Time: Fri Oct 24 04:07:58 1997
	by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id DAA21675;
	Fri, 24 Oct 1997 03:55:56 -0700 (MST)
	by smtp03.primenet.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id DAA16588;
	Fri, 24 Oct 1997 03:47:20 -0700 (MST)
 via SMTP by smtp03.primenet.com, id smtpd016583; Fri Oct 24 03:47:10 1997
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 1997 03:48:00 -0700
To: (Recipient list suppressed)
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: SLS: The Tragedy of Janet Reno (fwd)

copy: Supreme Law School

>The Tragedy of Janet Reno 
>by Pete du Pont 
>October 23, 1997 
>Following this article, we have set up a special moderated discussion
>section for those who wish to comment. After you read the article, be
>sure to add your opinion. 
>On autumn afternoons in 1960 I sat around a cafeteria table at the
>Harvard Law School with a few other first year students, trying to make
>sense of that pressure-cooker intellectual exercise known as 1L. Our
>group met several times a week, struggling to understand and to learn.
>One of the people in those sessions was Janet Reno. She was intelligent,
>intellectually curious, and resolute; a no-nonsense sort of a person.
>Through three years of law school I liked her, and respected her ability
>as a student and analyst of the law.
>A good woman doing a poor job 
>Turning a blind eye.  So what has become of that Janet Reno? She was
>taught far better than she is performing as Attorney General of the
>United States. I know how she was taught, because I was there. And I
>know how she is performing, because I read it every day in the press.
>Janet Reno is at best vastly under-performing the job of Attorney
>General. At worst she is intentionally turning a blind eye to what
>appears to be a massive money-laundering scheme carried out by White
>House inmates.
>Thanks to the much-delayed release of fundraising videotapes, we now
>know that in the run-up to the 1996 election the White House was raising
>soft money to run television commercials in support of President
>Clinton's re-election campaign.
>The evidence is clear 
>We know his administration was doing it because the president has told
>us so. "I cannot overstate to you the impact that these paid ads have
>had in the areas where they run..." the president said, and, "Then we
>realized we could run these ads through the Democratic Party, which
>meant we could raise money in $20,000 and $50,000 and $100,000 wads. So
>we didn't have to do it all in $1,000 and run down what I can spend
>which is limited by law so that is what we have done." On another
>occasion, the president said "we have been able to finance this
>long-running television campaign...where we have been always framing the
>We know that any such scheme would have been illegal, because it was
>against the law for the Clinton campaign to spend more than the $62
>million permitted by the Federal Elections Commission. It is also
>illegal to evade the $1,000 per person/$5,000 per political action
>committee limit set by federal law for the financing of federal election
>campaigns. The president's language confirmed that he understood the
>law, and that he was using the Democratic National Committee to avoid
>the $1,000 limit.
>We know as well that some of the soft money raised by the president and
>vice president was reallocated by the DNC to hard money accounts to
>further avoid the inconvenience of the $1,000 campaign contribution
>limit. And a case can also be made that the president's re-election
>campaign, with full knowledge of what it was doing, raised money from
>foreign sources, which is also against the law. Finally (although I
>wonder if there ever will be a finally in these matters) there is the
>money laundering and subsequent document shredding that we know occurred
>regarding the vice president's Buddhist temple fundraiser.
>Appoint an independent counsel 
>All of this cries out for an investigation; for facts, conclusions, and
>the placing of responsibility on someone. The administration is delaying
>and stonewalling. It regularly refuses to respond to subpoenas in a
>timely fashion, discovering boxes of memoranda, billing records, tapes,
>and suicide notes long after the fact and only when against the wall of
>deadlines or disclosure.
>It is the duty of the attorney general, the top law-enforcement official
>in the country, to look into all of this, or, if there is a conflict of
>interest due to her appointment by the president, to appoint a special
>prosecutor to do so. It is inescapable that a conflict of interest
>exists in an attorney general investigating her boss. So the appointment
>of a special prosecutor should be a slam-dunk.
>So where is Janet Reno? Obfuscating, delaying, avoiding, failing to see
>what any reasonable person can plainly see. Her investigation of these
>matters has been minimal. Obvious questions have not been asked and
>obvious witnesses have not been subpoenaed -- Huang, Trie and the
>Buddhist sisters, for example. The appointment of an independent counsel
>has been avoided. As former Senator and Watergate Committee member
>Howard Baker (R-TN) said on ABC's This Week (10/12/97), if Janet Reno's
>legal standards had been applied in 1974, Archibald Cox would never have
>been appointed to investigate President Nixon.
>I am not a prosecutor, and so cannot speak with authority on the finer
>points of the independent counsel law. But I was a Congressman in 1974;
>I was for the impeachment of Richard Nixon; and I have seen this movie
>before. A growing mountain of incriminating evidence, always explained
>away or denied by a White House desperately playing for time, demands
>resolution in the name of justice and public confidence.
>Reno's last option 
>One longs for the Janet Reno of the autumn of 1960 to reappear, for that
>bright, inquiring, no-nonsense lawyer to reassert herself. But it is too
>late; for reasons unknown she has squandered the credibility and the
>dignity she brought to her office.
>The best she can do is to resign, before the remains of her integrity
>are sucked down, along with the president's and vice president's, into
>the black hole of a deep violation of the public trust.
>Pete du Pont is editor of IntellectualCapital.com. He is also a former
>Republican member of Congress and Governor of Delaware. 
>Is it time for Attorney General Janet Reno to hand in her resignation,
>as du Pont suggests? Where do you stand on the need for a independent
>counsel? Post your comments below. 
>10/23/97 O. Neimon neimon@pobox.com
>Comparing the breaking and entering of Watergate with intentionally
>bending existing election laws in a desparate attempt to keep up with
>the well-heeled Republican party, who outspent the Democrats handily,
>lest we forget, is pushing the comparison a bit far. Yes, the law was
>probably broken. Yes it should be fixed. Yes, Ms. Reno is not doing a
>very good job, though she's done worse things in her former career as a
>prosecuter - take a look at her record on certain alledged child-abuse
>cases, for instance. Regardless of these issues, I believe she should
>resign to remove the stench of complicity that hangs in her office -
>deserved or not. But I knew Watergate. This is no Watergate. *neimon
>10/23/97 TomC tcamp@phoenix.princeton.edu
>To O. Neiman: "Yes, the law was probably broken. Yes, it should be
>fixed." Let me understand this. The Republicans raised more money, so
>the Democrats were justified in breaking the law. And the solution to
>their breaking the law is not to hold them accountable, but to change
>the law so they won't have to break it. What nonsense! As to Watergate,
>the reason that Watergate brought the President down was the cover-up,
>not the original crime. The actual crime involved in Watergate had
>virtually no electoral impact (it actually benefited the Democrats). The
>current fund-raising crimes, from the President's own lips, had a major
>electoral impact. Tell me again which crime was more significant?
>IntellectualCapital.com is a service mark of 
>A2S2 Digital Projects, Inc. 
> email us at info@intellectualcapital.com 

Paul Andrew Mitchell, Sui Juris      : Counselor at Law, federal witness 01
B.A.: Political Science, UCLA;   M.S.: Public Administration, U.C.Irvine 02
tel:     (520) 320-1514: machine; fax: (520) 320-1256: 24-hour/day-night 03
email:   [address in tool bar]       : using Eudora Pro 3.0.3 on 586 CPU 04
website: http://supremelaw.com       : visit the Supreme Law Library now 05
ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 : this is free speech,  at its best 06
             Tucson, Arizona state   : state zone,  not the federal zone 07
             Postal Zone 85719/tdc   : USPS delays first class  w/o this 08
_____________________________________: Law is authority in written words 09
As agents of the Most High, we came here to establish justice.  We shall 10
not leave, until our mission is accomplished and justice reigns eternal. 11
======================================================================== 12
[This text formatted on-screen in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.] 13


Return to Table of Contents for

Supreme Law School:   E-mail