Time: Mon Aug 18 10:36:43 1997 by usr03.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id KAA19987; Mon, 18 Aug 1997 10:31:37 -0700 (MST) Date: Mon, 18 Aug 1997 10:30:20 -0700 To: (Recipient list suppressed) From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar] Subject: SLS: Janet "Rhino" Proves She's as Rotten as Her Boss (fwd) <snip> > >Investor's Business Daily - Guest Editorial (08/15/97) > >Janet Reno Shows Her Situational Ethics >By Mark Levin > >Mark R. Levin is president of Landmark Legal Foundation, >a public-interest law firm. http://www.landmarklegal.org/ >He served as chief of staff to former Attorney General Edwin Meese III.) > > Back in the '80s, then-Attorney General Edwin Meese was held up as the >ultimate partisan. But when push came to shove, he appointed an independent >counsel to investigate an alleged scandal. The current attorney general, >Janet Reno, refuses to take such a principled stand, despite her rhetoric. > > On Dec. 4, 1986, Meese, at the request of President Reagan, asked a >federal court to appoint an independent counsel to investigate the so-called >Iran-Contra matter. Reagan and Meese wanted to assure the public that an >investigation of allegations reported in the media would be examined fully >without any perceived influence by officials in the administration. > Meese didn't have the requisite information compelling him to ask for an >independent counsel - namely, specific information from a credible source >that a crime may have been committed by a senior Reagan administration >official. > Instead, he used his discretionary authority to argue that it was in >''the national public interest'' for an independent counsel to investigate >possible wrongdoing. Soon after receiving Meese's request, Lawrence Walsh >became independent counsel. > At the end of the Bush administration, the Independent Counsel Act >expired. In 1993, the Democrat-controlled Congress pushed to renew it. The >two most prominent advocates of the law were the new president, Bill Clinton, >and his new attorney general, Janet Reno. > In fact, on May 14, 1993, Reno -the only attorney general, Democrat or >Republican, to support the Independent Counsel Act - urged the Senate >Governmental Affairs Committee to restore it. She cited, among other things, >the Iran-Contra investigation. > > ''I believe,'' she testified, ''that this investigation could not have >been conducted under the supervision of the Attorney General and concluded >with any public confidence in its thoroughness and impartiality.'' > > Reno not only endorsed Meese's use of his discretionary authority, but >went much further. > She told the Senate committee: ''The reason that I support the concept >of an independent counsel with statutory independence is that there is an >inherent conflict whenever senior executive branch officials are to be >investigated by the department and its appointed head, the attorney general . >. . > > ''The act thus served as a vehicle to further the public's perception of >fairness and thoroughness in such matters, and to avert even the most subtle >influences that may appear in an investigation of highly-placed executive >officials.'' > > But today, Reno refuses to seek the appointment of an independent >counsel to investigate the campaign fund-raising scandal swirling around Bill >and Hillary Clinton and Vice President Al Gore. > Last Jan. 27, Lee Radek, who's running the Justice Department's >campaign-finance probe, rejected Landmark Legal Foundation's request that >Reno appoint an independent counsel to investigate Gore's participation in an >illegal fundraiser at a tax-exempt Buddhist temple. > Radek, writing for Reno, replied: ''With respect to the role of the Vice >President, neither your letters nor any other information known to us at this >time about the Temple suggest that Vice President Gore - or any other person >covered by the provisions of the Independent Counsel Act - engaged in >criminal conduct in connection with the event.'' > > Radek misstated the law's requirements. The standard is whether Gore MAY >have violated certain federal laws, not whether, in fact, he ''engaged'' in >criminal conduct - a decision our Constitution places with a judge and a >jury, not Justice Department prosecutors. > In other words, the issue under the independent counsel law is who >investigates this conduct, not whether a high official is conclusively guilty >of a crime. > But isn't Radek's response irrelevant? After all, Reno is on record >supporting an independent counsel whenever an investigation would be in ''the >national public interest.'' Clearly, the campaign fund-raising scandal merits >the appointment of an independent counsel, under Reno's own past reasoning. > The scandal includes possible governmental and commercial espionage by >the Communist Chinese, illegal campaign solicitations and fundraisers at the >White House involving the president, first lady and vice president, >money-laundering, and illegal contributions to the Democratic National >Committee and the Clinton legal defense fund. > Reno has abandoned her 1993 Senate testimony. Today, she is deaf to her >own arguments. Instead, she embraces Bill Clinton's public suggestion that an >independent counsel should be avoided in this case. The only attorney general >to support this law now refuses to comply with it. > > Mark R. Levin is president of Landmark Legal Foundation, a >public-interest law firm. He served as chief of staff to former Attorney >General Edwin Meese III. > >//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// >Copyright (c) 1997 Investors Business Daily, All rights reserved. >Transmitted: 8/14/97 8:36 PM EDT (r1ab2nnx) > >=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= >Unsub info - send e-mail to majordomo@majordomo.pobox.com, with >"unsubscribe liberty-and-justice" in the body (not the subject) >Liberty-and-Justice list-owner is Mike Goldman <whig@pobox.com> > > ======================================================================== Paul Andrew Mitchell : Counselor at Law, federal witness B.A., Political Science, UCLA; M.S., Public Administration, U.C. Irvine tel: (520) 320-1514: machine; fax: (520) 320-1256: 24-hour/day-night email: [address in tool bar] : using Eudora Pro 3.0.3 on 586 CPU website: http://www.supremelaw.com : visit the Supreme Law Library now ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 : this is free speech, at its best Tucson, Arizona state : state zone, not the federal zone Postal Zone 85719/tdc : USPS delays first class w/o this As agents of the Most High, we came here to establish justice. We shall not leave, until our mission is accomplished and justice reigns eternal. ======================================================================== [This text formatted on-screen in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.]
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail