Time: Sun Oct 19 19:18:48 1997
by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id SAA25222;
Sun, 19 Oct 1997 18:59:23 -0700 (MST)
by usr02.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id SAA02869;
Sun, 19 Oct 1997 18:52:16 -0700 (MST)
Date: Sun, 19 Oct 1997 18:53:16 -0700
To: (Recipient list suppressed)
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: SLS: JANET RENO'S SECRET INDEPENDENT COUNSELS (fwd)
<snip>
>
> JANET RENO'S SECRET INDEPENDENT COUNSELS
> The Best Kept Secret in Washington?
>
> by Carl of Oyster Bay
>
> For nearly a year now, Republican critics of the White
>House's 1996 illegal fundraising blitzkrieg have been demanding
>that Attorney General Janet Reno appoint an independent counsel.
>For almost as long even the prestige liberal press has agreed
>with the print media triumvirate of The New York Times, The
>Washington Post and The Los Angeles Times beseeching the
>beleaguered attorney general to do what has to be done.
>
> Perhaps criticism of Reno reached the boiling point two weeks
>ago when Speaker Newt Gingrich publicly derided her as "a fool".
>To add insult to injury, shortly thereafter ABC's Sam Donaldson
>echoed Gingrich's sentiment, also calling Reno a fool right there
>on This Week (without David Brinkley).
>
> What could explain why Reno has limited the scope of the
>Justice Department's probe? Why has she failed to let her
>investigators interview key witnesses? Why does reporter Bob
>Woodward, who operates without subpoena power, seem to
>singlehandedly dig up more damaging information than Reno's
>entire Justice Department task force?
>
> In fact, we may have learned the answer to that question from
>an an almost unnoticed report which moved on the UPI wire late
>Thursday morning - the day after Reno tried to explain her
>inexplicable behavior before Henry Hyde's House Judiciary
>Committee. The story, headlined "'CONFIDENTIAL' COUNSELS BEHIND
>THE SCENES", reported that Reno, while testifying , explained
>that she had no compunction about seeking an independent counsel
>to investigate Democratic fund-raising if the evidence warrants
>it, pointing out that she has sought "at least two" confidential
>independent counsels. That would be in addition to the four
>publicly known independent counsels Reno has thus far appointed
>to investigate the Clintons, Mike Espy, Henry Cisneros and the
>late Ron Brown. According to UPI, "the activities of the
>'confidential' counsels are known only to a small circle within
>the Justice Department and are believed to deal with national
>security issues." Moreover, "U.S. officials" had confirmed the
>"confidential counsels" story to UPI.
>
> On Friday UPI ran a clarification, stating that the Justice
>Department has never confirmed the existence of "confidential"
>independent counsel investigations, adding: "In fact, the
>existence of such investigations has never been confirmed by any
>government agency, though General Accounting Office financial
>accounts may indicate such activity." A UPI reporter familiar
>with both reports, when contacted by The Washington Weekly,
>indicated that the central claim of the first story was accurate.
>
> Secret independent counsels? Dealing with national security
>issues? Let's recall that the independent counsel statute is
>never invoked unless there's credible evidence that covered
>persons may have committed a crime. The persons covered are the
>president, the vice president and/or the president's cabinet.
>
> Reno would have made huge headlines if she had gone before
>Hyde's committee and announced she was ready to take the
>independent counsel plunge. But instead Reno let slip the fact
>that she'd already done so, albeit in secret - yet this
>thermonuclear bombshell news seems to have completely escaped the
>notice of the rest of the press. On Friday, no major New York
>newspaper even alluded to the UPI scoop.
>
> When asked to confirm or deny the existence of "confidential"
>independent counsels appointed by Reno, Justice Department
>spokesman Bert Brandenberg told The Washington Weekly, "We're not
>saying whether there are or not," but elaborated that, "The only
>thing I have pointed out to reporters for months is that the
>independent counsel statute says that you normally can't comment
>on the existence of one unless you have permission from the
>court. And that has certainly happened on many occasions in the
>last four and a half years. The attorney general's staff has
>asked publicly for no fewer than four. And on no fewer than two
>occasions asked that the jurisdiction of one of them be added to.
>On the other hand, if for some reason we either did not seek to
>make one public or were not given permission to even if we sought
>it, it would not become public. And that has always been what I
>call a possibility that I certainly would not confirm. That's
>happened."
>
> When asked what Janet Reno meant when she told the Hyde
>Committee that she'd already sought "at least two" independent
>counsels to investigate Democratic fund-raising, Brandenberg
>replied, "I can't go any farther than what I've just described".
>
> Brandenberg seemed to take great pains to outline the
>scenario by which "confidential" counsels could be appointed,
>specifically noting that in such a case the Justice Department
>"certainly would not confirm." At no time during the interview
>did Brandenberg even hint at a denial, which begs the question -
>why not? Unless it's true; the Clinton administration is now
>under investigation by an undisclosed independent counsel (or
>counsels) for reasons known only to Janet Reno and a few others.
>
> This could explain why Reno's own Justice probe has seemed so
>lethargic; why big fish witnesses go ungrilled and key evidence
>goes unnoticed. Perhaps, just perhaps, Reno no longer has
>jurisdiction over the higher-ups, the "covered persons" that
>would be the subject of any independent counsel investigation,
>confidential or otherwise. This just might be the reason why
>Reno's agents seem to be spinning their wheels while bombshell
>after bombshell explodes on the front pages.
>
> Granted, this interpretation cuts Madame Attorney General an
>awful lot of slack. But it really comes down to two
>alternatives. Either she's the stupidest, most shameless
>incompetent ever to toss her integrity over the side in the name
>of misplaced loyalty - or her whole act is a cover for something
>else.
>
> Still, even if Reno is indeed the noble investigator here,
>keeping her cards close to the vest, willing to take the abuse to
>draw fire away from the real investigation - that doesn't exactly
>let her off the hook. The idea of secret independent counsels
>investigating who knows who for who knows what - and for who
>knows how long - is a tad chilling. For instance, we the
>taxpayers are paying for this alleged investigation - and we're
>not even notified it's taking place? More- over, have we ever
>seen anything like this before in the entire history of the
>independent counsel statute? Presumably we wouldn't know unless
>Mr. Mystery I.C. actually charged someone. Then, suddenly the
>investigation and the indictment would have become public all at
>once. And that's certainly never happened before.
>
> But another, perhaps more serious concern is timing.
>Reportedly the FBI has been investigating certain aspects of the
>Asian connection for almost two years now. How long ago did Reno
>seek the first of her "at least two" secret independent counsels?
>Was it more than a year ago - before the 1996 election? If so,
>that means the American people re-elected a president while being
>deprived of the knowledge that his administration was then under
>an independent counsel's investigation, "believed to deal with
>national security issues". (UPI report) Isn't this a little like
>not telling the public about Watergate till after Nixon had left
>office?
>
> If Janet Reno is indeed keeping multiple independent counsel
>investigations a secret, then one wonders - what else is the
>Justice Department hiding?
>
> Perhaps a "confidential" indictment or two?
>
>
>
>
> Published in the Oct. 20, 1997 issue of The Washington Weekly
> Copyright 1997 The Washington Weekly (http://www.federal.com)
> Reposting permitted with this message intact
>
<snip>
===========================================================================
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