consistent with
those of many, including FBI Director Louis Freeh, the Attorney
General steadfastly rejected his advice. He was suddenly
criticized and was passed over to be a U.S. Attorney in
California. His detailed report confirms what we have known for
some time: The Attorney General has a duty and obligation under
the independent counsel statute to appoint an independent
prosecutor to investigate the campaign fundraising
irregularities during the Clinton-Gore re-election campaign in
1996. Although the Attorney General did open some extremely
narrow inquiries under the independent counsel statute, she
would always close them. It is clear that her approach to this
case has always been far different from that of any independent
counsel probes that she had approved in the past.
It should be noted that since Mr. La Bella's departure, the
task force has not been entirely dormant. It has successfully
prosecuted some participants, including Maria Hsia, who was
integral to the Vice President's 1996 fundraiser at the
Buddhist temple. However, the task force has also entered some
plea agreements such as for John Huang. In any event, its
accomplishments will be greatly limited if the matter is not
turned over to a special prosecutor.
This subcommittee will later investigate some of these
issues. Although many leads and opportunities have probably
been lost forever, it is still my sincere hope that the
Attorney General will do what is right and appoint an
independent prosecutor in this matter. It is the only way to
restore public trust and confidence in this investigation. I
welcome Mr. La Bella and look forward to his testimony. Thank
you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Specter. Thank you very much, Senator Thurmond.
Senator Sessions.
STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF SESSIONS, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE
OF ALABAMA
Senator Sessions. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I know time is
short, and we want to hear from the witnesses. I would just say
that, with regard to Mr. La Bella, I observed from afar his
selection to head this task force. I believe, and it was said
then, that he was the kind of professional with integrity that
could handle this investigation and, therefore, we would not
need an independent counsel, that the Department of Justice
could do it itself, and that we had a man of integrity and
ability in Mr. La Bella who was going to undertake it. And the
result has not been such that it placed great credit in my view
on the Department of Justice. I am sad to say that, having
spent 15 years of my life working in the Department of Justice.
I believe in the ideals of equal justice under law. I believe
that you can find truth, and I believe you can determine
whether or notpeople have violated laws, and I believe that no
one is above the law. I think that is consistent with American
heritage.
So when Mr. La Bella was not allowed, was not able to
complete the investigation, I thought that was a stunning and
significant event. And then when he was going to be named for
the U.S. Attorney's job in California, I thought it was very,
very sad that he was denied that position simply for doing his
work as a professional, it seems to me.
Now, I am willing, I am open, I want to hear the whole
facts, but it strikes me as very unhealthy what happened here,
and his opinions are the opinions of a professional and career
prosecutor, entitled to great respect, and I am glad we are
going to be hearing from him today.
I would also note that he handled the plea bargain of
Johnny Chung in California and handled it in a way that is, I
believe, fairly consistent with what a professional would do in
a plea bargain arrangements. He insisted on cooperation. He got
it before he made the recommendations for final recommendation
of downward departure and had a plea to legitimate charges. I
am very disturbed to learn that after he left the Department,
with regard to the John Huang case, who had raised $1.6 million
for the Democratic National Committee and the Clinton-Gore
campaign, that Mr. Huang was allowed to plead guilty to $7,500
in contributions to the mayor's race of Los Angeles and not one
dime of his plea affected his fundraising to the Democratic
National Committee, really for the benefit of the Clinton-Gore
campaign. And he got a sweetheart plea, and his cooperation was
never fully obtained. So I would like to ask him a little bit
about that.
Those are some of the things that are on my mind, Mr.
Chairman. Thank you for going through this. It is a thankless
task, your work, but this is a Government of laws and not of
men. I just left a meeting with members of the Russian Duma.
They say corruption is the thing they are most concerned about
in their country. I believe it is a stain on us that we must
constantly fight against, we must constantly be alert to, and
bringing these things to light are important, and thank you for
doing so.
Senator Specter. Thank you very much, Senator Sessions.
Mr. La Bella, again, you are here under subpoena. Your
report is under subpoena. And we would ask you at this time to
proceed with your testimony as to what your investigation found
and what your report said.
Mr. La Bella. You want me just to go to a narrative?
Senator Specter. Well, I would be glad to ask you
questions.
STATEMENT OF CHARLES LA BELLA, SUPERVISING ATTORNEY, CAMPAIGN
FINANCING TASK FORCE
Mr. La Bella. Let me just begin by saying that, you know, I
have been subpoenaed. My documents, the documents I prepared
when I was a Department employee, were subpoenaed. My testimony
has been subpoenaed. And with respect to the Department, the
Department has not given me any, you know, instructions or
directions. And in fairness to the Department, I think that is
because it doesn't want to be perceived as, you know, trying to
shape or mold my testimony or my actions.
With respect to the report, I'm aware of the communications
back and forth between the Senate and the Department of Justice
concerning my report and the production of my report and the
conditions placed upon the production of my report. Basically,
with respect to my producing my version of my report, which I
still have, and my exhibits, the addendum, the problem is I'm
flying by my own lights with respect to the report and my
testimony. And I'm just going to tell you what my best judgment
tells me to do because no one has told me what to do. And the
temperature between the Department of Justice and myself
changed quite dramatically after our September 2, 1998,
meeting, briefing on the Hill. After that time, I really had
very little to do--I had nothing to do with the campaign
financing issues. I was not included in any discussions, and
perhaps rightfully so, because I had moved on to another post
at that point.
Before that time, after I handed my report in, in July,
towards the end of July, within a week the result of the report
had been reported in the New York Times. On August 4 or 5--I
forget the date--I testified in the House Oversight Committee,
and at that time I was asked whether I had discussed the report
with the Attorney General. My response was no. We hadn't had a
chance to discuss it between the time I handed my report in in
that meeting.
Senator Specter. Have you ever discussed the nuts and bolts
of this report with the Attorney General?
Mr. La Bella. Well, following that hearing, the Department
put together a meeting, I think it was on August 13 or 14,
1998, ostensibly to discuss my report. We met with the Attorney
General. We discussed some very generic issues. I think the
major issue we discussed was whether or not there was anything
in the report that would require us to trigger an Independent
Counsel Act inquiry at that time. But it was a very generic,
macro discussion. We didn't get into the nuts and bolts or a
substantive discussion at that time.
Senator Specter. At any time?
Mr. La Bella. Not after that, no. After that, I was really
gone----
Senator Specter. Never had, as you put it, a nuts and bolts
discussion with the Attorney General of your report?
Mr. La Bella. No. No, I mean, we never really discussed
line by line or chapter by chapter or heading by heading. We
had that one generic discussion on August 14, but that was
about it.
But, in fact, I had been replaced, though. In fairness to
the Department, I had been replaced as chief of the campaign
financing task force. Someone else was in that position from
June on, and, you know, I had moved on----
Senator Specter. When were you replaced as head of the task
force?
Mr. La Bella. Well, I guess--I was appointed U.S. Attorney,
Acting U.S. Attorney in June 1998, and I kept loose affiliation
with the task force and the Department vis-a-vis campaign
financing issues through the September 2 meeting, and then
after that we really kind of severed ties with respect to
campaign financing.
Senator Specter. And what was the cause of your being
replaced as head of the campaign finance task force?
Mr. La Bella. Because I went out to San Diego to replace
the U.S. Attorney, interim U.S. Attorney--to act as interim
U.S. Attorney to replace the U.S. Attorney who had just left.
And that was the reason I left.
So with that time line in mind and the fact that I'm really
flying by my own lights and my own moral compass, I'm glad to
talk about certain issues in the report. I really feel
compelled--and I'll just tell you this. I don't know how else
to deal with people except up front. OK? I'm somebody to just
lay it out on the table. I may have differences with the
Department. The Department may have differences with me. But I
was a Department lawyer for nearly 17 years. I have a certain
amount of loyalty and respect for the office of Attorney
General and for the Department of Justice. I don't want to do
anything to disparage the office of Attorney General or to
disparage the men and women who work for the Department of
Justice.
I feel as a former prosecutor and a former public servant
that it's really incumbent upon me to respect the Department's
views with respect to the deliberative process as much as, you
know, any ego in me would love my report to come out, because I
think it's a sound report. I think it was well written. I think
it was well reasoned. I think it was a sound legal document.
I think the deliberative process is important, and I really
would ask that we do not go into the nuts and bolts of the
evidence underlying my conclusions. I'm happy to discuss my
conclusions. I'm happy to generically discuss my conclusions.
If we have to go into closed session, I'd be happy to do that.
I have nothing to hide. I stand by my report. I stand by my
career. But I don't want to jeopardize the important work that
the Department continues to do, and I don't want to--also,
frankly, I don't want to have--give someone grist for
criticizing me publicly, because in one sense I have not been
given any instructions. I'm left to fly by my own moral
compass, and I'm doing that. But I know if I step--if I say
something inappropriate, there are people waiting, just waiting
to jump on it, and so I'm cautious of that, too.
So, cognizant of all that, I'm happy to answer questions. I
want to answer questions. I think Senator Leahy brought up a
good point that one of the issues we really should be talking
about is campaign financing reform. I know Senator Thompson--
and it's cosponsored--has some pending legislation that's very
important that--and I say that because all my suggestions in my
report are included, I think, in that piece of legislation. I
think it's a wonderful piece of legislation. It would be an
important step in the right direction, and I think that's a
useful road to go down.
With respect to the problems with the law, the problems
with the Independent Counsel Act, the problems with maybe
generically how we handled things in the Department, that's all
fair game for questions. I just am a little reluctant to answer
questions as to, for example, why Mr. X--why I thought Mr. X,
his conduct required the appointment of an independent counsel.
If I get into the nuts and bolts of Mr. X's conduct and the
evidence, I really just think that I'm giving away the
deliberative process that's so important to the Department's
ability to do what it needs to do, whether I agree with the
Department or not. And I did not agree with the Attorney
General on this issue, but I think that has to be preserved.
So, you know, I'll do the best I can to answer all your
questions, and you want to know something that really goes to
the heart of why I reached a certain decision, I think we
really do have to go in closed session or at least discuss
amongst ourselves how we best--how I can best answer the
question, give you what you need to do your job, and preserve
the integrity--my own integrity plus the integrity of the
deliberative process that the Department really needs.
Senator Specter. Mr. La Bella, we understand your position
and have structured this in a way which is designed to the
maximum extent to make it obvious that you are responding to a
subpoena, a compulsory process. And you and I compared your
report. You had your report within your possession, and I went
over the report in S-407 that the Department of Justice had
provided on the redacted items and said to you that we would
not ask you any questions aboutthe redacted items, so that will
be respected.
The inquiries made by the subcommittee of the Department of
Justice relate only to the deliberative process, and the
Judiciary Committee, as I said earlier, by a 10-8 party-line
vote decided that the public interest and public policy in
oversight of the Department of Justice, as it touches quite a
number of matters--number one, just pure oversight as to how
the Department is functioning. The second aspect of our inquiry
is what we ought to do by way of legislative change, and I have
sponsored and cosponsored campaign finance reform legislation.
And there is a bipartisan group sponsoring legislation to put
back the independent counsel statute, so that the experience
here and your testimony is important on that subject.
We will not go into matters which require closed session
because we are not going to go into any 6(c) or any redacted
information. And we are interested in your conclusions, but
necessarily, in the view of the subcommittee, which is why we
subpoenaed the report, we may get into some of the specifics as
to what you had your conclusions for. And I know what your
conclusions are, and I know what the specifics are because I
have read the report. But we will just move along and handle it
in a way which is consistent with all of our professional
responsibilities, and emphasizing again that the Department is
represented here and has raised no objection. I repeat, which I
don't like to do, I don't know that there is any objection they
can raise, but they haven't in any event.
Mr. La Bella, if you prefer, we will just start with
questions.
Mr. La Bella. That would be better if I could answer
questions.
Senator Specter. We can proceed in that manner.
Perhaps a good way to start would be, as you had commented
to me last night, on the index. What subject matters were
comprehended within your report with respect to generalized
topics of investigation or individuals subject to
investigation?
Mr. La Bella. I started with the statutory framework and
our investigative approach, to just set the stage for the
Attorney General and the Director of the FBI. This was to the
Attorney General and the Director of the FBI. And then section
2, I went into information that myself and Jim DeSarno, who was
the head of the FBI, believed was sufficient to trigger a
preliminary investigation and to support a determination that
further investigation was warranted under the ICA.
Senator Specter. And essentially what was the evidentiary
base for triggering a preliminary investigation and a follow-up
investigation?
Mr. La Bella. My understanding of the law was that if there
was sufficient information from a credible source to warrant an
investigation, then an investigation had to be conducted. We
believed, Jim and I, after, you know, assembling all the
evidence, we believed that there was sufficient information
from credible sources to warrant the appointment of an
independent counsel.
Senator Specter. With respect to the individuals, I believe
you label them as starting with Mr. Harold Ickes, the
President, then the Vice President, et cetera. Essentially what
were your findings, starting with the first on your agenda, Mr.
Ickes?
Mr. La Bella. Well, with respect to Mr. Ickes, without
going into the nuts and bolts of the analysis, I obviously
concluded that, you know, for purposes--you know, with respect
to the evidence that I detailed and outlined in the, I guess,
20-some-odd pages that followed, that his conduct warranted the
Attorney General appointing an independent counsel. It wasn't
his conduct alone, but his conduct in connection with cross-
cutting several of the investigations that we had conducted at
the task force.
Senator Specter. And which investigations were those?
Mr. La Bella. Well, he touched upon a lot of
investigations. He was someone who had cameo appearances in
several investigations.
Senator Specter. What was your essential finding as to
ultimate control of the campaign by Mr. Ickes operating as
Deputy Chief of Staff?
Mr. La Bella. Well, I can refer to public documents, and
there's certainly memos that--reflecting that, in fact, he
functioned as really the coordinator of the DNC during the
critical years. He had people report to him, and he made
decisions, you know, budgetary decisions and those sorts of
things. So that was part of the analysis.
Senator Specter. And who was next on your itinerary?
Mr. La Bella. Well, I had--the captions are--you know, we
talked about the President, and under several topics, and then
we had the Vice President, the----
Senator Specter. What were the several topics with respect
to the President?
Mr. La Bella. Well, it's going to be difficult for me to go
into those without really going into the underlying--the
underlying facts of the investigation. That's----
Senator Specter. Well, Mr. La Bella, we want the underlying
facts. This does not really touch on the deliberative process
where you confer with the Attorney General, which, in fact, you
didn't, except for the one generic meeting that you have
described. To understand the basis for your conclusion, we do
need the facts. Regrettably, it has all been in the newspapers,
anyway.
Mr. La Bella. Well, it hasn't. I mean, that's the dilemma I
have. There's some--there's been some reports of leaks of this
report with respect to positions taken, but not to the
underlying evidence.
Now, if--for example, there's no way--it's very difficult
for me to discuss my analysis without getting into the nuts and
bolts of the evidence. I mean, I understand the Department's
view on this, and I've got to respect it, that, you know, the
deliberative process is critical. They believe, the Department
believes--and I've actually testified earlier in front of the
Government Oversight--House Oversight Committee that it's
just--it's just difficult for a former prosecutor to--you know,
to publicly go into the analysis that he or she engages in in
order to reach a certain conclusion.
I reached a conclusion as a 17-year prosecutor that there
was sufficient information from credible sources to warrant the
appointment of an independent counsel.
Senator Specter. Mr. La Bella, when we talk about
deliberative process, we are talking about a report which an
investigator in your position submits to his superiors and the
conversations which you have and the way a judgment is formed
and the way there are discussions which are not chilled by
somebody looking over your shoulder at some time.
Now, there are circumstances where the case law has upheld
congressional oversight going into pending investigations, and
we have already had hearings on Peter Lee with line attorneys,
strenuously objected to by the Department of Justice, where the
committee has decided to overrule the Department's objections.
We are not asking you for your conversations with the Attorney
General, and we don't intend to because there is nothing to ask
you about, which is the reason we are not asking you about
them. And perhaps we wouldn't if there was something to ask you
about. But with respect to the factual matters that led to your
conclusion, that is not part of the deliberative process, as I
see it.
Mr. La Bella. But this is a report to the Attorney General.
This is a conversation, the only conversation I had, but maybe
a one-sided conversation, but this is my conversation with the
Attorney General and the Director of the FBI as to why Jim
DeSarno and I thought an independent counsel needed to be
appointed. So, I mean, it really is a--it is a conversation in
that I was--you know, I put my heart and soul into this, and
this is my best judgment as to what went on. But I analyze
evidence. I get very particular about what went on and why I
thought it was appropriate to appoint an independent counsel.
I am not shying away from that decision. I mean, don't get
me wrong. I think I was right then, and I think I'm right now.
But my dilemma is I don't want to go into the nuts and bolts of
why I think under--you know, under the caption, let's take the
President, why I think--you know, the five areas that I thought
triggered or demonstrated in a matter of evidence and
information, why I concluded based on that information and
evidence that there was reason to further investigate
particular allegations.
The allegations are not a surprise to anybody. They're very
similar allegations that were--you know, have been public
record. What is not public record is my analysis and my piecing
together the different pieces of evidence.
Now, I know that there are probably some people who don't
want this report to come out because circumstantially it's
fairly powerful. But I think the greater concern is that it
would compromise the way the Department conducts its business
in U.S. attorneys' offices around the country. And if a
prosecutor can't write an analysis like this without fear that
his or her analysis is going to become public, it could chill
that. I mean, it will chill that. And I think that's the
critical issue that's at stake here, and I'm glad to talk
about--you know, I stood on my own two feet and said that I
think that an independent counsel should have been appointed.
The Attorney General disagreed. I took the shots and I have
moved on.
But I don't know how to go into the nuts and bolts of why I
think an independent counsel should have been appointed vis-a-
vis the President, the Vice President, or Harold Ickes without
going into the nuts and bolts. It's just not going to make
sense to anybody. I can talk about the conclusion, but to talk
about the nuts and bolts, it requires me to really draw upon
the evidence. And I know that's frustrating, and I know it
probably serves some people's interest. But I'm concerned with
the greater issue here, which is my loyalty to the Department
of Justice, not a person, not a bunch of bricks, but to the
Department of Justice and what it stands for. And I can't just
sort of brush that aside because I maybe don't have a friendly
relationship with the Attorney General of the United States
anymore.
Senator Specter. Well, Mr. La Bella----
Mr. La Bella. That's where I am.
Senator Specter. I don't propose to have an elongated
discussion as to the deliberative process, simply to say that
it is my conclusion that you are not talking about a
deliberative process. The deliberative process involves
deliberation within the Department where you would make a
report and where you would have a discussion, and that did not
occur here. What you were talking about is the work of an
individual lawyer, investigator, prosecutor who writes a
report. That is not the deliberative process.
Now, whatever it is, the committee has already decided that
we want the facts, and that is what we intend to ask you about
pointblank.
Mr. La Bella. OK.
Senator Specter. And we have already been through this with
others, with line attorneys; the Attorney General herself has
appeared and has answered specific questions about a warrant
under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. It was in
closed session, but she answered that. She has also answered in
public sessions specific questions. So that is what we intend
to deal with.
Senator Sessions. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to join
you in that, and I know Mr. La Bella has had witnesses before
him that didn't want to testify also, and they thought for some
reason or another they didn't have to testify, but he has
required them to testify. Isn't that right, Mr. La Bella?
Mr. La Bella. Yeah, I----
Senator Sessions. A lot of times.
Mr. La Bella. Absolutely.
Senator Sessions. As a professional.
Mr. La Bella. Right.
Senator Sessions. Well, you are under subpoena here.
Mr. La Bella. Right.
Senator Sessions. And to my knowledge, there is no
objection to your testimony, and I don't see why you ought not
to give it. You would recognize at some point that the
Department of Justice is subjected to some oversight, would you
not?
Mr. La Bella. Absolutely.
Senator Sessions. And that if a professional who is
investigating a case is turned down by the Attorney General who
serves at the pleasure of the President, when the professional
said that the President should be subjected to an independent
counsel, then I think the people of this country have a right
to have some understanding of what this is about.
Mr. La Bella. Right.
Senator Sessions. Because we don't have an independent
counsel anymore.
Mr. La Bella. Well, I think if you----
Senator Sessions. This is all we got here is the U.S.
Congress to attempt to make sure the people understand what
happens, and if there is a good explanation, so be it. If it is
not, we need to know it.
Mr. La Bella. Well, I think if you want to ask me, you
know, what broke down in the process, that is a legitimate
question. And I'm not shy to tell you that, you know, the
process within the Department I think was dysfunctional. And
I've said that and I will repeat it.
Senator Sessions. Well, I think the chairman's asked you
some questions to which, to my knowledge, there is no real
objection to, and I would hope that you would answer them.
Mr. La Bella. Well, give me another question. I'll try
better.
Senator Specter. OK. Mr. La Bella, there has been a lot of
concern about the Attorney General's refusal to proceed with
the investigation as to the Vice President on her finding that
there was lack of intent on the part of the Vice President to
violate the Federal election laws. And I have already cited a
statute which says that the Attorney General may not stop an
inquiry. ``The Attorney General shall not base the
determination that there are no reasonable grounds to believe
that further investigation is warranted upon a determination
that such person lacked the state of mind required for the
violation of criminal law involved unless there is clear and
convincing evidence that the person lacked such state of
mind.'' And the Congress, in putting that provision in, cited
Attorney General Meese letting the Deputy Attorney General go
on his unilateral finding that there was not criminal intent.
And the issue has arisen as to the Vice President's state
of mind, and, again, I repeat, this would have been a good
subject for inquiry in 1998 or 1999 as opposed to May 2 of the
year 2000. But we just got this report and have had a chance to
go into specifics as to what was before the Department of
Justice.
Now, your report and Director Freeh's report relate to the
Vice President having made so-called hard money calls because
it was the Clinton-Gore credit card which raised hard money as
opposed to soft money, which is raised by the Democratic
National Committee. And there were 13 memoranda which had been
sent from Mr. Ickes to the Vice President from August 1995
until July 1996. And these 13 memos contained divisions as to
hard money/soft money, and also using Federal contributions,
which are equivalent to hard money contributions.
And the Vice President is quoted as saying, quote, the
subject matter of the memos--memorandums would already have
been discussed in his presence and in the President's presence.
And there was an issue raised as to whether the hard money/soft
money was discussed in the Vice President's presence, and Mr.
Strauss, his Deputy Chief of Staff, had a memorandum which
related--specified a 65 percent split in hard money and a 35
percent--65 percent soft money and 35 percent in hard money.
And there was an issue raised by the Vice President as to
whether he was present all the time, whether he had drunk so
much iced tea that he had a ``restroom break'' at
thatparticular time, and the Vice President's further statement that he
was experienced for many years of campaigning.
There was also the question raised as to his credibility on
the false statement issue, and your memorandum noted that it
was inconceivable that the topic of hard money/soft money was
not addressed at these regular Wednesday night meetings in the
light of the Ickes memo, and you commented based on this memo
and others penned by Ickes to the Vice President, everyone was
on notice about the need for the hard dollars.
Now, coming right down to the core conclusion where you
recommended to the Attorney General that there be a further
investigation, it was your conclusion that the matter could not
be ruled out as clear and convincing evidence that there was no
criminal intent with so many of these facts in dispute, and the
defense of advice of counsel where somebody says, well, I told
my lawyer everything and I relied upon his advice and,
therefore, I do not have the criminal intent, is in the nature
of an affirmative defense, which is a jury question, not one
which you can rule out as a matter of law.
And the flavor of the report is that it is not a matter of
prosecutorial discretion. A prosecutor can decide what to
charge and what not to charge, but a lot of the independent
counsel statute that says you can't rule out criminal intent in
the absence of clear and convincing evidence.
My question to you is: What was your basis for recommending
independent counsel?
Mr. La Bella. Virtually all that is public information, so
I can talk about that. Let me just put it in its perspective,
proper perspective, proper context.
When I arrived in September 1997, there was already
underway the initial investigation concerning the 607
violation, the phone calls from the public office.
Senator Specter. 607 is exactly what, Mr. La Bella?
Mr. La Bella. 607 is the Pendleton Act. That was the
alleged violation.
Senator Specter. I just want to ask you for the record what
607 provides so it is clear.
Mr. La Bella. Well, I don't have it in front of me, but it
is basically the Pendleton Act.
Senator Specter. Paraphrase.
Mr. La Bella. In any event, the 607 violation was underway
already when I got there. In December, early December, when it
was decided--like December 7 or 8 was the cut-off date. I at
that point had recommended to the Attorney General that I
thought it was appropriate to warrant further investigation.
She decided that it wasn't.
The report was written in July--I mean, it was concluded in
July and handed in in July. At that same time there was the
emergence of or the surfacing of the Strauss memo and the Leon
Panetta interviews and those sorts of things that suggested
additional facts. In my memo----
Senator Specter. Let me interrupt you just on the point of
the Panetta memo, which has been in the public domain, and that
is that Leon Panetta, the Chief of Staff, has said that the
Vice President was attentive during the course of discussions
about the hard money. Correct?
Mr. La Bella. Right.
Senator Specter. OK. Go ahead.
Mr. La Bella. In my July report, you're right, the
conclusion was that it was inconceivable that at the Wednesday
meetings that hard money/soft money split wasn't discussed.
That was the best evidence we had at that point. We had the
Ickes memos, and we had all that material that you've just
alluded to.
Right after that, or at that same time, as I was writing
this, the Strauss memo emerged. The Leon Panetta interview
occurred I think in August 1998. I'm not exactly sure.
Senator Specter. And what was the Strauss memo?
Mr. La Bella. The Strauss memo was the notations of Strauss
that indicated the split of the hard and soft money.
Senator Specter. Sixty-five percent hard, 35 percent----
Mr. La Bella. Exactly----
Senator Specter. Sixty-five percent soft, 35 percent hard.
Mr. La Bella. Yeah, something to that effect. I don't have
it in front of me, but there was a memo with the handwritten
notes.
Senator Specter. At this point, Mr. La Bella, make it clear
for the record what the import was of the hard money, that that
counted as a contribution under the Federal election law,
whereas the soft money did not under the Department of
Justice's interpretation.
Mr. La Bella. Right. The initial analysis was--and I think
it was correct--that if you're just soliciting soft money, that
it's not soliciting contributions and it doesn't come under
607. So there was no--if it was just soft money, there could be
no potential violation of 607. If it was hard money----
Senator Specter. But if you're soliciting hard money, there
could be a violation of 607?
Mr. La Bella. A potential violation.
Senator Specter. And 607 prohibited raising money on
Government property.
Mr. La Bella. Right. It is a very old statute. It is a very
technical statute. But, arguably, it did prohibit that sort of
conduct.
Now, the issue, the only issue before us at that time was
whether or not there was sufficient evidence, sufficient
information from credible sources to warrant a further
investigation. Based on that and my 17 years as a prosecutor, I
thought that was a ground ball, that yes, indeed, there was
enough information that you would want to conduct an
investigation. That's not to say that at the conclusion of the
investigation you would do anything with it, that you would
prosecute it. In fact, in my judgment, you know, based on the
facts and the evidence, you probably wouldn't.
Senator Specter. Well, why was there enough information, as
you just put it, to conduct additional investigation?
Mr. La Bella. Because you had the memos, you had the Leon
Panetta interview, you had the Strauss memo, you had, I think,
information from credible sources that there's reason to
believe that the Vice President, you know, knew that he was
raising, in part, soft money and hard money. But, you know, it
could be that he didn't. I'm not saying he did. I'm just
saying----
Senator Specter. When you say the memos, you are----
Mr. La Bella. Possibility.
Senator Specter [continuing]. Talking about the 13 memos
from Ickes to the Vice President?
Mr. La Bella. Right, the 13 memos from Ickes to--I'm taking
your number as accurate. The number of Ickes memos to the Vice
President, the Strauss handwritten notes, the Leon Panetta
interview, if you put all those together, it seems that a
further investigation is warranted.
Again, not saying that a further investigation is going to
result in charges. Probably would not, based on my experience.
But, you know, in my judgment--and it was just my judgment and
Jim DeSarno's judgment that at the early stage we thought there
was sufficient information, and then after the Strauss memo
emerged and the Leon Panetta interview occurred, there was
additional information. But I guess it was still deemed
insufficient.
Senator Specter. I am going to yield now to Senator Leahy.
We have not run the clock this morning because this discussion
doesn't lend itself to 5-minute segments, and I conferred with
Senator Leahy about the procedure, and he said go ahead a few
minutes ago until you find a convenient spot. He has other
commitments, and there will be more questions, but this is a
convenient spot, so I yield now to the ranking member.
Mr. La Bella. Are you going to give me an easy one?
Senator Leahy. Yes, let's talk about our Italian ancestry.
What part of Italy does your family come from originally?
Mr. La Bella. My father's from Sicily, my mother's from
northern Italy, so it made for interesting Sunday dinners.
Senator Leahy. Whereabouts in northern Italy?
Mr. La Bella. The Genoa area.
Senator Leahy. Mine is from the Friuli area over on the
other side. So that is the easy part.
Senator Specter. I think the Department of Justice objects
to this part of the dialogue. [Laughter.]
Senator Leahy. And the chairman is absolutely right when he
said normally we put on a time, and I thought he had, in asking
his questions, an absolutely legitimate right, and I wasn't
about to object to it. I was finding the questions interesting
myself.
I know, Mr. La Bella, you are in somewhat of a rock and a
hard place here, and I know Senator Hatch and the Department of
Justice have started negotiating on what would be the use of
this material that was sent up here, and I guess those
negotiations are still going on, and in the meantime you are
here.
I was pleased with what you said about the Thompson bill on
amending the Federal Election Campaign Act. That is S. 1991
that was introduced by Senator Thompson, Senator Lieberman,
Senator Collins, and myself as a bipartisan piece of
legislation. I think a number of the issues that you have
raised in your statements earlier, some of the private
discussions you have had with members, and also some of the
public ones, some of the problems with the Federal election
campaign law could be taken care of there.
You have also alluded to the question of what is raising
funds on public or on governmental property, including the
statute that was put together before there were telephones and
those things. The idea that somebody might have written a note
and mailed it out on their way home but wrote the note in a
public place probably would not have had any question now if
they are doing basically the same thing but a telephone call
isn't.
I also am struck by one thing you said, and I want to re-
emphasize it. In the special counsel law or special prosecutor
law, or whatever, one of the criticisms of it and one of the
reasons why it has not been renewed and one of the reasons why
significant Republicans and Democrats whom I have a great deal
of respect for say they would not renew it in its present
form--I think everybody agrees it would not--if it were to be
renewed, it would not be renewed in its present form because of
the low threshold it has to trigger an investigation.
You are an experienced prosecutor. Is it safe to say that
you have had a lot of cases where somebody brought something to
you and you said, it could be something, let's justtake a look
at it, and thus start an investigation, and then pretty soon said,
there is nothing there, let's go on to something else?
Mr. La Bella. Absolutely.
Senator Leahy. And wouldn't that be pretty much the
experience of most prosecutors?
Mr. La Bella. Yes. I mean, you exercise a great deal of
prosecutorial discretion, and the cases you decline on are
never really public. I mean, it is only the rare one that
becomes public, but I think prosecutors, Federal prosecutors
everyday decline on cases because every technical violation of
a Federal statute does not require the full weight and majesty
of the Federal law coming down on someone. So I mean there is a
lot of prosecutorial discretion that is exercised everyday in
U.S. attorneys' offices, and appropriately so.
Senator Leahy. It is on a far different level, but it is
against the law to go 1 mile an hour over the speed limit. Most
of us would wonder what was wrong with a prosecutor if suddenly
a whole pile of people were brought in for going 41 miles an
hour in a 40-mile-an-hour zone.
But with the low threshold on the special prosecutor, did
you find that oftentimes there was, just in general, a
discussion that this may or may not trigger the special
prosecutor law, but even if it does, at the end of the day
there is not going to be any special prosecution.
Mr. La Bella. Right. I mean, that view was always
expressed. I mean, everybody had that feeling about many of
these prosecutions. I mean, if I prosecuted every person who
came into the grand jury and lied to me, that is all I would
have done. It is, you know, a hazard of the job. You get a lot
of people who come into the grand jury and don't tell you the
truth. Some of them you have to prosecute as perjury.
You know, if it is significant, if it is a centerpiece of a
criminal activity, you go after it. But by and large, you know,
the minor ones you sort of let go. You have to let certain
things go. But we had that discussion. I mean, people discussed
that openly. I can't say we ever had the discussion in front of
the Attorney General about that, but we certainly amongst
ourselves--you know, between the lawyers in Public Integrity
and the other supervisors around the table, you would scratch
your head at some of these things and say, you know, 10 out of
10 prosecutors are ultimately going to decline this case, but
we need to sort of go through the numbers.
And that is where I sort of parted company with some of the
people, because I said, it is the law, we need to go through
the numbers, we need to go by the numbers. That is not to say
all of them would, and you never know what you are going to
find if you do the investigation. But, you know, that was
certainly part of our discussions.
Senator Leahy. Well, let me take one example. There were
two special prosecutor investigations, costing millions of
dollars, on the Vincent Foster suicide, and at the end they
both found exactly the same thing. Millions of dollars were
spent, but both found at the end we had a suicide.
On a lesser thing, as a State prosecutor, you always have
the experience of somebody who comes in after a bitter divorce
case. And with diametrically opposed testimony, it is obvious
somebody lied, and they say--usually the person who came out on
the short end of the stick--we want a prosecution, but there
isn't one.
You have got a contractor who does something. One person
sues. The contractor promised to do such and so for this money.
The contractor says, I never promised to do such and so for
that money. Somebody is lying, but you don't prosecute.
These things, however, are difficult because in the public
domain we may have set the threshold to trigger the special
counsel law too law. That is my feeling. I don't know if you
have a feeling on that.
Mr. La Bella. I think there is two things. I think you have
the double whammy. It is a very low standard, but in addition,
you are hamstrung by a lack of investigative tools. You can't
use subpoena, you can't immunize witnesses, and these are the
tools of the prosecutor. Without subpoena power, without the
right to immunize witnesses, it is very difficult to get to the
bottom of a situation.
Senator Leahy. Well, isn't it safe to say if you have a
case involving a whole lot of people, at some point you are
going to take somebody out and say, all right, we are going to
put you on the bubble, we are going to immunize you, but----
Mr. La Bella. Right. I mean, in a white-collar case that is
generally the way you have to go. You have to immunize somebody
to get an insider to testify as to what went on inside the
white-collar conspiracy. That is just the way it is.
Senator Leahy. Unless you got really lucky on a piece of
evidence or had a wiretap or something like that, there is
probably not much you can do.
Mr. La Bella. Right, if you get lucky on a search warrant
or something like this. But in cases like this, these are
generally very public investigations and people know you are
coming, you know, miles before you are there.
Senator Leahy. Now, Mr. La Bella, I know you have a great
deal of respect for people in the Justice Department, and I do
too, and I have said this. The professional andcareer people--I
have probably given more speeches about my respect for them in both
Republican and Democratic administrations. As a lawyer and as a
prosecutor, I have dealt with some of them and I think that the country
has been darn lucky to have the men and women that you are referring
to.
You described in your report that the circumstantial
evidence was powerful, but there was also some significant
dissent among other career prosecutors within the Department
about your conclusions. Is that correct?
Mr. La Bella. There is some dissent among career people in
the Justice Department. My difference with you is that my
definition of a career prosecutor is different than just
someone who has worked for the Department of Justice for 20
years.
Senator Leahy. What is your definition, then?
Mr. La Bella. Someone who has tried cases and stared down
juries and has gone into the grand jury substantial amounts of
times who has done significant prosecutions, who knows his or
her way around the courtroom, his or her way around the grand
jury room.
Senator Leahy. That is my definition, too.
Mr. La Bella. Yes, and I think that there are people in the
Department of Justice who are career bureaucrats, and that is
not to demean the fact that they are career bureaucrats. There
is a place for that. I mean, we need people in the Department
to be concerned about, you know, policy and issues that are
more national in scope, but I wouldn't necessarily call them a
career prosecutor. But, you know, I think that you could
probably get--you could find career prosecutors who may
disagree with me. I haven't met any.
Senator Leahy. But you have had this same thing in some
cases before where you have had this back-and-forth on whether
there should be a prosecution.
Mr. La Bella. Absolutely.
Senator Leahy. And sometimes your side wins out and
sometimes the other.
Mr. La Bella. Right.
Senator Leahy. Would you say, if you were the one making
the ultimate decision on a case that might be a close call,
would you encourage this debate in presenting a recommendation
to you?
Mr. La Bella. I started out as a line assistant and I ended
up as U.S. attorney, so I held every position along the way.
And I was very often in the position of having to argue for a
position and very often in the position of having to make a
decision as Chief of the Criminal Division or as U.S. attorney.
So you really do need to encourage vigorous debate, but you
need to encourage real debate and you also need to encourage
the fact that once the debate is over, there is a professional
respect and closure to the debate. I mean, in a U.S. attorney's
office, when we had knock-down, drag-outs about whether we
should proceed with a case, we walked out of the room
respecting each other and not casting aspersions on each other.
So, yes, I think that is something you need to encourage.
Senator Leahy. In fact, when you testified before the House
Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, you said, and I
am going to quote this, ``The last thing I want to see as the
prosecutor heading this task force is that this memo ever gets
disclosed. I don't think it should ever see the light of day
because this, in my judgment, would be devastating to the
investigations. I can't see a set of circumstances under which
this report should see the light of day.''
Is that a basically accurate recompilation of what you
said, and if so, do you feel that way today?
Mr. La Bella. It sounds like something I would say. Oh,
yes, I think, you know, then there were greater concerns
because things were actively under investigation. I think a lot
of that has been mooted, but I think just to make public the
document, because you can't make this document public in a
vacuum--you would have to make the responses public and the
whole debate would have to become public that was internal. The
Lee Radek response to my memo would have to be made public.
I understand from the Department that Jim Robinson wrote a
memo analyzing my memo. And, you know, once you go down that
slippery slope, there is no stopping, and that is the problem.
Senator Leahy. Is that why you wanted a subpoena to appear
here today?
Mr. La Bella. Yes. I don't want to--let me just tell you, I
am not a reluctant public servant, but I just--you know, I
don't want to seem to be a volunteer on this. I feel strongly
about this. I felt strongly when I wrote it, I feel strongly
today. But I just think that, you know, there are issues we
need to deal with and we should probably move on to those
issues.
Senator Leahy. You have spoken about the Attorney General's
integrity and independence. And when you testified before the
House Government Reform Committee on August 4, 1998, you said
you thought that the task force was adequately staffed and the
attorneys and FBI agents working on the investigation were
competent and professional.
You said that neither the Attorney General nor the White
House prohibited the task force from interviewing any
witnesses, or prohibited them from bringing any charges
orseeking any indictments. Do you still feel that way today?
Mr. La Bella. Yes. I had finished my work then, so nothing
has changed. I didn't do any more work with the task force, but
we had adequate staff. You know, there were legitimate debates
inside the Department as to one road or another, but I think we
did--as long as I was there, we did the job as best we could.
Senator Leahy. And whether you agree or disagree with any
decisions of the Attorney General, do you still feel that her
integrity and good faith and independence are clearly obvious?
Mr. La Bella. She made no decisions, you know--and I have
said this before--my perception is she made no decisions to
protect anyone. You know, she listened to the advice of certain
people and she followed that advice.
Senator Leahy. I worry, as your testimony has indicated you
do, about anything that may come into question of second-
guessing what prosecutors do because of all the decisions they
have to make every single day. I am not suggesting that this
committee does not have the authority and the right to look
into aspects of the Department of Justice. Of course, it does.
But we seem to have those who are going to be the
prosecutors, the line prosecutors and all--we have gone a long
way from decades ago where you put the county chairman's weak-
brained nephew in for a place, for a job. We now have
extraordinarily good people. At least that has been my
experience in the U.S. attorneys' offices I go to.
So because of that, do you think if we are going to ask
questions, they ought to be at least at the supervisor level
and not at the line prosecutor level?
Mr. La Bella. Yes, I think it is helpful to keep line
people out of it. Supervisors are responsible for the decisions
that are made ultimately. And, you know, if heads need to roll,
theirs should be the heads that roll. The line assistants
generally--and, again, I have filled all these positions. They
are just doing their job, and they do them to the best of their
abilities. And we are supposed to as supervisors--when I was a
supervisor, we are supposed to be providing them guidance, and
if we fail, then we should be held responsible for it.
Senator Leahy. In fact, would it be safe to say when you
were a line attorney, there were times you would probably come
in and do a devil's advocate debate on whether a case should be
brought or not?
Mr. La Bella. Oh, sure, yes.
Senator Leahy. But you didn't want to see that next week
before a congressional committee?
Mr. La Bella. Right. I mean, you would have to take
positions and argue the other side of a position very often to
flesh out all the pros and cons, and that was a technique we
used in the U.S. attorneys' offices all the time.
Senator Leahy. Now, we have had criticism of the plea
bargains struck and the results obtained in the Johnny Chung,
Charlie Trie, and John Huang cases prosecuted by the Campaign
Finance Task Force. Did you have involvement with any of these
plea agreements at any stage?
Mr. La Bella. No, no. I did the Chung agreement, but that
is the only one I did. I think everything else happened after I
left.
Senator Leahy. On Chung, did you approve the final version
of that agreement?
Mr. La Bella. Yes, yes, I did.
Senator Leahy. And, to your knowledge, did these include
provisions requiring cooperation?
Mr. La Bella. I put it in my agreement. I know that one.
Senator Leahy. And was that important to you?
Mr. La Bella. It was important to me, yes.
Senator Leahy. And why was that, sir?
Mr. La Bella. Just to advance the investigations, and it is
standard in a situation like this where you believe someone has
information to provide that you want to make sure that you have
an agreement and an understanding with that person that they
have an obligation to provide that to you. So they are not just
doing it out of the goodness of their heart. You want to make
sure that that is part of the deal, part of the final agreement
with that person.
Senator Leahy. In fact, it is probably unusual that
somebody might be making a plea just because they want to be a
good citizen.
Mr. La Bella. Generally, people don't plead guilty to
crimes because they want to be good citizens. They generally
plead guilty because they are guilty and if they can cooperate,
they want to get themselves out of a jam and advance the
investigations.
Senator Leahy. In fact, is it safe to say, given the
appropriate circumstances, that has always been a very
effective tool for the prosecutor?
Mr. La Bella. Cooperation agreements?
Senator Leahy. Yes.
Mr. La Bella. Very effective.
Senator Leahy. Mr. La Bella, as I say, it is good to see
you again. Maybe sometime at a later moment, we can talk about
some of our shared ancestry. But I appreciate you being here
and I appreciate the difficult situation you are in, but I also
appreciate very much your feeling that--or your very candid
assessment both about the integrity of the Attorney General,
but also about the fact that these are issues where indeed
there are debates that go on anddifferences of opinion. Thank
you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Specter. Thank you, Senator Leahy.
Senator Sessions.
Senator Sessions. Mr. La Bella, the question and what your
memo was directed to was simply whether or not an independent
counsel should be appointed. Is that correct?
Mr. La Bella. That is correct.
Senator Sessions. In other words, the Federal law says if
there is a sufficient amount of evidence involving a covered
person that an independent counsel shall be called.
Mr. La Bella. That was the law then, yes.
Senator Sessions. And that is gone now.
Mr. La Bella. That is gone.
Senator Sessions. But it was the law then, and you weren't
making an opinion as to whether or not the prosecution should
ultimately go forward. In other words, even if there were a
violation of a law, a prosecutor might decline to prosecute it,
for various reasons.
Mr. La Bella. Right, and there is also the discretionary
clause, too. It is not only the mandatory clause, but there was
a discretionary clause if the Attorney General believed there
was a conflict of interest or some reason why the Department
should not do it. It was not mandatory. There was also that
discretion to do it.
Senator Sessions. Well, the whole deal of the independent
counsel and the covered person is that the Congress did not
desire that the person serving at the pleasure of the
President, the Attorney General, should be called upon to make
decisions in areas of tough criminal law involving the
President or his highest associates. Isn't that right?
Mr. La Bella. I mean, I have been through the legislative
history and that is my understanding of it.
Senator Sessions. And so that was why you felt like
somebody else ought to make this decision other than the
Attorney General?
Mr. La Bella. Yes, and I felt a lot of these calls were
very close calls and what we call jump balls and they could go
either way. And in order for the people to have faith in the
integrity of the decision, it was always my position that it
was better made by someone who was independent.
Senator Sessions. And you did note in your remarks earlier
that based on what you knew then, it might be that a prosecutor
would not go forward with the case, but it is always possible
something else would come up.
Mr. La Bella. Absolutely.
Senator Sessions. And isn't it a fact, Mr. La Bella, just
based on your core experience as a prosecutor--and I was in it
15 years--isn't it a fact that the real deal sometimes comes
down to how determined a prosecutor is when conducting plea
bargains and negotiations with defendants, how determined they
are to insist that that person tell the full truth?
Mr. La Bella. Well, sure. I mean, the prosecutor is
probably one of the most important elements in that formula
because he or she really controls whether or not the plea is
accepted, you know, whether or not it gets to court because he
or she has to determine, yes, I am going to accept this plea.
Senator Sessions. Well, let's say you have a defendant that
wants to plead guilty, and you have a case against him, but he
wants a sweetheart deal and wants to tell you about one-tenth
of the truth. That is not unusual, is it?
Mr. La Bella. No. I mean, you----
Senator Sessions. And so it is down to that prosecutor's
personal judgment and integrity on whether or not they insist
that the full truth is--you probably, like I have, have
rejected pleas by the fact that, well, that is about half the
truth, Mr. Defendant, and if you are not telling the whole
truth, I have got enough to convict you and you can go to jail.
Is that right?
Mr. La Bella. There are stories about me in the Southern
District of New York where I would pound the table and leave a
proffer session and call people and tell people that they
weren't----
Senator Sessions. But that is your obligation, isn't it?
Mr. La Bella. It is your obligation.
Senator Sessions. I mean, that is your duty.
Mr. La Bella. It is.
Senator Sessions. If you are going to put that person on
the witness stand or say he deserves a recommendation of
leniency, he or she should tell the full truth.
Mr. La Bella. Right.
Senator Sessions. Now, I guess what I am saying to you is,
isn't that another reason you need an independent counsel?
Aren't there some areas in which the person prosecuting the
case has some reluctance to do so? There are a lot of stages in
the case in which they could perhaps be a bit soft and not
pursue as aggressively as they could.
Mr. La Bella. Cooperation is a process.
Senator Sessions. And I believe the Radek memorandum--Mr.
Radek is not a trial lawyer?
Mr. La Bella. He may have tried some cases.
Senator Sessions. Not in your recent knowledge, is that
right?
Mr. La Bella. Not in my recent knowledge, no.
Senator Sessions. There is a difference when somebodyis
trying to evaluate a case who knows what the evidence is going to be
and has some experience about how a jury will react to it, and I think
you are correct.
With regard to the Attorney General, the Attorney General
had never served in the Department of Justice, had she, before
becoming Attorney General?
Mr. La Bella. Not that I am aware of.
Senator Sessions. Had never prosecuted RICO cases or Hobbs
Act cases or traditional tough Federal corruption cases, had
she?
Mr. La Bella. I don't believe so. I don't know her
background as far as----
Senator Sessions. Well, she was just basically a State
prosecutor that supervised a substantial staff of people
involved in murders and robberies and rapes and things that are
very important. But it is a different category of crime, some
of these white-collar corruption cases, aren't they?
Mr. La Bella. They are peculiar.
Senator Sessions. Well, I would just say that under those
circumstances I think you were correct that there was a basis
for a case to be brought here.
Let me ask you this: has there been a declination by the
Department of Justice on the matters you recommended an
independent counsel on as of this date?
Mr. La Bella. I am assuming so. I assume that they just
decided there was nothing that warranted triggering the
Independent Counsel Act. But I don't know. I was gone then, so
I don't know.
Senator Sessions. Well, there is something good to be said
for that independent counsel who issues a report and declines
to prosecute and sets forth some reasons why. Isn't that
healthy when you are involving the highest level of the
Government of the United States?
Mr. La Bella. That would have been a nice closure to this.
Senator Sessions. I don't think we have had that. I think
it has soured and been a bitter pill in the body politic. And
the Attorney General--the chairman of this committee and the
chairman of this subcommittee, Senators Hatch and Specter, and
others, have urged her to not do this, to allow it to go
forward, as you recommended, and we would have been a lot
better off. There is no doubt in my mind about this.
Let me ask this one more thing, and I know the chairman has
a lot to ask. When you interviewed the Vice President, and
during the other interviews of the Vice President that we are
aware of, was he ever asked specifically and in detail about
the Buddhist temple fundraising activity?
Mr. La Bella. I only participated in one interview, and
that was the one in November 1997, and he was not asked any
questions in that interview.
Senator Sessions. And you supervised that?
Mr. La Bella. I was at that interview.
Senator Sessions. Did you supervise that interview?
Mr. La Bella. Yes. I mean, myself, Lee Radek, the line
assistants who were conducting the investigation, and the FBI
agents who were conducting the investigation were there.
Senator Sessions. And why didn't you ask about that?
Mr. La Bella. Because the understanding was that we had a
very particular area that we wanted to talk to him about. That
was really about the Pendleton Act and the phone calls from the
Government office and the use of the telephones. That was the
investigation that was underway at that point. We had time
pressures. We had to get that interview conducted with respect
to that particular investigation.
It was our understanding that if at any time we needed to
go back to talk to the Vice President, he was going to be made
available. I don't know that the Buddhist Temple case was ripe
at that point to ask him questions about it. But as that case
developed and the Maria Hsia case developed, you know, maybe
they went back to him. I don't know.
Senator Sessions. Do you know or not know whether they----
Mr. La Bella. I don't know. I don't know if they did or
not.
Senator Sessions. Mr. Chairman, I am through.
Senator Specter. OK, thank you very much, Senator Sessions.
Mr. La Bella, when you accurately say that the judgment is
only as to continuing to investigate, it is not possible for an
investigator or prosecutor to know until the investigation is
finished whether there will be a basis for prosecution or not.
Mr. La Bella. That is absolutely true, and the decision has
to be made by that person at the end of the process.
Senator Specter. Could be, might not be, might or might not
be, depending on the evidence. But the independent counsel
statute is designed to remove the Attorney General from making
that decision as to covered people where you have the close
association or the appointing power, as with the President or
where there is a conclusive conflict of interest a la the
enumerated people who are so-called covered people, correct?
Mr. La Bella. Right. If there is sufficient information
from credible sources, the Act is triggered.
Senator Specter. And that is what you call the mandatory
provision.
Mr. La Bella. Right.
Senator Specter. The law says we shall proceed with
theinvestigation, and if sufficient evidence occurs, is uncovered, to
proceed to appoint independent counsel.
Mr. La Bella. Right.
Senator Specter. And then the second part which you talked
about, the discretionary part, says may proceed where there are
reasons to conclude that there is a conflict of interest with
somebody else, although not the lofty so-called covered
persons.
When Senator Leahy had started to ask you about dissent
among the career personnel, career prosecutors, you got off on
the discussion as to who is a career prosecutor and who is not.
I don't think you came back to the question of whether there
was dissent. And you mentioned Mr. Radek, and Mr. Radek wrote a
memorandum against appointing independent counsel because, as
he put it, there was not evidence of a willful violation. Is
that the essence as to the Radek memorandum?
Mr. La Bella. It was a lengthy memo. I know that that was
probably in there somewhere, and I don't know what specific
point that was addressed to. I don't know exactly what he was
talking about there. I know he used those words. I think he
used those words, but----
Senator Specter. You wrote a reply to Mr. Radek's
memorandum, correct?
Mr. La Bella. Well, I wrote an addendum to my interim
report, yes, I did.
Senator Specter. OK, in the nature of a reply. You did it
once Mr. Radek had written and you wanted to respond to some of
his points.
Mr. La Bella. Right.
Senator Specter. Mr. Radek's standard was disagreed to by
others in the Department, was it not? Assistant Attorney
General James Robinson disagreed with the standard which Mr.
Radek had stated?
Mr. La Bella. I don't have a copy of the Robinson memo.
That was----
Senator Specter. There is no way you could. The Department
of Justice won't let us bring it into this room. It is not
sanitized.
Mr. La Bella. Yes. I don't know what he said. That was
after my tenure.
Senator Specter. Well, we looked at it last night together,
Mr. La Bella.
Mr. La Bella. Yes.
Senator Specter. We will get into this at a later time with
the committee, so in the absence----
Mr. La Bella. But there was something about the standard
that he disagreed with. I don't know what it--I don't remember
as I sit here now what exactly it was, but it was something
about the standard.
Senator Specter. Well, the specific language which
Assistant Attorney General Robinson, head of the Criminal
Division, picked up in disagreeing with Mr. Radek was that
there was a rejection by Mr. Radek of willful intent. Mr.
Radek's conclusion was you couldn't prove willfulness, and Mr.
Robinson responded that that wasn't determinative for stopping
the investigation because the statute specifically left open
that issue unless there was clear and convincing evidence. So
Mr. Robinson concluded Mr. Radek had applied the wrong standard
in disagreeing with your recommendation about independent
counsel.
Does that refresh your recollection?
Mr. La Bella. Yes, that seems right, and I had said in my
memo that I thought he applied the wrong standard because he
used sufficient evidence from a credible source. I said it is
information. He said that is a silly distinction. I thought it
was a real distinction.
Senator Specter. Pretty big difference for a prosecutor as
to whether it is evidence or information.
Mr. La Bella. Well, if I go to a Federal judge and say,
Your Honor, I offer this information, he is going to look at me
and take my head off, or she is going to take my head off. If I
offer evidence, then I have a colorable claim to get into
evidence.
Senator Specter. But then you are a career prosecutor.
Mr. La Bella. Right. I think there is a difference between
evidence and information.
Senator Specter. Well, of course there is.
Mr. La Bella. And I think that the Congress, when they
wrote it, they intended it.
Senator Specter. Well, for the record, state what the
difference is between evidence and information.
Mr. La Bella. I mean, evidence is more directed, evidence
is more substantive; it has the earmarks of reliability.
Information can be much more generic, can be much more general.
Information can be hearsay. Evidence, if it is hearsay, has to
have an exception to get into evidence. I mean, lawyers just
know it. I mean, you know the difference between evidence and
information.
Senator Specter. Evidence is the standard for what you can
say in a courtroom, compared to information which is the
standard for what you can say on the floor of the Senate.
Mr. La Bella. Right. I mean, evidence is what is admissible
in a court of law. Information is anything that can be heard on
the Internet or with your own ears.
Senator Specter. So when you proceed to have an
investigation based on information, it is obviously an
articulation of a much lower standard.
Mr. La Bella. A much lower standard.
Senator Specter. And when Mr. Radek is requiringevidence,
he is not following the standards set for by the Congress in the
independent counsel statute.
Mr. La Bella. In my effort to be fair to him, he just
argues that they use the words interchangeably, but for him
they mean the same thing. And Public Integrity has always
applied the right standard; they just interchange the words and
it is form over substance. And that was his point in his
addendum, as I recall. I mean, I disagree with that. I don't--
--
Senator Specter. These words have a lot of specific
meanings for lawyers in courtrooms, or for application of
standards of statutes, don't they, Mr. La Bella?
Mr. La Bella. Well, I mean, as a former prosecutor, you
deal with the laws that Congress passes. You don't deal with
the laws as you think they should have been passed.
Senator Specter. When the comment is made that there was
dissent among career prosecutors, is that true? To your
knowledge, was there dissent within the Department of Justice
among career prosecutors, if you move out Mr. Radek, whom we
have already said applied the wrong standard and interchanged
evidence and information?
Mr. La Bella. It is hard for me to know who was in the
debate because I wasn't in the debate after I left. But I mean,
you know, Jim Robinson was a former U.S. attorney, so I mean I
don't know how--I mean, you have to ask these people how many
cases they tried, you know, how many investigations they have
conducted. I mean, people call themselves career prosecutors,
and I just don't know. I don't know the resumes of all those
people.
Senator Specter. How many cases would you have to try to
qualify? I want to know if I qualify, in your opinion.
Mr. La Bella. I think it depends. I think a Federal
prosecutor, after about eight or nine trials, can be a trial
lawyer because, you know, they can be month-long trials.
Senator Specter. If you are only a district attorney, more
than that?
Mr. La Bella. Well, district attorney--they usually put
like 150 under their belt each year, so I think after about 2
or 3 years they are pretty much seasoned trial lawyers.
Senator Specter. Mr. La Bella, coming back to the
information as to the others, there is a section of your report
which deals with Loral on the technology transfer from Loral to
the People's Republic of China. And there was a recommendation
as to proceeding as to an investigation for the chief executive
officer of Loral, Mr. Bernard Schwartz, who had contributed
some $1,500,000 to the Democratic National Committee. And there
was the judgment that you had articulated that if the matter
was to be opened as to Mr. Schwartz, it ought to be open to
President Clinton as well.
Mr. La Bella. Let's assume that the allegation that
appeared in the paper was that, you know, someone had given
contributions and, as a result of the contributions, had
received some benefit.
Senator Specter. A presidential waiver for technology
transfer. Let's put that in the assumption.
Mr. La Bella. OK.
Senator Specter. You are postulating a hypothetical
question.
Mr. La Bella. Hypothetical. And if, hypothetically, you are
going to investigate the person who gave the contribution
because you think something was wrong with that because they
were seeking a quid pro quo, then it seems to me that part of
the area of investigation would be the person who received the
contribution. I mean, that just is my analysis, you know, so--
--
Senator Specter. So, hypothetically, if you proceed as to
A, Mr. Schwartz, you would proceed as to B, Mr. Clinton,
hypothetically?
Mr. La Bella. Well, hypothetically, I would think you would
have to because it is part of the same subject area, but that
would be just my reaction as a--that would be my reaction as an
investigator.
Senator Specter. Mr. La Bella, in the second part of the
report which you submitted, dated August 14, 1998, you raised
the issue of further investigation, ``The Vice President may
have given false statements.'' What was your approach on that
particular item?
Mr. La Bella. Well, by that time, what had surfaced--in
addition to what was in my initial report of July, the Strauss
memo had surfaced. In my initial report, I think I was basing
it on the Ickes memorandum and the fact that it was generally
discussed in the memos that went into the Vice President from
Ickes. I concluded that, you know, it was inconceivable to me
to rule out that it was an issue that he knew nothing about.
After the report, the Strauss memo surfaced, and then
following that the Leon Panetta interview had occurred, I
think, before my addendum, or at just about the same time, and
those were additional facts that came forward.
Senator Specter. And your report made a comparison of the
Vice President's not recalling the Ickes memoranda, the 13
memoranda; as you put it, ``reminiscence of the lack of
recollection of the Buddhist Temple matter.''
Mr. La Bella. That sounds like a phrase I used, yes.
Senator Specter. It sounds like a phrase you used?
Mr. La Bella. It sounds like a phrase I used.
Senator Specter. With respect to your recommendations, Mr.
La Bella, with which I agree totally, but I think it would be
good for the record to amplify why you think that these
campaign finance violations ought to be categorized asfelonies
as opposed to misdemeanors.
Mr. La Bella. I think for two reasons. Number one, it sends
a message publicly that we are going to take these things
seriously, because for years I think we have not taken them
seriously because they have been denominated as misdemeanors.
And when you denominate something in the Federal law as a
misdemeanor, that sends a message to prosecutors. That means no
one really cares about it, and it is something that you use
when you really want to give somebody a good deal. You would
look for a misdemeanor to get them out of their predicament,
and that is a fact of life that prosecutors view misdemeanors
as an escape hatch, as a way out.
Felonies are what prosecutors are about; that is what they
do. If conduct is important enough to be brought into a Federal
criminal courtroom, it is important enough to be a felony. And
I think it sends a public message that these are serious--this
is serious conduct, and if you violate this conduct, it goes to
the integrity of our electoral process and therefore we are
going to take this seriously.
It also gives the prosecutor much more room to move when he
or she is investigating a crime. You know, if you have a
misdemeanor, you have got a floor and there is nowhere you can
go except a get out of jail free card and let them walk out the
door.
If you have got a felony, at least you have got some
gradations, and if a case requires a misdemeanor disposition,
then you can go down to a misdemeanor. But if it requires and
screams out for a felony prosecution, you can do your job and
use a felony prosecution.
I think the other issue is the statute of limitations has
to be changed, and there are other issues about the present
state of the law. But I think that goes a long way--making it a
felony goes a long way into showing how serious we consider
this conduct.
Senator Specter. Before moving to the statute of
limitations issue, because I want to take that up specifically
with you because it is a very important provision, the felony
categorization also carries a substantially stiffer penalty.
Mr. La Bella. Right, and I am sorry. That is really the
second prong of it because you can use that obviously to
extract cooperation. Now, some people are repulsed by the idea
that a prosecutor can use a heavy jail sentence as a mechanism
to extract cooperation from someone. But if you have served as
a prosecutor, you know people don't willingly cooperate,
especially against their friends in a white-collar case. It
just doesn't happen unless you have got something to hold over
their heads.
And fortunately for prosecutors--and I know the public
sometimes doesn't like to hear this--but, fortunately, you can
use that severe sanction as a way that someone can, you know,
give full cooperation and you can make sure that you are
getting truthful testimony before they get any break
whatsoever. So it is a tool that prosecutors use, so it is an
important tool and if you have that tool, you can advance
investigations.
Senator Specter. And the statute of limitations, for
explanation, is the period of time in which a prosecution must
be brought after the acts are completed.
Mr. La Bella. Correct.
Senator Specter. And you have made a recommendation that
the statute of limitations be extended from 3 to 5 years?
Mr. La Bella. Yes.
Senator Specter. And would you amplify why you think that
is an important legislative change?
Mr. La Bella. Well, virtually all Federal statutes are 5
years. So if any of us commit a Federal offense, other than an
election violation, the prosecutor's office has 5 years--the
FBI or Customs or Immigration, whatever agency is going to
investigate, and the prosecutor have 5 years to investigate and
bring that case to closure, bring that case to an indictment.
Three years is an incredibly short amount of time when you
are dealing with a white-collar case; it can be. It sounds like
a long period of time, but when you are talking about hundreds
of thousands of documents that have to be reviewed and many
witnesses that have to be interviewed and grand-juried, it goes
very rapidly, especially if the prosecutor doesn't learn about
the conduct until 2 years after it is committed, or 2\1/2\
years. Then you have 6 months to close your case, which is
virtually impossible.
So you have got to understand that prosecutors don't learn
about the conduct always right when it happens. It could be a
year, it could be 2 years in a white-collar situation before
someone comes forward and drops a dime on someone, as we say,
and says, hey, you should look at this, because, you know,
sometimes it is a disgruntled employee. So you never know where
you are going to get the lead from in a white-collar case, but
5 years is appropriate.
Senator Specter. Mr. La Bella, when you conducted your
inquiry, were you aware of the issue of the e-mails that were
not collected by the White House that may have been relevant to
your investigation?
Mr. La Bella. The task force was aware, and I was in
contact with White House counsel about the e-mails during our
investigation. We did broach that subject. They had a lot of
difficulty pulling the e-mails up and it was a constant source
of discussion between myself and White Housecounsel.
Senator Specter. Did you feel at that time or do you feel
now that you got an adequate response from the White House on
the e-mail issue?
Mr. La Bella. White House counsel was always very
straightforward with me and I never had a problem with them. I
don't know if they were being given the information, accurate
information, but I always trusted what they told me. I never
had reason to question what either Lanny Brewer or Chuck Ruff
told me in that regard. But I don't know--because they were
depending on other people to give them the information, I don't
know if they were getting the straight information.
Senator Specter. Mr. La Bella, there is a distinction as to
in an electioneering message which contrasts with the two
categories of advocacy ads and issue ads. The ad that I read at
the outset of the proceeding is categorized as an issue ad
because it doesn't say ``vote for x, vote against y.''
There is an in-between message which is called an
electioneering message, which is a distinction made by the
Federal Election Commission and was adopted by the Tenth
Circuit, although not mentioned in the Supreme Court decision
on the Colorado case.
The FEC has concluded that electioneering messages should
not be paid for with soft money, and the FEC confirmed that.
Yet, the Attorney General found clear and convincing evidence
that the President and the Vice President lacked intent.
Wouldn't that come under the category, as you put it, of jump
ball or ultimately an issue for a jury?
Mr. La Bella. That you do so in the context of the
electioneering message?
Senator Specter. Yes.
Mr. La Bella. You know, not having read the whole thing, I
think there were a series of close calls. You know, that may be
one of them. I would really have to investigate that further,
but I think that certainly may be one of them.
I think you bring up a good point, though, about the FEC,
and part of the report that I think is worth talking about is
the fact that the FEC is absolutely impotent by design. And I
have said that before and I said it in the report, and I think
if there is going to be some way to--there has to be some way
to address that. It can be a significant organization just like
the SEC is and it can actually root out campaign financing
violations, but it needs to be restructured. It can't operate
by committee and it just is absolutely ineffective.
Senator Specter. Your report included evidence that high-
ranking officials from the Democratic National Committee were
aware of illegal contributions from both foreign donors and
executive branch officials. Was there a sufficient basis for
appointment of independent counsel on the basis of the failure
of the White House to take action there?
For example, on the issue of campaign contributions to the
President, when it was determined that Charlie Trie had
gathered for the legal defense fund contributions which were
inappropriate, then, as your report specified, Mr. Trie
continued to raise money for the Democratic National Committee
without the President's campaign fund alerting the recipients
of additional funds raised by Mr. Trie that they came from
inappropriate or illegal sources.
Would you comment on that?
Mr. La Bella. It gets very close to the nuts and bolts, but
I will try to do it in a sort of generic way.
Senator Specter. Well, do it hypothetically, since you
don't like nuts and bolts.
Mr. La Bella. Well, I will try to use a corporate analogy.
If an individual is on the board of directors of a charitable
corporation and is the heart and soul of that charitable
corporation, and in the context of that charitable corporation
inappropriate conduct occurs--someone gives money to the
company that is questionable, not per se illegal but
questionable, comes from questionable sources, and the charity
decides not to take that money. They make a determination that
we don't like this, it doesn't fit.
Now, if the corporation were to take that same money, it
would be illegal, as opposed to the charity. The charity--it
wasn't illegal for it to take it; it was just inappropriate.
But for the company, it would be illegal to take that money.
Now, if on the board of directors of that charity is also a
member of the board of directors of corporation x, and if he or
she sits at corporation x and watches the same person come in
with similar money, query: do you have an obligation to advise
your fellow directors for the company that, you know what, in
my other life, with my other hat on, this conduct happened with
this person, therefore I think you may want to look at closely
his activities in connection with this corporation. I think we
have an obligation to do that.
Now, I believe that is a sound principle of law. I know Mr.
Radek ridiculed that and thought it was silly, so maybe the
truth is somewhere in the middle. But as a prosecutor, that is
the way I analyzed it.
Senator Specter. Senator Sessions, do you have anything
further to inquire on?
Senator Sessions. Well, let me just say that Mr.Radek's
position was Chief of Public Integrity?
Mr. La Bella. Yes, sir.
Senator Sessions. And that is a political appointment of
the Attorney General?
Mr. La Bella. I don't know.
Senator Sessions. Or a discretionary appointment of the
Attorney General. It is not a career-type position. He is a
career attorney. He can drop back to a career position, but he
was temporarily holding a position at the pleasure of the
Attorney General. Isn't that right?
Mr. La Bella. I believe the position is appointed by the
Attorney General.
Senator Sessions. All of the chief of divisions, I think,
are that way. So you are not aware of any career prosecutor
that ever disagreed with your opinion on this matter?
Mr. La Bella. It really depends on who you--I mean, I don't
know the resumes of all the people in the Department when I was
there and when I left, and there may have been people who read
and said, no, he is----
Senator Sessions. But you are not aware of it?
Mr. La Bella. I am not aware of it.
Senator Sessions. All right. I think that even though this
might have been a case, the phone calls of the White House-type
case using Government phones, that ultimately did not need to
result in a full prosecution, I believe you are correct that
there was ample evidence, and certainly information, to
indicate that a law had been violated, and therefore an
independent counsel should have been called. And they could
have concluded the case one way or the other, and they could
have declined officially and stated their reasons, and this
matter would have been a lot better off and this Nation would
have been better off.
So, that has concerned me about this, and it does appear
that the Attorney General reached out and made a decision here
that leaves people to be able to say that she did not use
objective decisionmaking processes. I am not happy with that. I
think that was an error in the Department of Justice.
With regard to the e-mails, were you aware of all the e-
mail material that has been in the paper, and that certain
people were told not to disclose this information? How much did
you know about what was available from the computer search?
Mr. La Bella. We were told that the system was limited and
it was an archaic system and it would take a long time to
retrieve e-mails. And it was a very slow process, and I knew
they had called in a company to try to retrieve e-mails, but it
was a very slow process. And I think it was 8 months or even
longer before we could hope to get certain e-mails. That is
what I was told when I was there and----
Senator Sessions. And who was telling you this, the White
House counsel?
Mr. La Bella. The White House counsel, right. That is my
best recollection. It was a long time ago, but I think it was
something like that. It was a long time to retrieve them
because it was an archaic system.
Senator Sessions. Well, apparently, that is not accurate
from what we read in the papers.
Mr. La Bella. Yes. I don't know. I mean, I have read the
same articles.
Senator Sessions. So you said White House counsel was
straight up with you. Apparently, perhaps not?
Mr. La Bella. Well, I don't know if they were getting--I
don't think they were actually doing the investigative work. I
think they were relying upon other people to tell them on the
staff what could you do and what could you not do as far as
retrieval.
Senator Sessions. Well, a lawyer has an obligation to make
accurate representations under those circumstances. You just
don't do it off the seat of your britches when you tell the
chief counsel that you can't get documents. You should have a
basis for that, should you not?
Mr. La Bella. Yes, and they weren't telling us they
couldn't get them. They said that it was going to take a long
time, and I don't know what happened with respect to the e-
mails, whether they got them or not, the task force. I just
don't know.
Senator Sessions. I would just add, Mr. Chairman, I agree
very much that the 3-year statute of limitations is too short.
In fact, in some ways it needs to be longer than the normal 5
because these things take time. Election issues and those kinds
of things take time.
I suspect--and I have seen it in my State, a short statute
of limitations on election cases--that if you lose the
election, it takes the new guy a long time to figure out what
is happening. By the time he does, the statute has run. It
really is a problem, and has complicated some of my efforts as
attorney general in State court.
So many of the cases involving corruption and fraud and
extortion, would you not agree, Mr. La Bella, get prosecuted in
the fourth and fifth year of the statute of limitations?
Mr. La Bella. Very often, we are right up against it before
you bring the indictment.
Senator Sessions. It just takes a long time, and 3 years is
exceedingly short. In these kinds of cases, if anything, it
should be longer than 5, and I thank you for raising that
point.
Senator Specter. Thank you, Senator Sessions.
Before we wrap up, just one more factual point. TheVice
President admitted making these calls in March 1997, but there was no
investigation started by the Public Integrity Section or anybody else
in the Department of Justice until July 1997, some 4 months later. Do
you know why there was that delay?
Mr. La Bella. I wasn't privy to that, but I remember the
fact that before that time they thought they were all soft
money calls. And it wasn't until around July that someone
realized, based on documents, I think, or testimony, that--
well, I think it was documents because there was no testimony
at that point--that there was a hard money/soft money component
to the calls. I don't think it was until July that someone
realized that.
The Attorney General initially--and I know this all from,
you know, documents I have seen--said, well, this is all soft
money, there can be no violation. And then later it was
determined that there was hard money component to it, and
therefore I think the investigation was started then.
Senator Specter. But the question wasn't even raised, no
inquiry, for some 4 months.
Mr. La Bella. Right.
Senator Specter. Well, Mr. La Bella, we thank you very much
for coming. I believe that your testimony is extraordinarily
important. I believe your report is extraordinarily important.
In September 1997, the Governmental Affairs Committee was
conducting an investigation into campaign finances, and we had
a closed-door session with the Attorney General, the FBI
Director and the CIA Director where we found out that the CIA
had information about what was in the FBI's files which the FBI
hadn't disclosed to the Governmental Affairs Committee.
And that was a very rugged session; we broke some
furniture. It was a closed session in the Intelligence
Committee room. And it was shortly thereafter that you were
brought in. The Attorney General did not want to appoint
independent counsel, but she wanted to come close to it, and
she brought you in as an experienced prosecutor, 17 years'
experience, or 15 at that time, whatever it was, and known for
integrity.
And as soon as you wrote your report on July 16 and it
became public knowledge, in 1998, I wrote to the Attorney
General asking her for it, and 1 week later, as I put in the
record earlier, renewed those requests and had the chairman of
the full committee join me in those requests. And we had
started earlier than that, even back in 1997, April 30, asking
these questions in a very pointed way about the soft money, and
had asked the Attorney General for a judgment as to violation
of law.
Those letters will be put in as a part of this record. They
have been put in the Congressional Record.
[The letters referred to follow:]
U.S. Senate,
Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, DC, July 22, 1999.
Hon. Janet Reno,
Attorney General of the United States, U.S. Department of Justice,
Washington, DC.
Dear Madam Attorney General: We are writing to request that you
provide to the Judiciary Committee all documents in the Department's
possession relating to (1) the Department's investigation of illegal
activities in connection with the 1996 federal election campaigns, and
(2) the Department's investigation of the transfer to China of
information relating to the U.S. nuclear program. Your submission
should include a copy of Charles La Bella's report recommending
appointment of a campaign finance independent counsel. In addition,
your submission should include, but not be limited to, any and all
memoranda, reports, agreements, notes, correspondence, filings and
other documents pertaining to:
1. The allegations against, cooperation from and plea bargains with
Peter H. Lee.
2. The allegations against, cooperation from and plea bargains with
Johnny Chung.
3. The allegations against, cooperation from and plea bargains with
Charlie Trie.
4. The allegations against, cooperation from and plea bargains with
John Huang.
5. The Department's reported decision not to prosecute Mr. Wen Ho
Lee.
6. Any other individuals who were or still are under investigation
by the Department for campaign finance violations.
7. Any other individuals who were or still are under investigation
by the Department for passing nuclear technology to China.
These matters--for which we now seek documents--are at the heart of
this Committee's oversight responsibilities. Indeed, it would be
difficult to imagine more compelling cases for this Committee's
oversight than those involving the Department's investigation and
prosecutorial decisions concerning the possible theft of the nation's
nuclear secrets and the possible violation of our campaign finance
laws. The fulfillment of these oversight responsibilities is imperative
to ensure that our national security and campaign finance interests are
adequately protected, and to identify any shortcomings in current law
or procedure so that any necessary corrective action can be taken in a
timely fashion. Moreover, the information we seek herein is imperative
if this Committee is to meaningfully address various matters left
outstanding following your appearances before this Committee on March
12, May 5 and June 8, 1999.
We would appreciate a response within ten days as to whether you
intend to comply with this request, including a timetable for document
production.
Thank you for your cooperation.
Sincerely.
Orrin G. Hatch.
Arlen Specter.
Additional signatures for the July 22, 1999 letter to Attorney
General Reno signed by Senators Hatch and Specter.
Bob Smith.
Jon Kyl.
Jeff Sessions.
Strom Thurmond.
Chuck Grassley.
Mike DeWine.
__________
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC, September 29, 1999.
Hon. Janet Reno,
Attorney General, Main Justice Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Attorney General Reno: On behalf of the Senate Judiciary
Committee Task Force on Department of Justice Oversight, I am writing
to request information referred to in the U.S. Department of Justice,
Office of the Inspector General Special Report on the Handling of FBI
Intelligence Information Related to the Justice Department's Campaign
Fiance Investigation (July, 1999). To conduct its oversight of the
Department's activities, the Judiciary Committee Task Force needs to be
able to assess the reliability of the ten pieces of intelligence
information described in the report, and to do so in the context of any
prosecutions, plea agreements or other actions by the Justice
Department to which these ten pieces of information pertain. Therefore,
the Task Force requests the ten pieces of intelligence information
mentioned in the report, as well as any analysis available to the
Department of Justice related to the validity of the information and
its suitability for use in a prosecution or relevance to a plea
agreement.
Any classified information responsive to this request should be
delivered to the Office of Senate Security, Room S407, The Capitol, to
the Attention of Mr. Dobie McArthur.
Your prompt attention to this request is appreciated.
Sincerely,
Arlen Specter.
Senator Specter. But we have persevered, and these are big,
big questions as they will affect the future of independent law
enforcement. The independent counsel statute, I predict, will
come back. It is an oddity that none was appointed here and we
had the Starr investigation, and then Judge Starr recommends
against independent counsel. But we need to think these matters
through, and your work is very important.
Your report is still under subpoena, Mr. La Bella. We
haven't physically taken it from you, and don't intend to, but
the subpoena remains. And we are discussing in the committee
that some of the members believe this ought to be in the public
domain, as I do, and we want to be as careful as we can not to
politicize this matter. We have been very delicate in going
through the matters today, and you have hypothesized here and
there and you have referred to some matters in the public
domain.
But I think a few nuts and bolts have been spread upon this
record; as we lawyers say, spread upon the record, I think, in
the public interest. And we are going to pursue it. We are not
going to be worn out by these matters, however late the
Department of Justice records come to us and however voluminous
they are. Dobie McArthur spent a good part of the early morning
hours going through those thick reports, as did David Brog and
the others who have functioned really in Senator Sessions' and
Senator Grassley's and Senator Thurmond's and Senator
Torricelli's and Senator Feingold's and Senator Schumer's
staffs. This is the least expensive investigation in the
history of Congress, and it is a record which will never be
broken. You can't get any less than zero in expenditures on an
investigation.
But your contribution has been very important, and you have
been the model of circumspection in what you have had to say
about it.
May the record show that Mr. La Bella finally smiled.
And when Mr. Vega was appointed in your place, in September
of 1998, I raised hell about it and said there ought to be a
Judiciary Committee hearing, not that I have any concerns as to
Mr. Vega, but I have concerns as to what happened to Mr. La
Bella. And Mr. Vega still hasn't been confirmed. He is the U.S.
Attorney for the San Diego area as a matter of court
appointment, and I do hope yet that we will have a hearing on
Mr. Vega. That is an appropriate forum to go into questions
which I am not going to except to reference.
But you are one of the heroes around here, Mr. La Bella, in
my opinion, and this is a town without many heroes.
Do you want the last word, Jeff?
Senator Sessions. I do, because I have been pretty
aggressive about making this record public. And I have served
in the Department and I understand Mr. La Bella's concern that
internal deliberations be made public. But with regard to the
special counsel law, the Attorney General was required to act.
This was not an area in which prosecutorial discretion was at
stake, in my view.
There is a real question about whether or not she performed
her duty under the law, a requirement under the law. If there
was sufficient evidence, she shall call for an independent
counsel. And to say that this body can never inquire into that
is to say that the Attorney General doesn't have to abide by
that law, and there would be no way to find out if she did or
did not. So, reluctantly, I believe we have had to go into
this. I know you and Senator Hatch called for the independent
counsel earlier, and we wouldn't be here today if they had
answered your call.
Senator Specter. Well, the law is plain that we have
oversight authority to get reports like this, to question line
attorneys, to deal even on pending prosecutions as we are
pushing ahead on the Loral Hughes technology transfer. And we
are not going to be deterred and we are not going to be worn
out. And we have tried, and I think succeeded, in
depersonalizing this inquiry today.
We are looking to the future. We want to know how we are
going to handle the Department of Justice investigations in the
future and how the statute ought to be changed, and if we go
back to an independent counsel statute, the finance matters,
statute of limitations, and felonies--and if we go back to an
independent counsel statute, how we will learn and how we
improve the processes for the future.
This is not a matter as to the Attorney General personally.
We had a closed-door session on Wen Ho Lee and the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act, and one of the members of the
Judiciary Committee raised some very hard questions. And I
sided with the Attorney General not raising issues as to
integrity or competency.
But there are laws to be followed and we are going to do
our very best to see to it that when these issues arise in the
future--and they will come up just as surely as the sun will
rise tomorrow in Washington, D.C., going back to Teapot Dome
and before--that we use the experience that you have brought to
bear, Mr. La Bella to improve the system.
Mr. La Bella. Well, I promise you I am not going to leave
the country with my report. I will stay in the country.
Senator Specter. Thank you.
That concludes our hearing.
[Whereupon, at 11:46 a.m. the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Submissions for the Record follow:]
Note: Redacted to delete information the disclosure of
which could adversely affect a pending criminal investigation
or prosecution or would violate Rule 6(e) of the Federal Rules
of Criminal Procedure. Redactions completed on March 24, 2000.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5238A.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5238A.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5238A.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5238A.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5238A.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5238A.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5238A.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5238A.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5238A.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5238A.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5238A.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5238A.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5238A.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5238A.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5238A.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5238A.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5238A.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5238A.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5238A.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5238A.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5238A.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5238A.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5238A.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5238A.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5238A.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5238A.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5238A.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5238A.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5238A.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5238A.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5238A.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5238A.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5238A.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5238A.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5238A.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5238A.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5238A.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5238A.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5238A.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5238A.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5238A.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5238A.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5238A.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5238A.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5238A.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5238A.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5238A.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5238A.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5238A.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5238A.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5238A.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5238A.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5238A.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5238A.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5238A.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5238A.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5238A.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5238A.058
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5238A.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5238A.060
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5238A.061
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5238A.062
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5238A.063
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5238A.064
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5238A.065
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5238A.066
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5238A.067
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5238A.068
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5238A.069
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5238A.070
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5238A.071
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5238A.072
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5238A.073
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5238A.074
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5238A.075
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5238A.076
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5238A.077
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5238A.078
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5238A.079
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5238A.080
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5238A.081
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5238A.082
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5238A.083
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5238A.084
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5238A.085
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5238A.086
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5238A.087
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5238A.088
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5238A.089
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5238A.090
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5238A.091
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5238A.092
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5238A.093
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5238A.094
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5238A.095
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5238A.096
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5238A.097
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5238A.098
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5238A.099
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5238A.100
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5238A.101
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5238A.102
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5238A.103
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5238A.104
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5238A.105