Reno's future on the line Anniversary: Attorney General Janet Reno (right) faces her biggest test when she decides next month whether a special prosecutor should investigate whether the president broke campaign laws.

Sun Journal

October 21, 1997|By CARL M. CANNON

Last week, Attorney General Janet Reno kept President Clinton under the spotlight by extending the timetable of her investigation into 1996 campaign fund raising. The next day, however, Reno faced a hostile Republican-led House Judiciary Committee, which accused her of dragging her feet on the investigation.

The nation's first female attorney general is marching alone, risking the wrath of Congress, the White House and both major political parties. For her part, Reno sounds unfazed even by the suggestions of some of her critics that she should resign. She seemed almost wistful in telling Congress that if she decided to leave soon, her hometown of Miami always beckons - an option, she noted wryly, that's more attractive than ever now that the Florida Marlins are in the World Series.

Her legacy may hinge on the events of the next six weeks: Reno is weighing the necessity of asking for a special prosecutor to investigate her boss.

Here are some of the questions raised by Reno's actions so far: The answers are supplied by Carl M. Cannon, The Sun's White House correspondent.

I've heard that a Justice Department "task force" is investigating campaign fund raising. Who's investigating whom?

A total of 120 Justice Department employees are working on it full time, including career prosecutors, FBI agents, department investigators and support staff. They are looking into abuses by both Democrats and Republicans. The deadline to ask for a special prosecutor to investigate whether fund-raising phone calls from the White House violated a law against raising political money on federal property is Dec. 2. But a broader investigation into everything from White House coffees to foreign donations faces no time limit and shows no signs of wrapping up any time soon.

Why did Reno need an extra 60 days to look into the fund-raising activities of Clinton and Vice President Al Gore? Is that a sign that she's onto something?

Perhaps not. Reno has indicated that she simply needs time to review and interpret the little-used federal law against solicitation of campaign money on federal property to determine whether it applies to the president or vice president. Legal experts differ on the statute's intent.

Gore, also the subject of a preliminary Justice Department inquiry, has acknowledged making direct solicitations in nearly 50 phone calls from his government office. But it is not clear whether Clinton also made such phone calls. His staff asked him to make calls; Clinton says he cannot recall if he followed through. One top White House aide said he was present when Clinton called supporters but isn't sure whether Clinton made a direct appeal for money. Reno's task force is plumbing the memories of those he may have called to find out what Clinton may have said.

Is that all Reno is looking at? What about the evidence of laundered donations and foreign contributions from people who

presumably wanted to influence U.S. policy or who saw a fat donation to the Democratic Party as their ticket into the inner councils of the administration?

This is what Republicans keep asking Reno. Her response has been maddening to them but consistent: So far, she says, she has seen no "specific" or "credible" evidence that Clinton ever knowingly accepted a contribution he had reason to believe came from an illegal source or that he accepted a donation in return for a favor. Reno has repeatedly assured Congress, however, that she will examine any new evidence uncovered by her task force.

Does the release of White House videotapes of Clinton fund-raisers shed any new light on this?

The Republicans think so. They point to several segments among the 100 hours of tapes, including a February 1996 dinner for Asian-American donors that raised $1.1 million. At this dinner, Clinton thanked the crowd for their contributions, and added: "If you know some deserving person you'd like to see a part of this administration, let us know."

Clinton is also seen meeting repeatedly with John Huang, a key fund-raiser. Much of the money raised by Huang has been returned because of questions about its origins. Investigators suspect that some of that money was funneled into Democratic coffers by James Riady, an Indonesian billionaire who also appears on the videotapes, talking earnestly with the president, at least once inside the Oval Office.

But does that mean Clinton broke any laws?

No, and Republicans leaders haven't yet made that claim. What Republicans do say is that there is ample evidence of questionable activity to warrant a special prosecutor and that Reno faces at least the appearance of a conflict of interest in investigating the president who appointed her.

The House Judiciary Committee, while grilling Reno last week, played a videotape in which the president praises Huang for his fund-raising efforts and adds, "You really came through for us."

Baltimore Sun Articles
|
|
|
Please note the green-lined linked article text has been applied commercially without any involvement from our newsroom editors, reporters or any other editorial staff.