Reno Defies GOP Pressure on Donor Probe

Atty. Gen. Janet Reno refused Tuesday to give congressional investigators two memorandums from top law enforcement officials that recommend the naming of an independent counsel to look into campaign fund-raising abuses--even as GOP lawmakers turned up the heat by threatening to cite her with contempt of Congress.

Called before a House oversight committee Tuesday, FBI Director Louis J. Freeh, Assistant U.S. Atty. Charles G. LaBella and FBI Special Agent James V. Desarno confirmed that they had urged Reno in the memos to call for an outside prosecutor to look into the vast array of fund-raising irregularities stemming from the 1996 presidential election.

But the three men also told the committee they agree with Reno’s contention that the internal documents are packed with details of the ongoing investigation and, if released, would provide a road map to the “thinking, theories and strategies” of the prosecution, which is being handled by the Justice Department.

Reno, defending her decision at a hastily called news conference as the House panel grilled her aides, said: “To give in to the committee’s demands creates a precedent for Congress demanding the prosecution’s most sensitive strategy memos and making them public to everyone, including the defendant’s legal team.”

The standoff over the memos escalated the fierce head-butting that has lasted more than a year between Reno and congressional Republicans who want her to invoke the independent counsel law in the campaign fund-raising inquiry, which focuses largely on actions by the Democratic Party and President Clinton’s reelection team.

The post-Watergate law is designed to avoid conflicts of interest that could arise in sensitive investigations involving top government officials. The GOP congressional leaders have said such conflicts exist in the campaign financing investigation. But Reno has steadfastly resisted calls that she recommend an independent counsel, saying that she has yet to be convinced that the evidence warrants it.

With a contempt vote against Reno looming Thursday in the House Government Reform and Oversight Committee--and a full floor vote on the issue possibly coming next month--the attorney general acknowledged that such a severe action would force her to recuse herself from continuing to evaluate whether an independent counsel should be named and turn the matter over to Deputy Atty. Gen. Eric H. Holder Jr.

As it is, Reno insisted that she still has an “open mind” on the issue and is actively reviewing the recommendations of her aides.

Seeking to defuse tensions over the memos, Reno had telephoned committee Chairman Dan Burton (R-Ind.) just before his panel’s meeting Tuesday morning in hopes of taking the witness table in place of her three aides--as she has done numerous times previously on both sides of the Capitol.

But Burton declined the invitation, prompting Reno to speak to reporters instead. Burton had also rejected Reno’s request that she be permitted to brief him on the contents of the memos later this month.

In their testimony, the law enforcement officials declined to detail the contents of the written reports that Burton and other GOP lawmakers are pressuring the Justice Department to release.

But Freeh and LaBella acknowledged that, in their view, an independent counsel ought to review fund-raising abuses and that they viewed the allegations as reaching the White House itself.

“The subject matter of our investigation involves covered persons, including, as I mentioned, the president and the vice president,” Freeh said.

Freeh wrote his 27-page memo in December and Burton had threatened Reno with contempt then after she had refused to release it. But a deal was struck that permitted a closed-door briefing on the memo’s contents for lawmakers.

The new controversy stems from another, similar memo, this time from LaBella, who until recently had headed the Justice Department’s campaign fund-raising task force, and Desarno, the task force’s chief investigator. They delivered their recommendations to Reno last month in a weighty 100-page document packed with exhibits.

Being held in contempt of Congress could carry a jail sentence, but no one believes Reno would receive such a penalty. The move, instead, would be aimed at intensifying pressure on her to agree that an independent counsel would be named.

LaBella, who had left the fund-raising task force in June to become interim U.S. attorney in San Diego, has found himself at the center of another controversy in recent days after Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) chose not to recommend him to President Clinton for permanent appointment to the San Diego job.

Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee and a vehement advocate of an independent counsel in the fund-raising inquiry, called Tuesday for congressional hearings in the fall on whether “retribution” against LaBella, prompted by his public disagreement with Reno, caused Boxer to recommend Gregory Vega, president of the Hispanic National Bar Assn.

Boxer spokesman David Sandretti denied the charge and said Vega had been chosen by Boxer based on his qualifications for the U.S. attorney’s job after a 12-member selection committee headed by a retired federal judge evaluated various applicants.

At Tuesday’s committee hearing, GOP lawmakers attempted to pit Freeh, LaBella and Desarno against Reno over the independent counsel issue. But none of the law enforcement officials would go along with the contention that Reno’s motive is to protect the president.

“We view the law differently,” said Freeh, indicating that such disagreements are commonplace in law enforcement. “I come out one way and she comes out another way, but it’s her way that counts.”

Reno, at her news conference, bristled at what she described as Burton’s suggestion in a closed meeting last week that he would not pursue contempt proceedings against her if she named an independent counsel.

“If I give in to that suggestion, then I risk Congress turning all decisions to prosecute into a political football,” Reno said. “That is simply wrong and I will not willingly allow that to happen. Politics does not belong in prosecution.”

But Burton has argued that Reno is bending over backward not to name an independent counsel. Thus, he said, it is within the committee’s rights to seek the memos to determine whether Reno is flouting the responsibilities of her office.

“It would be inconsistent with Congress’ core oversight responsibilities to simply accept your assurances that you have adequately considered the recommendations of your advisors without looking beneath the surface of those assurances,” Burton said in a letter to Reno released Monday.

Burton also encouraged the committee to release, amid objections by the Justice Department, new information on foreign funds that apparently found their way into Democratic National Committee accounts.

GOP investigators said they discovered 200 travelers checks--each for $1,000--that originated in Jakarta, Indonesia, some of which were used by fund-raisers Yah Lin “Charlie” Trie and Yuan Pei “Antonio” Pan to funnel money to the Democrats. U.S. election law prohibits contributions from foreign sources.

Both Trie, a longtime Clinton friend, and Pan, a Trie business associate, have been charged with election-law violations as part of the Justice Department investigation.

A Democratic spokesman said officials would review the contribution based on the subpoenaed information.

Clashing with Burton at Tuesday’s hearing was Rep. Henry A. Waxman of Los Angeles, the ranking Democrat on the committee, who said the chairman’s planned contempt citation indicated once again that the committee is “out of control and careening recklessly into an unnecessary confrontation with the attorney general.”

Waxman, who has blasted Burton for being unduly partisan, cited numerous instances in which past White Houses have resisted providing information on active criminal investigations to Congress.

“We are a nation of laws, not bullies,” he said to Burton, seated just a few feet to his left. “We govern through the law, not intimidation.”