Online NewsHour: Reno Stands Firm -- April 30, 1997

RENO STANDS FIRM

APRIL 30, 1997

TRANSCRIPT

The Attorney General, testifying before Congress, has vowed to resist pressure to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate alleged Democratic campaign finance abuses. The NewsHour's regional commentators weigh in on Reno's performance.

A RealAudio version of Attorney Gen. Reno testifying before Congress is available.
A RealAudio version of this segment is available.
April 24, 1997:
Part One of Democratic Chair Governor Roy Romer and GOP Chair Jim Nicholson debate.
March 24, 1997:
Part One of Hedrick Smith's series on campaign financing.
March 25, 1997:
Part Two of Hedrick Smith's series on campaign financing.
March 26, 1997:
Part Three of Hedrick Smith's series on campaign financing.
March 11, 1997:
Senators Dick Durbin (D-IL) and Thad Cochran (R-MS) discuss the Senate fund-raising investigation.
March 6, 1997:
Two former White House lawyers discuss the legality of Vice President's fund-raising.
March 4, 1997:
Presidential historians, journalist/author Haynes Johnson and William Kristol, editor and publisher of The Weekly Standard discuss money and politics.
March 3, 1997:
Vice President Gore said he did nothing illegal or wrong when he solicited funds for the 1996 presidential campaigns.
February 27, 1997:
Jim Lehrer leads a discussion on the accusations against the White House campaign financing team .
February 25, 1997:
Elizabeth Farnsworth discusses the growing DNC fund raising scandal with White House Special Counsel Lanny Davis.
November 28, 1996:
Margaret Warner discusses campaign finance reform with three members of Congress.
November 28, 1996:
The NewsHour's Kwame Holman reports on this year's efforts to reform campaign financing and how "soft money" may have been the biggest story of this election.
November 18, 1996:
House Minority Leader Dick Gephardt (D-MO) discusses campaign finance reform and his party's role in the 105th Congress.
October 25, 1996:
Mark Shields and Paul Gigot discuss the role of money in this election year.
October 24, 1996:
Ross Perot blasts what he sees as President Clinton's corruption.
October 21, 1996:
Margaret Warner examines campaign money and its sources.
October 21, 1996:
A panel debates campaign finance reform and allegations of illegal foreign contributions and egregious misuse of lots of "soft money".
October 18, 1996:
Margaret Warner reports on the recent emergence of campaign finance issues on the campaign trail.
Oct. 18, 1996:
Ellen Miller, director of the Center for Responsive Politics, participates in an Online Forum on campaign finance reform.
Browse the Online NewsHour's Congressional coverage.

JIM LEHRER: Now six views of this from out in the country. Three of our regular regional commentators are here: Lee Cullum with the Dallas Morning News; Cynthia Tucker of the Atlanta Constitution; Robert Kittle of the San Diego Union Tribune. Joining them tonight are John Bremner of the St. Louis Post Dispatch; Ken Neal of the Tulsa World--we're having technical problems--we hope to have Ken Neal in a few moments; and Barbara Mantz Drake of the Peoria Journal Star. Lee Cullum, what is your view of the way Janet Reno handled herself today?
LEE CULLUM, Dallas Morning News: Jim, I think she handled herself very well, indeed. You know, Janet Reno is an extraordinary person. When you think back to other attorneys generals, she's not a personal alter ego of the President, as Robert Kennedy was to John. She's not a home state pal, as Griffin Bell was to Jimmy Carter or crony as Ed Meese was to Reagan.
And she's certainly never had the cloud over her head that followed Meese throughout much of his tenure. Her problem is there is a cloud over her boss. And while I don't agree with her decision not to name a special prosecutor to look into foreign contributions to the campaign of last year, I do respect very much the way she handles herself, and I thought she did a good job today.
JIM LEHRER: Robert Kittle, your view.
ROBERT KITTLE, San Diego Union Tribune: Well, I think in this case the attorney general reminds me a bit of her conduct after the Waco disaster, the siege in Waco, in which she stepped forward and very forthrightly--full responsibility, was happy to shoulder the blame, and become the lightning rod, in effect, for the administration on that issue. And at that time the President was nowhere to be found. On this issue of the expanding criminal probe, again, she seems to be content to become the lightning rod and to stand there and shoulder the responsibilities completely and to speak forthrightly. And whether you agree with her or not--and I happen to disagree with her view on this also--I think you have to respect the way she's a very stand-up person about it.
JIM LEHRER: John Bremner in St. Louis.
JOHN BREMNER, St. Louis Post Dispatch: I thought she was very mild. She didn't emphasize, I think, the--the fact that the Republicans have taken the standard of appearance of conflict of interest out of the statute when it was renewed and are essentially engaged in an attempt to--I think she ought to make that point, because I think that was the purpose of the hearing, to generate enough so that she'll be forced to reverse a decision she can competently defend in law.
JIM LEHRER: How did you feel she did otherwise today and before the Senate committee?
JOHN BREMNER: I think she was appropriately non-provocative, left the field to them, and answered all the technical points correctly.
JIM LEHRER: Do you think she should have gone further?
JOHN BREMNER: I think she should have gone to the intent of the hearing. They're entitled to hold it, but there's a question related to why this is the fourth request this early in the game.
JIM LEHRER: Cynthia Tucker, how did you feel about what happened today?
CYNTHIA TUCKER, Atlanta Constitution: Well, I think she represented her point of view as well as it can possibly be represented, Jim. I also disagree with her. I think that she is hiding behind some very narrow legal technicalities, but I also think it was appropriate for her to avoid partisanship. She certainly did that today, and she seemed to have frustrated her Republican critics much more than they frustrated her.
JIM LEHRER: Barbara Drake, how did it look to you in Peoria?
BARBARA MANTZ DRAKE, Peoria Journal Star: I think she looked pretty credible. I think that when she said that she took an oath of office to uphold the Constitution and that she wasn't going to be affected by politicians or by polls, or by the press in her determination to do that, I think she was believable.
JIM LEHRER: Do you think, Barbara, that you agree with Lee, that she's kind of in a special category of public official right now?
BARBARA MANTZ DRAKE: Indeed, I do. I think people aren't quite sure what to make of her. I think they don't see her as an ordinary Democrat on Bill Clinton's team, and she's certainly not a Republican. And I think that gives her some advantage in pursuing this issue, and I think that it certainly adds to public faith in what she does.
JIM LEHRER: Robert Kittle, what about that issue that you could look at this in one of two ways; that this is a political matter and she's doing the political work of the man who appointed her, President Clinton, or she's a hero standing tall and firm against pressure, how do you view that?
ROBERT KITTLE: Well, I don't view it as standing firm against the pressure, although that's certainly what she's doing. The fundamental problem with the attorney general's refusal to name a special prosecutor is that it means ironically that this whole investigation is going to remain a very highly politicized affair. And the purpose of the special prosecutor law really is to remove this kind of investigation from the pressures that the political process brings to it.
And if she had followed that, that line of reasoning, I think she could have removed a lot of the political pressure that she is apparently happen to shoulder on this, because matters now stand, without a special prosecutor, it means that the Republicans in Congress have more incentive than ever to investigate the conduct of individuals, as opposed to focusing on the policy issues and the potential need to reform the law, which really is the proper thing for Congress to be doing, and the proper way to investigate a criminal matter, is by a special prosecutor, who's insulated from the political process.
JIM LEHRER: John Bremner, what's your view of that? Has she brought this pressure on herself, just by making a bad decision?
JOHN BREMNER: No. I think that a society that increasingly is tending to the view that one half of it should investigate the other half virtually perpetually is what brings this view. I think there is a larger issue here, and that is whether the congressional process which may be partisan should be short-circuited continually by anybody making a charge that might involve the attorney general's boss, and, therefore, trigger an independent prosecutor.
That's why the higher standards, excluding mere appearance of conflict of interest, was put into the law, although the justice opposed it, and I think it's right. I think we can't go the legal process in every case at the first opportunity.
JIM LEHRER: Lee, you disagree with that?
LEE CULLUM: Well, I do think that we need a special prosecutor in this case, Jim. You know, foreign contributions are illegal. I don't think there's any other way to interpret it, so it needs to be looked into. This is certainly more important than Henry Cisneros's romantic problems, and we have a special prosecutor for that. And now I will say this about the special prosecutor law.
I do think it means written into a deadline and a budget. I don't think these things should go on forever. And I know that those were replied that those under investigation will then drag their feet, but they drag their feet anyway, so we need--we need a budget; we need a deadline. Actually, it should be turned over to Kenneth Starr in this case. The Dallas Morning News suggested that, and it would be a reasonable way to go.
JIM LEHRER: Yeah. Barbara Drake, what about the argument--I know you support Attorney General Reno's position on this--what about the point that if there was ever a prima face case, prima face case for an independent counsel, this would be it compared to the other ones she has appointed?
BARBARA MANTZ DRAKE: Well, I'm not sure about that. Sen. Hatch referred to there may have been impropriety, I think were his words, and of course the law requires more than just evidence of impropriety. It requires evidence of law breaking. And the problem with the campaign finance laws, the way they've been interpreted, is that they're might darn hard to break. You can do just about anything and not break campaign finance laws. So, I think the problem is not with the independent prosecutor law, so much as it is with the need to do something about there being holes in the campaign finance laws.
JIM LEHRER: Cynthia, what is your view of why Attorney General Reno should appoint an independent counsel?
CYNTHIA TUCKER: Well, I think that there is much stronger evidence of law-breaking in this case, Jim, than there has been in many of the other cases where special prosecutors have been appointed. We have been--Kenneth Starr has been consumed with Whitewater for years now and not produced any substantial evidence of wrongdoing against Hillary or Bill Clinton.
But in the case of campaign finance shenanigans, there is much stronger evidence than that. There are very strong suggestions of illegal contributions by a foreign government, the Chinese government, and there are--I would suggest to you that there is evidence that there was illegal solicitation of funds, campaign funds, from government property, from the White House, itself. Al Gore has all but admitted that, and that is illegal. But let me say one thing about how Janet Reno found herself in this spot. I don't think that we can completely take the eye off her boss, Bill Clinton.
Everybody who follows inside-the-beltway-machinations knows that he took some time to decide to reappoint her as attorney general and was clearly miffed that she had appointed special prosecutors in cases before. He left her dangling out there. That left all of this room for speculation about whether he would reappoint her, and then when she has so staunchly, steadfastly, and adamantly decided not to appoint one in this case, it does make her look as though she's trying not to risk angering him again. And so I think that her boss is partly to blame for the set of circumstances in which she finds herself.
JIM LEHRER: Do you agree with that, John Bremner?
JOHN BREMNER: No, I don't. I don't because the appointment--the reappointment, in effect, has been made. The last thing she will do, I think, is change her view. He can't fire her now, and I think she's looking to her reputation. She certainly is a woman of considerable integrity. So unless you're inclined to disbelieve her, the logic that she will now pay him off after she had refused to pay him off in the first term, it doesn't work.
JIM LEHRER: Does it work for you, Bob Kittle?
ROBERT KITTLE: Well, I think the concern that Cynthia voices is certainly there among a lot of people simply because of the inherent conflict that an attorney general has in investigating her boss, whether there was any tacit understanding with the President to earn a second term with him, to be kept in the second term, is irrelevant. The appearance of a problem is there. The conflict is real. An attorney general cannot be reasonably expected, in my view, to investigate the vice president. There's too much of a conflict there, and that's why I think this matter should be turned over to a special prosecutor who is insulated from that conflict of interest.
JIM LEHRER: But, Barbara Drake, in a word, after listening to Janet Reno today, do you get the impression that that was not going to happen?
BARBARA MANTZ DRAKE: Well, not today, and it doesn't sound like it's going to happen down the road. It'll be interesting to see what kind of public reaction there is to this. In Peoria, so far, we are just hearing virtually nothing. We haven't gotten a letter to the editor, haven't gotten a telephone call in a very long time on this issue, and I think that reflects the other part of what's going on, which is that people are just tired of having government spend so much time investigating government. And I think they view there being other concerns that are much greater to them and more important to their lives than the issue of who gave money under what smelly kinds of circumstances to whom.
JIM LEHRER: All right. Well, we have to leave it there. We never were able to fix our problems with Tulsa, so Ken Neal was not with us. But my thanks to all five of you for being with us.

Program
Support
From: