[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 106 (Friday, July 31, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9536-S9540]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
THE ROLE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I come to the floor today with a very
sober, very serious discussion. That concerns the role, the
effectiveness, and the job that the Attorney General of the United
States is currently doing. The Attorney General, under title 28 of the
U.S. Code, section 515, is vested as the chief law enforcement officer
of the country. That is a very important vesting of power. She is the
chief law enforcement officer of the country. She has the
responsibility of making sure the laws are carried out, as part of the
executive branch.
Congress, some time ago, realized that every once in a while there
might be a conflict of enforcing the law strictly, if there are
allegations of impropriety with members of the executive branch, so the
independent counsel statute was passed. It was passed as a follow-up to
Watergate. Can you really investigate your own boss? Can the Attorney
General investigate the President or Vice President or some other
Cabinet official because they are serving with those individuals at
their pleasure? As a matter of fact, Attorney General Reno was
appointed and confirmed by the Senate in, I believe, 1993; and then
there was some speculation she would be reconfirmed or reappointed by
the President, and subsequently she was.
Since that time, I think all of my colleagues, and certainly all the
country, know that this administration has had a lot of legal conflicts
and problems. One of the biggest issues was the issue of campaign
finance. Both the House and Senate have conducted hearings. I presently
serve on the Governmental Affairs Committee that conducted an
investigation all of last year over alleged campaign finance abuses.
The committee, at least amongst the majority of the committee, albeit
mostly Republicans, said, yes, there should be an independent counsel
appointed. We made that recommendation to the Attorney General. She has
ignored that recommendation, and regrettably so.
Mr. President, I might mention a few things. I said she is in charge
of making sure the laws are enforced. I am looking at one, and I could
spend hours going through the law and stating allegations that I think
this administration was in violation of, that she has not enforced, or
to give reason for the appointment of an independent counsel so there
would not be this conflict of interest. I will mention a couple of
laws.
Title 18, section 607, United States Code, states in clear and
unequivocal terms:
It should be unlawful for any person to solicit or receive
any contribution in a Federal building.
I could go on and mention the conflict of covered persons. Covered
persons under this statute are the President, the Vice President. Vice
President Gore has now admitted to making 52 fundraising calls from the
White House. And the so-called coffees: There were 103 coffees in the
White House attended by 1,241 people. They raised $26.4 million and I
think are in direct violation of the statute. President Clinton hosted
an average of two coffees per week during the reelection cycle; Vice
President Gore attended over 100 coffees in 22 months before the
election; 92 percent of the coffee attendees contributed to the DNC in
the 1996 election cycle.
I could mention the overnighters. President Clinton, in a handwritten
note to a memo on January 5, 1995, told his staff he is ``ready to
start the overnights right away'' and asked for a list of $100,000 and
$50,000 contributors. Altogether, there were 178 guests who were listed
as long-time friends, public officials or dignitaries, or Arkansas
friends, who contributed over $5 million to the DNC. Overnight DNC
donors paid an average of $44,000 per family to sleep in the Lincoln
Bedroom. The White House was for sale, I think in clear violation of
the law, Mr. President.
I will mention a statement that Attorney General Reno made to the
House Judiciary Committee on October 15, 1997. I ask unanimous consent
that excerpts of Attorney General Reno's statement be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the excerpts were ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Since they began their work, I have met with them regularly
to hear what they have found and to ask them questions. I
check on their progress several times a week, discussing with
them what evidence they have found and how they are
proceeding. Most important of all, I have told them from the
start that they are to contact me immediately if they ever
believe that the evidence and the law justified triggering
the Independent Counsel Statute. I and Director Freeh check
with them regularly to insure they have adequate resources.
* * * * *
As I stated then, the fact that we don't trigger a
preliminary investigation under the Act does not mean we are
not investigating a matter. We are fully prepared to trigger
the Independent Counsel Act and pursue any evidence that a
covered person committed a crime, if any should arise in the
course of our investigation. We continue to investigate every
transaction brought to our attention. We will not close the
investigation of a matter without Director Freeh and I
signing off on its closure.
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, keep in mind that was last year, when the
campaign investigation was going, and going very strongly. She had this
to say concerning the investigation. She was talking about the
investigators:
Since they've begun their work, I have met with them
regularly to hear what they found and ask them questions. I
check on their progress several times a week discussing with
them what evidence they have found and how they are
proceeding. Most important of all, I told them from the start
that they are to contact me immediately if they ever believe
that evidence and law justify triggering the independent
counsel statute. I and Director Freeh check with them
regularly to ensure they have adequate resources.
Later in her statement:
As I stated then, the fact that we don't trigger a
preliminary investigation under the act does not mean we are
not investigating the matter. We are fully prepared to
trigger the Independent Counsel Act and pursue any evidence
that a covered person committed a crime if any should arise
in the course of our investigation. We continue to
investigate every transaction brought to our attention. We
will not close the investigation of a matter without Director
Freeh and I signing on its closure.
She made a commitment that basically the major decisions would be
made by the Attorney General and the FBI Director, former Federal
judge, Mr. Freeh. I mention that because evidently Mr. Freeh made a
detailed report, evidently a 27-page report, to the Attorney General in
November of 1997 calling for an independent counsel. I am not inserting
that report in the Record. I am going to read a couple of excerpts that
Senator Thompson made before the Judiciary Committee, where Attorney
General Reno testified on July 15 of this year, where he outlined
several things that were in Director Freeh's memo.
I will be very quick and maybe I will insert several pages of this in
the Record. This is Senator Thompson talking about Director Freeh's
investigation. He pointed out that the FBI's
[[Page S9537]]
investigation has led them to the highest levels of the White House,
including the Vice President and the President, and that the Department
of Justice must look at the independent counsel statute. He pointed out
there are two sections; one is a mandatory section where the Attorney
General is required to appoint, and another one is a discretionary
section. The ultimate conclusion by Mr. Freeh is that the statute
should be triggered under both the mandatory and the discretionary
provisions of the statute.
I ask unanimous consent that the entire section of this dialog be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[Mr. Thompson.] On Friday, June 19th Larry Parkinson, the
General Counsel of the FBI, presented to Senator Glenn and
myself an oral summary of a 27-page legal memorandum that was
written in November 1997 from Louis Freeh. You might recall
when Mr. Freeh and General Reno were testifying before the
House Committee on Governmental Operations, Mr. Freeh
declined to present the memo he had recommending the
independent counsel, but he agreed to give an oral briefing
to the chairman and ranking member of the committee. He did
the same thing with regard to our committee. I think that I
have a fair summary of what his position was on those matters
and I would like to lay that on the record and have some
discussion about it if we have time.
Basically, Mr. Freeh's memo is in seven sections. In the
first section, he deals with the purpose of the independent
counsel statute and points that it was to ensure fairness and
impartiality in an administration's investigation of its own
top officials, and highlights several reasons for the
enactment of the statute. The top three listed were the
Department of Justice difficulty in investigating a high-
level official; secondly, the difficulty in investigating a
superior. And, third, even the appearance of a conflict of
interest is dangerous.
He pointed out that their investigation, the FBI's
investigation, had led them to the highest levels of the
White House, including the Vice President and the President,
and therefore the Department of Justice must look at the
independent counsel statute. He pointed out there are two
sections. One is a mandatory section where the Attorney
General is required to appoint, and another one is a
discretionary section.
The ultimate conclusion by Mr. Freeh is that the statute
should be triggered under both the mandatory and the
discretionary provisions of the statute, and then he goes in
some detail to state why. He points out that there are
unprecedented legal issues. There has been a lot of
discussion as to whether or not soft money contributions that
are totally coordinated out of the White House were legal or
illegal, for example.
The memorandum points out the legislative history. And, of
course, lest we forget, Director Freeh is a former Federal
judge as he opines on these matters. He points out the
congressional intent was that where there were
unprecedented legal issues or differences in legal opinion
that an independent counsel is to be sought. That was his
interpretation of the clear legislative history.
He discussed in some detail Vice President Gore's telephone
solicitations, the President's telephone solicitations, the
need for the independent counsel in both cases. And it was
the Director's ultimate conclusion that it should be referred
to appointment of an independent counsel as part of a broader
scheme to circumvent campaign finance law under either the
mandatory or the discretionary provisions of the statute. He
held the same conclusion with regard to the White House
coffees, the overnights, and the other perks.
He also says that with regard to soliciting contributions
from foreigners, nevertheless, there is an additional
question of whether DOJ should be resolving these issues. The
legislative history is such that the Department of Justice is
not to undertake an elaborate legal analysis when a covered
person is involved, a legal analysis with regard to the
questions of law that we mentioned before.
Then he refers to the discretionary provision. After having
decided on all counts, on all instances of matters in
controversy, that it called for the activation of the
mandatory portion of the independent counsel law, he then
turned to the discretionary portion of the law. And I think
this is an accurate quotation from the briefing that we got,
quote, ``It is difficult to imagine a more compelling
situation for appointing an independent counsel,'' as he
discussed the reasons that caused him to reach that
conclusion.
He said, for several reasons. He said, first, is the fact
that the Department of Justice investigating the President
and the Vice President. The independent counsel statute is
based on the fact that it is a conflict for the Attorney
General to investigate her superiors. Secondly, Director
Freeh said that the cumulative effect of all of the
fundraising-related investigations going on should activate
the discretionary provision of the statute.
Thirdly, he said the Department of Justice is investigating
other persons in addition to covered persons who, because of
the nature of their relationship with the President and the
Vice President, give the appearance of a conflict of
interest. In other words, when someone who is being
investigated and in one case has already been indicted who
was in the White House 49 times, that although that person is
not covered, he is a close associate of covered people. And
if you are trying to get information from someone you have
just indicted, or you are in negotiations with regard to plea
bargaining or immunity or any of those other instances, how
can you do that effectively when the answers that he may give
may have to do with the covered person, who is the Attorney
General's superior?
Fourth, the independent counsel statute arose from
Watergate and thus has a unique relationship to the campaign
finance laws. In other words, the Attorney General--according
to his reading of the legislative history of this, there is a
unique relationship between the independent counsel law and
campaign finance laws, which is, of course, what we are
dealing with.
Lastly, the section provides factual information about in
comparison to the Attorney General's previous discretionary
appointments. In other words, there are many instances where
the Attorney General has activated or relied upon the
discretionary provision of the law. He discussed Filegate,
discussed Whitewater, discussed Mr. Nusbaum's situation.
In Whitewater, the Attorney General invoked the
discretionary provisions because of a political conflict of
interest from McDougal and others who were close to the
President. Nusbaum was a former senior member of the White
House staff, although not a covered person, who also had a
close relationship with the President. It is consistent with
those precedents to treat this investigation as a
discretionary independent counsel matter as well.
The Director also points out the fact that it is the FBI
and the DOJ's obligation to keep the President informed on
national security information while investigating those same
issues. And, also, as he says, simply the appearance or
public perception of a conflict can invoke the discretionary
clause. It is absolutely essential for the public to have
confidence in its investigators and this is consistent, of
course, with the Attorney General's confirmation testimony.
Director Freeh also says that contrary to her testimony
before the Senate, Attorney General Reno replied to Senator
Hatch that she had to actual conflict instead of the
appearance of a conflict. Director Freeh says the 1994
Congress rejected a DOJ proposal that the Attorney General
would have a relevant conflict of interest only with a matter
rather than a person as the standard for invoking the
statute. And he concludes the Attorney General can consider
appearance as well as actual conflict that might weaken
public confidence.
According to the memorandum, it makes no sense for
appearance to be relevant for covered persons, but not for
the discretionary provision, since conflict is presumed for
covered persons and appearance is more relevant to non-
covered persons.
Lastly, Director Freeh points out as a reason for invoking
the discretionary provision of the independent counsel law
that the Attorney General's chief investigator has concluded
that there is a political conflict of interest. This does not
change the fact that the Attorney General makes the final
decision, but in Director Freeh's view, it should be pursued
under the discretionary clause.
So here we have a really remarkable and unprecedented
situation where you have been investigating matters
concerning covered people at the highest levels. You have
been investigating matters concerning people who are not
covered people, but are close associates of covered people
who have had very extensive visitations to the White House.
You have, at best, a mixed interpretation of the law
concerning campaign finance. No one thought up until this
last Presidential election, for example, that a President or
a Presidential candidate could take public money, certify
that that is all he would spend, and then go get on the phone
and raise unprecedented amounts of soft money which he
coordinated out of the White House. No one thought they could
do that up until your interpretation, and now we are seeing,
in Ohio, I think both the Democratic and Republican Party are
in court saying there are no limitations anymore because of
this. Their position is even foreign money, under the
Attorney General's interpretation, cannot be regulated
because it is soft money and soft money is not regulated.
In addition, you have had a troubled investigation from the
start in which you have made changes, I think, to the
benefit--now, Mr. LaBella, who came in, also recommends an
independent counsel, and now he is leaving. Now, you have the
Director of the FBI, who is the chief investigator, saying
from his investigation we should have an independent counsel.
And yet we don't have that acted upon by the Attorney
General.
Mr. NICKLES. He discussed in detail Vice President Gore's telephone
conversations, the President's telephone solicitations, the need for
independent counsel in both cases.
It is the Director's ultimate conclusion it should be referred to an
appointment of an independent counsel as part of a broader scheme to
circumvent campaign finance law under either the
[[Page S9538]]
mandatory or the discretionary provisions of the statute. He held the
same conclusion with regard to White House coffees, the overnights, and
other perks, and that would include Air Force One.
He also talks about the scheme to evade the law. When the President
agrees to take public funding of a Presidential campaign, he says: Here
is how much money we are going to raise and spend. Clearly, the White
House, and Mr. Harold Ickes and other people, tried to circumvent the
law and say: We are going to raise lots and lots of money, the White
House will do it, and we will basically get around these limits.
Director Freeh obviously thinks that should be investigated and may
well think it should be investigated for both parties. I am not making
any aspersions. I am just saying that we should have an independent
counsel.
If Director Freeh has studied this as long as he has--he is the chief
investigative officer of the country as head of the FBI--if it is his
strong conclusion, with a 27-page memo, that we should have an
independent counsel, then we should have an independent counsel. He
gave that memo evidently in November of last year, and the Attorney
General has yet to appoint an independent counsel.
I could go on. I have already inserted most of this into the Record.
I will skip and just make the comment that if you have the Director of
the FBI--I think his concluding comment, and I will quote this from
Senator Thompson's statement:
It is difficult to imagine a more compelling situation for
appointing an independent counsel.
That is from Director Freeh. That is not a partisan Republican. That
is from a former Federal judge who is now Director of the FBI, who made
that analysis after conducting a very extensive investigation. He says
we need an independent counsel. I think the Attorney General should
follow his advice.
Now we have, evidently, the chief investigator that the Attorney
General appointed in the Justice Department making the same
recommendation. Again, I haven't read his memo. Evidently, he just
issued a memo--this is prosecutor Charles La Bella. This is according
to news reports. I will insert this in the Record. This is July 23,
1998--recently--written by David Johnson. It says:
Prosecutor Charles La Bella delivered a report to Reno last
Thursday as he prepared to return to San Diego this week to
take over as interim U.S. attorney. La Bella has marked his
department by challenging her to replace him with an outside
counsel.
I will read one section:
But he contends only that their fundraising activities
warrant outside investigation, and in the legal analysis La
Bella concluded that Reno misinterpreted the law, creating an
artificially high standard to avoid invoking the independent
counsel statute.
It also goes on in the article to say that, last fall, La Bella urged
her to seek appointment of an independent counsel to investigate
fundraising telephone calls by President Clinton and Vice President
Gore but she rejected that recommendation. In summary, La Bella
concluded there was sufficient information to warrant appointment based
on mandatory and discretionary provisions in the independent counsel
statute, meaning he found enough specific information to justify
outside investigation of high officials. He found that the Justice
Department could not objectively investigate them on his own, the
official said.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this article be printed
in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From the New York Times, July 23, 1998]
Campaign Investigator Urges Reno to Name Independent Prosecutor
(By David Johnston)
Washington.--After a 10-month inquiry, the departing chief
of the Justice Department's campaign finance unit has
concluded in a confidential report to Attorney General Janet
Reno that she has no alternative but to seek an independent
prosecutor to investigate political fund-raising abuses
during President Clinton's re-election campaign, government
officials said Wednesday.
The prosecutor, Charles La Bella, delivered the report to
Reno last Thursday as he prepared to return to San Diego this
week to take over as interim U.S. attorney. In effect, after
being chosen by Reno to revive an investigation that she had
been criticized for neglecting, La Bella has marked his
departure by challenging her to replace him with an outside
counsel.
La Bella's report does not suggest that prosecutors are
ready, or even close, to bringing a case against any top
Democrats or administration officials, but contends only that
their fund-raising activities warrant outside investigation.
And in a legal analysis, La Bella concluded that Reno had
misinterpreted the law creating an artificially high standard
to avoid invoking the independent counsel statute, officials
said.
La Bella's conclusions, coming from a seasoned federal
prosecutor with full access to all grand jury evidence in the
case, represents a serious internal fracture within the
Justice Department. And the report seemed certain to provide
Republicans with considerable leverage to intensify their
demands that Reno step aside and let an outside prosecutor
take over.
So far, she has refused to budge in her refusal to refer
the case to outside counsel, and Wednesday there was no
indication that Reno seemed likely to reconsider her
position. Last fall, La Bella had urged her to seek the
appointment of an independent prosecutor to investigate fund-
raising telephone calls by Clinton and Vice President Al
Gore. But she rejected that recommendation.
Reno has said she carefully weighed the facts and the law
before determining that the appointment of an independent
prosecutor was not justified under the independent counsel
law. She has defiantly blocked the appointment even in the
face of a recommendation last fall from FBI Director Louis
Freeh, who urged her to seek an independent counsel.
Her unwillingness to seek the appointment has exasperated
Republicans in Congress who have accused the Justice
Department of a politically motivated effort to subvert the
independent counsel law to protect upper level Democratic
Party and White House officials from searching scrutiny.
The report follows a tempestuous hearing last week, in
which she faced withering questions by senators on the
Judiciary Committee. Sen. Fred Thompson, R-Tenn., who led
Senate campaign finance hearings last year, confronted Reno
by quoting a confidential memo that Freeh sent to Reno in
November 1997. He quoted Freeh has concluded, ``It is
difficult to imagine a more compelling situation for
appointing an independent counsel.''
Justice Department officials said Wednesday that Reno and
Deputy Attorney General Eric Holder had received the report
and were reviewing it. But they would not discuss specifics.
La Bella would not discuss the report.
Labella's report has been guarded closely. He produced only
two copies, the officials said. He gave one copy to Reno and
sent another to the home of Freeh, an ally whose top agent on
the case, James Desarno, approved Labella's findings.
Tuesday, Reno assembled several of her top advisers to
discuss the report, but they apparently reached no
conclusions about how or whether to respond. She has already
named a successor to La Bella. He is David Vicinanzo, a
prosecutor from New Hampshire.
The report casts possible new light on La Bella's decision
on leaving his job as the top campaign finance prosecutor,
suggesting that he could be stepping down in the middle of
the inquiry because he believed that the case should not be
handled by the Justice Department but by an outside
prosecutor.
So far, the campaign finance inquiry has produced only
several low-level fund-raisers. But there has been no
indication that the inquiry was likely to move up the chain
of command at the Democratic National Committee or the White
House.
In his report, the officials said, La Bella concluded that
there was sufficient information to warrant the appointment
based on the mandatory and discretionary provisions of the
independent counsel statute, meaning that he found enough
specific information to justify an outside investigation of
high-level officials. Moreover, he found that the Justice
Department could not objectively investigate them on its own,
the officials said.
Still, it was not clear whether La Bella recommended
whether an independent prosecutor should be named to
investigate specific officials although he assessed the
activities of several senior officials, including Clinton and
Gore and others like Harold Ickes, a former deputy chief of
staff, who played an important role in supervising the
campaign from the White House.
The report also suggests that an independent prosecutor
should examine how the Democrats and Republicans used party
funds to pay a massive blitz of television ads that were
thinly veiled election messages for Clinton and Republican
nominee Bob Dole.
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, we have the House Judiciary Committee, we
have the Senate Judiciary Committee, we have the Governmental Affairs
Committee all saying we should have an independent counsel. That was
all done last year. We have the head of the FBI saying we should have
an independent counsel, and we have the special prosecutor, brought in
by Attorney General Reno herself to head up the investigation, saying
we should have an independent counsel. They all came to the same
conclusion that there was enough campaign abuse or alleged violations
of the law that we should have
[[Page S9539]]
an independent counsel to avoid the conflict of interest to investigate
this matter further.
It is unanimous, with one exception--Attorney General Reno. In her
comments, following Mr. La Bella's remarks, since that was made public,
she says, ``Well, we want to discuss this with all of our attorneys. He
was just one attorney.'' He was the lead attorney. He was the chief
investigator. And Director Freeh is not just an attorney, he happens to
be the Director of the FBI. And if he issued a 27-page report calling
for an independent counsel, I think she should adhere to it.
I am bothered by the fact that if we had the chief law enforcement
officer of the country not enforcing the law, not listening to the
recommendations of her chief investigator, Mr. La Bella, not following
the recommendations of the Director of the FBI, then I do not think she
is enforcing the law. And that bothers me.
So, Mr. President, it is with some regret--I do not do this very
often--but I think if Attorney General Reno does not appoint a special
counsel under the independent counsel statute to investigate campaign
abuses by this administration, I think she should resign. I do not
think she is doing her job. I think she is involved in more of a
coverup of the President's activities or the White House's activities
than she is enforcing the law.
I hope she will change her mind. I hope she will review the memo that
Director Freeh and Mr. La Bella have given her and follow their advice.
Those two individuals are not partisan Republicans. They are not the
chairman of the Republican Judiciary Committee or the House Judiciary
Committee or they are not Senator Thompson or other members on the
Governmental Affairs Committee. They are appointees by this
administration. I give them great credibility. I hope that she will
follow their advice. Mr. President----
Mr. SPECTER. Will my distinguished colleague----
Mr. NICKLES. I am almost finished.
Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent that three editorials be
printed in the Record, one of which is dated July 21, a New York Times
editorial. The headline of it is ``Reno Flunks Law School.'' And just
the last line says:
Ms. Reno didn't get it. She comes not to expose political
corruption, but to bury it.
There is also a New York Times editorial from July 23 that says--I
will just read this one paragraph----
The two people in the American Government who know most
about this case--the lead prosecutor and the top investigator
--are convinced that the trail of potentially illegal money
leads so clearly toward the White House that Ms. Reno cannot,
under Federal law, be allowed to supervise the investigation
of her own boss. When it comes to campaign law, this is the
most serious moment since Watergate.
I ask consent that one additional editorial be printed in the Record.
I will just read one paragraph. This is an editorial, dated July 27,
from the Washington Times. It says:
Like Mr. Freeh, Mr. La Bella has concluded that his
investigation has satisfied both the provisions of the
independent counsel law. Both have concluded that it is a
conflict of interest for Ms. Reno to investigate these
matters. Mr. La Bella also joined Mr. Freeh in concluding
that Ms. Reno--for that matter, Mr. Radek--have
misinterpreted the statute by establishing too high of a
standard for the implementation of the independent counsel
statute. FBI agent James Desarno, who was named to the task
force as the highest ranking agent at the time Mr. La Bella
was appointed, has also concurred with the recommendation for
the independent counsel.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From the New York Times, July 21, 1998]
Reno Flunks Law School
By studying the transcript of last week's Senate Judiciary
Committee hearing, it is possible to reconstruct one of the
more remarkable internal documents of the Clinton
administration. That is the tightly reasoned, 27-page legal
memorandum in which Louis Freeh, the director of the Federal
Bureau of Investigation, told Attorney General Janet Reno
that she was failing in her duty to appoint an independent
counsel to investigate President Clinton's fund-raising.
Republicans (believe) Ms. Reno is allowing the Justice
Department's investigation of foreign contributions and
Chinese government meddling in the 1996 election to crumble.
That accounts for Senator Orrin Hatch's by-the-numbers tone
in lecturing Ms. Reno last week. ``You have conflicts of
interest. There may have been crimes committed,'' he said.
``And that's why the independent counsel statute was passed
to begin with, and that is to take it out of your hands, so
you don't have to be accused of conflict of interest.''
Ms. Reno didn't get it. She comes not to expose political
corruption, but to bury it.
____
[From the New York Times, July 23, 1998]
The Firestorm Cometh
Charles La Bella, who has been leading the Justice
Department's campaign finance investigation, has now advised
Attorney General Janet Reno that under both the mandatory and
discretionary provisions of the Independent Counsel Act she
must appoint an outside prosecutor to take over his inquiry.
The other important figure of this investigation, Federal
Bureau of Investigation Director Louis Freeh, has already
recommended an independent counsel. Ms. Reno can give her
usual runaround about being hard-headed, but she cannot hide
from the meaning of this development.
The two people in the American Government who know most
about this case--the lead prosecutor and top investigator--
are convinced that the trail of potentially illegal money
leads so clearly toward the White House that Ms. Reno cannot,
under Federal law, be allowed to supervise the investigation
of her own boss. When it comes to campaign law, this is the
most serious moment since Watergate.
These are not the judgments of rebel subordinates or hot-
headed junior staff members. Mr. Freeh, a former Federal
judge, has been if anything too loyal to Ms. Reno during the
nine long months that she has ignored his advice. Mr. La
Bella was hand-picked by Ms. Reno on the basis of experience
and skill to run this investigation. Either she has to come
forward and make the impossible argument that they are
incompetent or bow to the law's requirements.
Ms. Reno may grumble about leaks of supposedly confidential
advice. But the fact is that the American people need to know
that two top law enforcement officers believe the Attorney
General is derelict. Moreover, Mr. Freeh and Mr. La Bella are
right to separate themselves from Ms. Reno, because if her
attempt to protect Presidential fund-raising from
investigation continues, it will go down as a blot against
Justice every bit as enduring as J. Edgar Hoover's privacy
abuses. Firestorm is an overused word in Congress, but if Ms.
Reno does not make the appointment, the Republican Senate
leadership ought to ignite one--today.
____
[From the Washington Times, July 27, 1998]
Charles La Bella Speaks
When Attorney General Janet Reno beseeched federal
prosecutor Charles La Bella last September to come to
Washington to rescue her department's clueless investigation
of campaign-finance abuses during the 1996 election, her
request was clearly an act of desperation.
Rather than seek an independent counsel to replace her
department's demonstrably incompetent task force, Miss Reno
convinced Mr. La Bella to lend his considerable credibility
to the task force, which had been thoroughly politicized by
its leader, Lee Radek, chief of the Justice Department's
Public Integrity Section. By the time Mr. La Bella arrived,
the FBI agents assigned to the task force had been bitterly
complaining for months about the snail-like pace, believing
Mr. Radek was far more interested in controlling the
investigation than advancing it. Mr. Radek, of course, had
been intensely, and successfully, lobbying Miss Reno against
seeking an independent counsel.
It didn't take Mr. La Bella long to conclude that Mr.
Radek's arguments against naming an independent counsel
amounted to ``pablum.'' Last November, both he and FBI
Director Louis B. Freeh advised Miss Reno to seek the
appointment of an independent counsel to investigate charges
that President Clinton and Vice President Gore had made
illegal fund-raising calls from the White House. In a
confidential 27-page legal memo to the attorney general, Mr.
Freeh concluded, ``It is difficult to imagine a more
compelling situation for the appointment of an independent
counsel,'' arguing that the investigation had satisfied both
the discretionary and the mandatory options governing such an
appointment. Siding yet again with Mr. Radek, Miss Reno
rejected the advice of Messrs. Freeh and La Bella last fall.
Mr. La Bella is now returning to San Diego, where he will
become interim U.S. attorney, an appointment he received from
Miss Reno. On July 16, he filed his final report, and it was
revealed late last week that Mr. La Bella once again strongly
recommended that Miss Reno seek an independent counsel. Like
Mr. Freeh, Mr. La Bella has concluded that his investigation
has satisfied both the provisions of the independent-counsel
law. Both have concluded that it is a conflict of interest
for Miss Reno to investigate these matters. Mr. La Bella also
joined Mr. Freeh in concluding that Miss Reno and, for that
matter, Mr. Radek, have misinterpreted the statute by
establishing too high a standard for the implementation of
the independent-counsel statute. FBI agent James Desarno, who
was named to the task force as the highest-ranking agent at
the same time Mr. La Bella was appointed, has also concurred
with the recommendation for an independent counsel.
Given that Mr. La Bella was Miss Reno's hand-picked
prosecutor to lead her department's faltering investigation,
his views
[[Page S9540]]
ought to carry great weight, as, of course, should those of
FBI Director Freeh. But Miss Reno has already displayed her
trademark obstinacy and has failed to act in the 11 days she
has had the benefit of Mr. La Bella's latest recommendation.
The Justice Department frequently reminds us that Miss Reno
has sought more independent counsels than any previous
attorney general. But it's worth recalling that she
steadfastly refused to name an independent counsel to
investigate Whitewater until after President Clinton
instructed her to do so. And Kenneth Starr was appointed by a
special three-judge panel, which rejected Miss Reno's
recommendation that a more pliable, less independent
prosecutor be reappointed.
By seeking independent counsels to investigate matters far
less important than the massive campaign corruption that
subverted the democratic process, Miss Reno has conveniently
built a defense against having to seek an appointment that
actually threatens the president. It's a brilliant tactic,
but she cannot be allowed to get away with it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair informs the Senator that his time
has expired.
Mr. NICKLES. I thank the Chair. I now believe I have inserted in the
Record all the subsequent statements that I have, including Attorney
General Reno's statement before the Judiciary Committee, or at least
excerpts of that.
I thank my friend and colleague. I also thank my colleague from West
Virginia for his patience and courtesy, that he always extends. I
appreciate that.
To my colleague from Pennsylvania, my time has expired.
Mr. SPECTER. For a question--I know the distinguished Senator from
West Virginia is waiting. I will be just a moment or two.
Mr. BYRD. I will be happy to wait.
Mr. SPECTER. I appreciate that very much.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania is recognized.
Mr. SPECTER. My question, I say to Senator Nickles, relates to the
consequences of a resignation. I commend you for the statement which
you have just made. I have joined others in the call for an independent
counsel. And, in fact, when questioning Attorney General Reno on July
15 of this year--2 weeks ago on Wednesday--I asked her about specific
cases and had an extensive chart which showed the justification for an
independent counsel.
Then, because of the limitation of time, I mentioned only two cases,
one where a memorandum had come from the Democratic National Committee
to the White House identifying five people who were identified as being
good for $100,000 each. The President initialed it. The Democratic
National Committee called for a coffee. It was held in the Oval Office.
Within a few days thereafter, four of the five contributed $100,000--
specific and credible evidence. And the Attorney General responded she
would get back to me, which I said surprised me because it was a well-
known matter.
The second matter that I called to her attention--of only two because
of the limitation of time--involved John Huang, where the photograph
appeared and Carl Jackson, formerly of the NSC, National Security
Staff, commented that Huang, in the presence of the President in the
White House had said ``Elections are expensive, and we expect people to
contribute.'' I have pressed for a mandamus act which I will not
discuss now. I have on prior occasions.
The question that I have for my distinguished colleague from
Oklahoma--and I thank my colleague from West Virginia--is, What will be
accomplished with a resignation? Is there any expectation that the
President will appoint somebody who will be tougher on the campaign
irregularities in which he is so deeply involved, at least by
allegation? Wouldn't the better course be to move on the legal front,
recognizing that it is a very tough case, candidly, an uphill fight--a
long shot, in common parlance--contrasted with the resignation where we
are going to have a lengthy delay before a nomination is made--
confirmation hearings--familiarity would be a matter of months--before
a substitute attorney general would be in a position to respond to this
issue about appointment of an independent counsel?
Mr. NICKLES. I appreciate the question by my friend and colleague. As
I stated in my statement, one, I hope--I prefaced, I said if she does
not appoint, if she does not appoint an independent counsel, then I
think she should resign. And it is my hope that she will follow the
wisdom of Director Freeh and Mr. La Bella, follow their advice and
appoint an independent counsel. I hope she will enforce the law.
As my colleague from Pennsylvania is aware, I think the law is very
clear. The one you mentioned with the coffees, the statute says: It
shall be unlawful for any person to solicit or receive any contribution
in a Federal building. The statute is pretty clear. It just has not
been enforced.
I appreciate your statement. I think if she resigned--whoever is
acting--before any person would be confirmed by the Senate, we would
try to have a very clear understanding that the law would be enforced.
I would also mention--you mentioned John Huang. John Huang was in the
White House 164 times. That is a lot of visits for a person who was
primarily a fundraiser. I think clearly the law was abused; campaign
abuses were very flagrant. And the law should be enforced.
Hopefully, the Attorney General will take heed of the advice that the
Senate Judiciary Committee, the House Judiciary Committee, the
Governmental Affairs Committee, the investigative committee in the
House, and as well as the FBI Director and her chief prosecutor, Mr. La
Bella, have given, and follow that advice with the appointment of an
independent counsel. I think it would help relieve her of a lot of
criticism. And I think it would be the right thing to do. I think it
would be enforcing the laws as the law is written.
Mr. President, I again thank my colleague from West Virginia for his
courtesy and also for his patience.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from
West Virginia is recognized for 25 minutes.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the Chair.
____________________