|
Jewish World Review / August 11, 1998/ 19 Menachem-Av 5758
Linda Chavez
Reno's risk
LAST WEEK, THE HOUSE COMMITTEE investigating illegal campaign contributions voted
along strict party lines to cite Attorney General Janet Reno for contempt of Congress.
To date, Reno has proven herself impervious to criticism, common sense and the
collective advice of her top investigators. In defending her most recent action, she
claimed: "The department cannot do its duty if it is subjected to a process that can only
shake public confidence in our ability to make law-enforcement decisions free of
political pressure. And it cannot perform the way it should if required to submit internal
memoranda to political scrutiny in a manner that can only squelch candid, honest, open
advice."
But there is little evidence Reno is paying much attention to that advice in the first
place. Last November, FBI director Louis Freeh recommended that she appoint an
independent counsel to investigate illegal Democrat campaign contributions and she
ignored him. Now she's ignoring LaBella, too.
More than three weeks after he presented her with a 94-page memo outlining why she
should appoint an independent counsel, he told the committee she hadn't even bothered
to speak with him concerning his recommendations. She may not even have read the
memo and the accompanying foot-high stack of supporting document that accompanied
it, according to her own admissions. Her first line of defense when presented with a
subpoena for the documents was that she had not yet had time to evaluate the
documents herself.
Nonetheless, maybe the Republicans went too far in citing Reno for contempt of
Congress. After all, such action is unprecedented, right? That's the impression from
much of the media coverage last week. It turns out, however, that at least three
previous Cabinet-level officials have been cited for contempt of Congress for refusing
to turn over secret documents -- every one a Republican cited by a
Democrat-controlled Committee: former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger during the
Nixon administration, and former Secretary of Interior James Watt and Environmental
Protection Agency Administrator Ann Goresuch, both Reagan appointees.
If there was any partisanship in the Republicans' decision to cite Reno for contempt,
they certainly had plenty of examples to follow from when their Democrat colleagues
were in power.
And what about Democrat complaints that the entire investigation into illegal campaign
contributions has been partisan from the beginning? They're certainly correct that there
has been an unparalleled level of partisanship on both the House and Senate
committees investigating this issue, but that's because so few Democrats have broken
party ranks from defending their president and their national party.
During Watergate, Republicans slowly began to desert Nixon, as evidence mounted
that he was involved in wrongdoing. Similarly, Republicans like former Sen. Warren
Rudman were quick to criticize Reagan during the Iran-Contra investigations -- but
Democrats have largely stood steadfast in defending President Clinton, no matter how
compelling the evidence against him or other administration officials.
Congressional Democrats' see-no-evil, hear-no-evil policy may come back to haunt
them later, however. The contents of LaBella's memo to the attorney general won't
remain secret forever. Too many people know what's in the memo to maintain a
successful conspiracy of silence for long. Someone has already broken the silence by
tipping off the press to the memo's existence in the first place. How long will it be
before concrete information begins to dribble out?
When it does, Janet Reno's reluctance to appoint an independent counsel and
congressional Democrats' unwillingness to expose their own party's illegal campaign
activities may look more like a criminal cover-up than mere partisan
The action was prompted by her refusal to turn over subpoenaed documents from the
Justice Department's own chief investigator Charles LaBella, who recommended that
she appoint an independent counsel to investigate administration and Democrat Party
officials for possible criminal violations of campaign-finance laws. So who's playing
politics, congressional Republicans or the attorney general and her Democrat
defenders on the committee?
Is Reno also blind to the Truth?
8/04/98: When Truth is of the highest odor
7/28/98: No way to protect ourselvesagainst a nut's wrath
7/22/98: These 'choice' advocates are being demonzied ... by the Left.
7/15/98: Will 'neonaticide' become the new buzzword?
7/07/98: Urge to mega-merge, stopped in time
6/30/98: Why take responsibility if
somebody else will pay?
6/23/98: Blinded by the red, or is it the green?
6/17/98: Flotsam in the wake of romance
6/10/98: We have a ways to go in the bilingual war
6/3/98: Tyson's triumph over tragedy
5/28/98: Why Univision's Perenchio is out to hurt his fellow Hispanics
5/20/98: Sometimes Buba actually tells the truth ... as he sees it
5/12/98: Chill-out on the chihuahua and ... Seinfeld
5/8/98: The revolution is just about over
4/28/98: Let's face it: both parties are full of hypocrites
4/21/98: Legislating equality
4/14/98: One down, many to go
4/7/98: Mexican mayhem?
3/31/98: Of death and details
3/25/98: Americans are unaware of NATO expansion
3/18/98: Intellectual-ghettoes in the name of diversity
3/11/98: Be careful what you wish for ...
3/4/98: The Press' Learning-disability
2/25/98: 50 States Are Enough!
2/18/98: Casey at the Mat
2/11/98: The legal profession's Final Solution
2/4/98: Faith and the movies
1/28/98: Clinton, Lewinsky, and Politics Vs. Principle
1/21/98: Movement on the Abortion Front
1/14/98: Clones, Courts, and Contradictions
1/7/98: Child custody or child endangerment?
12/31/97: Jerry Seinfeld, All-American
12/24/97: Affirmative alternatives: New initiatives for equal opportunity are out there
12/17/97: Opening a window of opportunity (a way out of bilingual education for California's Hispanic kids)