Democrats Seek Special Counsel Probe of Pierce

A panel of House Democrats on Thursday formally asked the Justice Department to seek appointment of an independent counsel to investigate whether Samuel R. Pierce Jr. committed any crimes during his scandal-ridden tenure as head of the Department of Housing and Urban Development.

“The only way this country will get to the bottom of the mess at HUD is through an investigation by an independent counsel,” said Rep. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), in announcing the request by 19 of the 20 Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee.

Later Thursday, Atty. Gen. Dick Thornburgh accused the congressmen of “partisan politics,” although he assured them that he would report back to the Judiciary Committee, as required by law. He branded as “distressing” the assertion of committee Democrats “that criminal acts have been committed before criminal investigations have been completed . . . . The Department of Justice will follow the evidence of wrongdoing wherever it leads us, regardless of political considerations.”

The lawmakers’ letter was accompanied by a five-page document outlining allegations of wrongdoing. “It appears that Mr. Pierce and other high-level officials of HUD administered certain federal housing programs in a manner to favor the projects of influential Republicans and friends of Mr. Pierce,” the document said. “This was accomplished by ignoring or deliberately circumventing federal statutes and regulations . . . . “

The document suggests also that Pierce may have committed perjury during his appearances before a House subcommittee investigating influence peddling at HUD.

“Sam Pierce testified under oath that he had nothing to do with the allocations of the programs,” Schumer told reporters. “Sam Pierce testified he did not make funding decisions. Several other witnesses directly contradicted him. Clearly, someone is not telling the truth.”

Robert Plotkin, a lawyer who has been representing Pierce, said that the letter is “nothing more than a political press release.”

“The letter and the document with it fail to contain any of the specific information needed to justify a criminal prosecution. There is no specific allegation of wrongdoing . . . . All they do is say that he (Pierce) met with consultants, which government officials do every day.”

Plotkin said that Thornburgh in the past “has not been a fan of special prosecutors,” and added: “That’s why we hope Thornburgh will nip this in the bud.”

In his statement Thursday, Thornburgh said: “It’s unfortunate that (the congressmen) have introduced partisan politics into this matter, which has until now been handled in a nonpartisan, professional way by the Congress, HUD and this department.”

Under the law governing independent counsels, commonly referred to as “special prosecutors,” Thornburgh has 15 days to decide whether to begin a preliminary investigation. If so, Thornburgh normally would have 90 days to conduct the investigation. However, the law specifies also that a special prosecutor can be named to investigate a former Cabinet officer only within a year of his leaving office. Therefore, a decision must be made by Jan. 20.