-Caveat Lector-   <A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/">
</A> -Cui Bono?-

From:

http://www.nytimes.com/library/politics/031100dems-donate.html

The New York Times
March 11, 2000

Aides to Reno Twice Urged Independent Prosecutor for Gore,
Interviews and Files Show

By DAVID JOHNSTON and DON VAN NATTA Jr.

WASHINGTON, March 10 -- Senior Justice Department officials twice
urged Attorney General Janet Reno to appoint an independent
counsel to investigate Vice President Al Gore for his role in
political fund-raising and at one point came closer to persuading
her than was previously known, according to government officials
and previously undisclosed documents.

Not only did the F.B.I. director, Louis J. Freeh, and Ms. Reno's
chief campaign finance prosecutor, Charles G. La Bella, conclude
that Ms. Reno was obligated to seek an independent counsel, but
so did aides like Robert S. Litt, a highly influential political
deputy at the Justice Department who was often said to have
opposed such appointments.

But Ms. Reno decided against them and ordered the investigation
of Mr. Gore closed in December, 1998. That decision lifted an
enormous political weight off Mr. Gore as he prepared to seek the
presidency and became one of the attorney general's most
controversial and criticized moves.

Myron Marlin, a spokesman for the Justice Department, said that
Ms. Reno made her independent counsel decisions impartially and
that her willingness to refer cases to outside prosecutors was
demonstrated by her decision to seek such appointments in the
cases of seven top Clinton administration officials.

As to Mr. Gore, Mr. Marlin said: "The attorney general relied on
the advice of a number of officials in this case, career
employees who worked throughout Republican and Democratic
administrations and had different views on the issue among them.
In the end, the attorney general based her decision on the facts
and the law without regard to politics."

The Justice Department's investigation of Mr. Gore followed an
erratic trajectory. It began before the 1996 election when
federal prosecutors in Los Angeles opened an inquiry into the
vice president's activities at a fund-raising event at the Hsi
Lai Temple, a Buddhist temple in Hacienda Heights, Calif., in
April 1996.

But in an early, pivotal decision, senior Justice Department
officials in Washington ordered the prosecutor, Assistant United
States Attorney Stephen A. Mansfield, to cease his investigation
and turn over any information he had gathered to prosecutors in
Washington because Mr. Gore was covered by the independent
counsel statute.

"As would be necessary in any matter with potential independent
counsel ramifications, your office should take no steps to
investigate these matters at this time," Lee J. Radek, the chief
of the public integrity section, wrote in a Nov. 1, 1996 letter
to a top Federal prosecutor in Los Angeles. The letter was
recently obtained by The New York Times.

The department's temple inquiry exonerated Mr. Gore by 1997, and
when he was later interviewed by the F.B.I. in 1997 and 1998, he
was never even questioned about the temple. The investigation led
to an indictment of Maria Hsia, a California immigration
consultant and longtime fund-raiser for the vice president, who
was convicted by a Federal jury here last week.

Ms. Hsia's conviction has kept alive the political embarrassment
that the event caused for the vice president, the putative
Democratic presidential nominee this year. His opponent, Gov.
George W. Bush of Texas, has vowed to make the vice president's
role in campaign fund-raising in 1996 a major issue in the
campaign this fall. Today, Mr. Bush said, "The vice president
needs to clear up what role he played in raising money from the
White House."

Jim Kennedy, a spokesman for the president and vice president,
said: "The fact that some disagreed with the attorney general's
decision isn't news. But the bottom line hasn't changed. This has
all been investigated by many people at a cost of millions of
dollars with absolutely no finding of wrongdoing on the part of
the president or vice president."

A review of the Justice Department's inquiry of Mr. Gore's role
in the 1996 campaign finance investigation shows that the vice
president only narrowly avoided the appointment of an independent
counsel to investigate charges of illegal fund-raising, not for
any actions related to the temple for but for fund-raising phone
calls that the vice president placed from his White House office.

The closeness of the call on Mr. Gore's case was not known
previously. The debates kept the decision open until the final
day of the 90-day deadline imposed by the independent counsel
law, when Mr. Radek and other lawyers from the public integrity
section persuaded Ms. Reno that the facts would never warrant
prosecution, the officials said.

The searing debate has left a residue of bitterness among a wider
group of current and former Justice Department and
law-enforcement officials than has been previously disclosed. In
interviews and confidential documents reviewed by The Times, they
said that Ms. Reno's handling of inquiries involving Mr. Gore
raised suspicions that investigations involving senior White
House officials were handled differently than those of
lower-ranking officials covered by the independent counsel
statute.

In a confidential memorandum to Ms. Reno in 1998, Charles G. La
Bella, her hand-picked chief of the department's campaign finance
task force, argued strenuously that an independent counsel should
be appointed to investigate the fund-raising roles of President
Clinton and Mr. Gore. Mr. La Bella's memorandum has never been
made public. But verbatim notes by someone who reviewed the
document demonstrate Mr. La Bella's frustrations.

Mr. La Bella said that the Justice Department had begun
aggressive investigations of lower-level people "based only on a
wisp of information," while he believed that top White House
officials had the benefit of a much higher legal threshold.

Mr. La Bella pointed out in his memo, some details of which were
first reported in The Los Angeles Times, that the independent
counsel law had an assurance that senior officials would be
"treated neither more harshly nor more leniently than others in
less powerful positions."

The temple episode, where at least $55,000 in illegal "straw"
donations were made to the Democratic Party, was not even among
the allegations under review by the Justice Department in late
1997 when Ms. Reno first considered whether to seek an
independent counsel to investigate Mr. Gore. In that deliberative
phase, which some aides later referred to as Gore I, Ms. Reno and
her aides pondered a single question: whether Mr. Gore's
telephone fund-raising phone calls from his office violated an
old antigraft law barring solicitations on public property.

The second phase of her decision, known at Justice as Gore II,
involved allegations that the vice president lied about the phone
calls. Mr. La Bella wrote his stinging memorandum a few months
before the attorney general exonerated the vice president in Gore
II.

The precise steps in the decision making process at Justice
remain hidden behind a veil of official secrecy. Nevertheless, a
pattern became well known within the Justice Department.
Accusations that were referred to the public integrity section
seemed to languish and then die. Meanwhile, career prosecutors
who had intended to aggressively investigate the accusations were
left to speculate about what had happened.

Mr. Mansfield, the Los Angeles prosecutor who originally
investigated the temple fund-raiser, said in a recent interview
that he had prepared to investigate aggressively.

"I wanted to move very quickly, to gather evidence by issuing
subpoenas, interviewing witnesses and considering the execution
of search warrants," said Mr. Mansfield, who had extensive
experience prosecuting campaign finance fraud cases and who is
now a partner at the law firm of Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld.

"But it got yanked off my desk and as far as I know, nothing
happened for many, many months. The consequence of a strategy of
sitting back and doing nothing means you effectively make the
matter go away. It is so much harder to develop. Speed is
everything in a highly publicized case."

In the months that elapsed, several figures involved in the
temple fund-raising fled the country.

During the early period of her department's investigation in
1997, Ms. Reno said repeatedly that the campaign finance task
force was "vigorously" pursuing every lead with more than 120
agents, lawyers and staff members. In October 1997, Ms. Reno said
her team was "investigating and confronting low-level targets,
and moving up the chain of those involved to whomever is
responsible."

Mr. Gore, meanwhile, said initially that he did not know that the
temple event was a fund-raiser, though later he said he knew it
was "finance-related." As for the calls he made, he has said he
was sometimes inattentive at meetings where the types of
fund-raising were discussed and that he was unaware that some of
the money he raised from his office were federally restricted.

In a letter in October, 1997, after her task force had been
investigating for about a year, the attorney general had already
decided that the practices that had first raised the biggest
questions about the Democrats, among them the use of the White
House as a fund-raising tool, did not merit an independent
counsel.

But one fund-raising statute, a 1883 civil service law that
barred elected officials from using government offices to raise
money, was clear and troublesome for Mr. Gore, who had made 45
fund-raising calls from his vice-presidential office. Mr. Gore's
supporters have said that the accusations were baseless, and that
the applicable law was created to correct political abuses before
the invention of the telephone.

In December 1997, Ms. Reno absolved him of any wrongdoing by
saying that his calls were intended to raise unrestricted soft
money only for general party purposes, not for potentially
illegal hard-money donations for the use of the re-election
campaign effort.

Repeatedly, the attorney general has denied charges by
Republicans that she refused to appoint an independent counsel
for political reasons. And some aides said that, although she
became more skeptical of the law, she never wavered in her
insistence in fully evaluating every accusation involving Mr.
Clinton and Mr. Gore.

Despite strong objections from Mr. La Bella and the F.B.I.
director, Ms. Reno said Mr. Gore's actions were lawful. "Evidence
found by the investigators shows that the vice president
solicited only soft money in these calls, not hard money," she
said.

Gore II, as it became known within some Justice Department
circles, focused on whether Mr. Gore lied to investigators during
the initial inquiry into his fund-raising phone calls. But this
time, Ms. Reno's advisers were sharply divided and there was much
deliberation.

Mr. La Bella and Director Freeh, this time joined by Mr. Litt and
other Justice Department officials, redoubled their efforts to
get the attorney general to appoint an independent counsel.
Again, this time more narrowly, Mr. Gore escaped the appointment
of an independent counsel when Ms. Reno overruled her advisers.

The Justice Department's second investigation of Mr. Gore began
in September 1998 when the White House belatedly disclosed a
fund-raising memo by David M. Strauss, a deputy chief of staff to
the vice president. Mr. Strauss's notes were taken at a White
House meeting on Nov. 21, 1995 and suggested Mr. Gore might not
have been truthful in the 1997 inquiry.

Mr. Gore had told investigators that he thought his White House
telephone calls were only to raise soft-money donations. But the
Strauss memorandum indicated that Mr. Gore might have known when
he was questioned by Justice Department investigators that money
was being split into both unrestricted soft-money accounts and
restricted hard-money accounts.

According to new documents, the former White House chief of
staff, Leon A. Panetta, recalled that the vice president was
present and seemed attentive when there was a White House
discussion of how money would be split among party accounts.

But Mr. Gore said he was sometimes inattentive and missed parts
of fund-raising meetings. Additionally, he told the F.B.I.,
according to notes of a 1998 interview, that "he drank a lot of
iced tea during meetings, which could have necessitated a
restroom break."

Ms. Reno concluded the evidence against Mr. Gore was too slight
to support a prosecution.

But some aides protested vigorously that her role -- under the
independent counsel law -- was to determine not the weight of
evidence but merely whether it was credible and specific
information that indicated a covered official may have committed
a crime.

In a brief to the three-judge panel of appellate judges, Ms. Reno
concluded that there was "only weak circumstantial evidence of
the vice president's knowledge -- his presence at a meeting where
the subject was briefly discussed -- which I do not believe
provides reasonable ground to believe that further investigation
of this matter is warranted."

Copyright 2000 The New York Times Company



=================================================================
             Kadosh, Kadosh, Kadosh, YHVH, TZEVAOT

  FROM THE DESK OF:                    <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
                      *Mike Spitzer*     <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
                         ~~~~~~~~          <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

   The Best Way To Destroy Enemies Is To Change Them To Friends
       Shalom, A Salaam Aleikum, and to all, A Good Day.
=================================================================

<A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/">www.ctrl.org</A>
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are not allowed. Substance—not soap-boxing!  These are sordid matters
and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright
frauds—is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects
spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL
gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers;
be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and
nazi's need not apply.

Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html

http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Om

Reply via email to