from TPDL 1998-Oct-3:
BURTON SAYS IMMUNITY FOR HUANG 'ABSURD'
Committee on Government Reform and Oversight
Dan Burton, Chairman (R-Ind.)WASHINGTON-- The following is the text of a letter sent today by Rep. Dan Burton (R-Ind.), Chairman of the House Government Reform and Oversight Committee, to Attorney General Janet Reno: October 2, 1998
Dear General Reno:
The Honorable Janet Reno
Attorney General
United States Department of Justice
Washington, D.C. 20530I am writing with regard to a report in the Washington Post today suggesting that the Justice Department is considering granting full immunity to John Huang, a longtime friend of the President and major DNC fundraiser. While you continue to protest the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight's request for the Freeh and La Bella memoranda, your staff has repeatedly leaked material from these memoranda, as well as other task force information and records. Much of the improperly leaked information is protected by grand jury secrecy rules according to your own analysis of the rules, and some of it provides a road map to the course of your ongoing campaign finance investigations. This, of course, is not new information. Today, however, the latest disturbing episode involving your campaign task force has come to our attention. In an article titled "Prosecutors' Approach to Huang Signals Shift in Probe," the Washington Post provides an extensive discussion of John Huang's role in the Department of Justice campaign finance task force investigation (article attached). The idea that John Huang, a central figure in the millions of dollars in illegal foreign money which flowed into the DNC, would be granted immunity at this point for a case involving a lesser figure strikes me as absurd. While I understand this report may very well be inaccurate, I would note that to proceed in such a manner would be tantamount to giving Al Capone immunity to testify against his tax preparer. Regardless of the veracity of the report, the very troubling aspect of this article is the fact that a "senior Justice Department official" is cited as essentially dismissing the case against John Huang. At a time that you are arguing that you cannot give this Committee information that would provide a road map to the investigation -- a misplaced argument because we have never sought such information -- you appear content to stand by while the Washington Post points out that "a senior Justice Department official said that some investigators have concluded that Huang does not have information that would support the prosecution of the Democratic officials who received and spent the funds he raised or the White House officials who promoted his career in Washington." This statement is a microcosm of all that is wrong with your decision to supervise the campaign finance investigation. Let me point out some of the easily identifiable problems: This statement by "a senior Justice Department official" inappropriately diminishes Huang's relevance and importance to the overall investigation. This statement and article sends a message to Huang's defense attorneys that might embolden them to hold out in the event that deals were being discussed. The underlying information is confidential and goes to the heart of how the case against Huang will proceed. And yet we read about such confidential prosecutorial matters in the Washington Post. This report indicates that there are in fact conclusions. Has the Task Force finished its investigation? Your new Task Force head David Vicenanzo has barely got his feet wet in this investigation and your staff is announcing "that some investigators have concluded" various things about John Huang. Did Mr. Vicenanzo approve this statement? Did he have an opportunity to review this statement? Your staff have been asking this Committee for months to refrain from using specific information that is relevant to the case against Huang. The Department also has refused to support any committee requests for immunity in connection with low level witnesses with information about John Huang. Yet, now your "senior Justice Department official" is sending a message with the Department of Justice's imprimatur that there isn't much to the Huang case. It almost appears that you are preventing Congress from telling the American people what we have learned under the guise of not interfering with your prosecution, while your own employees go out and undermine the prosecution. The conclusion is simple. If you had obeyed the law and appointed an Independent Counsel to investigate campaign finance matters -- as Director Freeh and Campaign Financing Task Force head Charles La Bella had recommended and said that you were legally required to do -- you would not have "a senior Justice Department official" undermining your own prosecution. This episode brings to mind the situation in the early days of your investigation when the FBI refused to give sensitive information about campaign finance issues to your staff at the Department of Justice because the FBI felt that it could not trust your staff. This was appalling. To make matters worse, you did not even recognize a conflict of interest. It is even more troubling that you have allowed the political appointees at the Department to continue their involvement in this investigation. The message sent by your "senior Justice Department official" is inexcusable. Unless you can find this person and fire him or her immediately, you have no alternative but to remove yourself and your staff from any involvement with the campaign finance investigation. It is beyond clear that you are hopelessly conflicted in this matter -- something the FBI Director and your own hand-picked prosecutor have been telling you for months.
Sincerely,
Dan Burton,
Chairmancc: David Vicenanzo
from TPDL 1998-Aug-28:
BURTON SAYS RENO APPEARS TO BE PROTECTING PRESIDENT
WASHINGTON- Rep. Dan Burton (R-Ind.), Chairman of the Government Reform and Oversight Committee, criticized Attorney General Janet Reno's decision on a fund-raising independent counsel today. In a letter to her refuting Justice Department statements that the Committee's subpoena for certain documents lacks precedent, Chairman Burton wrote:
Dear Attorney General Reno:
On December 8, 1997, you made the following statement:
It is unprecedented for a Congressional committee to demand internal decisionmaking memoranda generated during an ongoing criminal investigation.
Although this statement was clearly a misrepresentation of fact, I initially dismissed it as political posturing. More recently, however, you and your spokesmen have repeated the substance of this statement, and I have become concerned that you and your staff have embarked on a conscious decision to mislead Congress and the American people. Given the recent reports that you have decided to commence a ninety day review period for a narrow sliver of the campaign finance scandal, it is becoming increasingly more obvious that you are protecting the President, the Vice President and Congressional members of your own party from the possible negative political impact of yet another Independent Counsel. Your misrepresentations over matters such as whether Congress has ever asked for material from an ongoing criminal investigation is consistent with this conclusion, as is your inexplicable rejection of the recommendations of Director Freeh, former task force leader Charles La Bella and James Desarno.
As I stated directly to you in a letter dated August 13, 1998, "I believe there is no excuse to mislead Congress in search of a good soundbite." Furthermore, it is wrong -- and illegal -- to mislead Congress. Simply because you have embarked on a political campaign to justify your decision to withhold the Freeh and La Bella memoranda from Congressional scrutiny, it is unacceptable to misrepresent facts in order to gain public support. If you do purposefully misrepresent material facts, as you and your staff have consistently done, it is only to be expected that many will fairly conclude that you are acting in a purely political manner.
On July 28, 1998, my staff met with Assistant Attorney General Anthony Sutin and another member of his staff. At that time, the representation of December 8, 1997, was brought to their attention. Indeed, it was brought to your direct attention in the August 13, 1998, letter. Director of the FBI Freeh testified before this Committee on August 4, 1998, and he also noted that it was not unprecedented to make such a request. Thus, I am puzzled by your continuing pattern of misrepresentations on this subject.
While I respect the principled arguments made by you, Director Freeh, and others regarding the importance of prosecutorial secrecy, I believe that it is unacceptable to misrepresent facts in order to make a political argument. But for our very real concern that there has been misfeasance at the Department of Justice, this Committee would never have sought the Freeh and La Bella memoranda in the first place. As my letter of August 13, 1998, makes abundantly clear, however, this Committee does have serious concerns with the manner in which you have applied the Independent Counsel statute to the facts of the campaign finance scandal of the last few years. When Charles La Bella, your own handpicked task force leader, tells you that the statute makes the appointment of an Independent Counsel mandatory, and when he tells you that he believes you have been uneven in your application of the statute, the need for Congressional oversight is triggered. That is why we are where we are.
Over the past few weeks I have heard you state on a number of occasions that you have no qualms about appointing Independent Counsels in the abstract, and you point to the fact that you have indeed appointed a number of Independent Counsels during your tenure as Attorney General. I am reminded, however, of a prosecutor who has applied a law numerous times when the consequences are not close to home and then avoids prosecution when a member of his family is involved. Would it be right in that situation for the prosecutor to simply say 'How dare you question my motive given the fact that I have brought charges in other situations?' The fact of the matter is that you have been an elected Democratic official, you owe your position to a Democratic President, you have a number of political appointees advising you, and this Independent Counsel decision has potentially grave consequences for the political party to which you belong (as, in fact it may do to the political party to which I belong). You, and a number of your staff, have clear conflicts of interest, and it is a logical irrelevance to point to all the times that you have applied the law. This is underscored by the fact that Mr. La Bella has argued that you are not applying the Independent Counsel statute consistently. Thus, I take exception to the fact that you attempt to deflect attention from this decision by pointing to other decisions, particularly when those decisions -- like the one before you today -- were mandated by law.
With all this as a backdrop, you and your spokesmen have continued your campaign to insist that this Committee has made a request that has never before been made by any other Congressional committee. Such naked politicization makes a mockery of the facts, as we have pointed out numerous times. Congress has frequently sought access to decisionmaking memoranda from ongoing criminal investigations, and here are but a few examples:
Representative Charles Schumer's staff was permitted to read the prosecutor's memorandum while the BNL investigation was ongoing. Representative Jack Brooks' staff was also permitted to review the BNL prosecutor's memorandum and to review underlying documents.
Senator Paul Simon was permitted to read the underlying Office of Legal Counsel justification for the capture of the defendant in the ongoing criminal case involving the murder of DEA agent Camarena. An offer to review the same material was made to members of the House of Representatives.
Senator Kerry was permitted to review prosecutors' memoranda from the ongoing BCCI case.
During the Iran-Contra investigation, Congress deposed, among others, former-Attorney General Meese and former Assistant Attorney General Charles J. Cooper. In addition, Congress asked for, and obtained, calendars, schedules and hand-written notes.
Examples ranging from the Palmer Raids and Teapot Dome to Iran-Contra and Rocky Flats show that there is a sixty year history of congressional oversight of Department of Justice decisionmaking, and that this oversight has involved numerous requests for internal decisionmaking memoranda, and numerous examples of compliance with these requests.
Under normal circumstances, I would take your December 8, 1997, representation as regrettable hyperbole. There are, however, serious questions as to whether undue political considerations have been brought to bear on the decision to appoint an Independent Counsel to investigate campaign finance abuses. Debate on this matter should be above the political fray and should be based on fact and the law. It is difficult enough for Congress to satisfy its legitimate oversight responsibilities without Executive Branch officials misrepresenting facts. Your efforts to mislead members of Congress, and the American people, over whether the request for the Freeh and La Bella memoranda was "unprecedented" is beneath the dignity of your office.
In conclusion, it is my belief that the conflict you face is insurmountable. If you are not prepared to do what the Independent Counsel statute commands you to do, you should at least consider the institutional integrity of the Department of Justice. It would be dereliction of duty of the highest order if you fail to appoint immediately an Independent Counsel with a broad mandate to investigate the fundraising abuses of the recent national elections.
To do anything else, and to continue to make specious arguments such as the one about the unprecedented nature of this Committee's attempt to exercise legitimate oversight authority, would be confirmation that you are acting to protect the President and the Vice President.
Sincerely,
Dan Burton, Chairman
from TPDL 1998-Aug-27:
BURTON LABELS RENO COUNSEL MOVE 'INACTION'
WASHINGTON- Rep. Dan Burton (R-Ind.), Chairman of the Government Reform and Oversight Committee, issued the following statement today in response to reports regarding Attorney General Janet Reno's decision on a fund-raising independent counsel:
The Attorney General's action - or inaction - today has done nothing to allay our concerns that something is seriously wrong at the Justice Department.
Top federal law enforcement officials, including FBI Director Louis J. Freeh; the former lead prosecutor in the Justice Department investigation, Charles G. LaBella; and James V. Desarno, Jr., the FBI's chief political fund-raising investigator; have testified before our Committee that an independent counsel is required under the mandatory provisions of the law. Yet, the Attorney General has chosen another delaying tactic. Director Freeh testified that he has been recommending an independent counsel for the entire campaign finance investigation for over a year.
Earlier this month, the Attorney General promised a decision in three weeks, now she says it will take three more months. A 90-day pause is what the White House and DNC desperately need to get a distressful decision conveniently past this fall's election, and that's what the Attorney General rewarded them with today.
It's a sad situation when professional investigators, with no political ax to grind, have their judgment and conclusions belittled by Clinton political appointees. This just reinforces the need for Congress to review the Freeh and LaBella memos we have subpoenaed.
An independent counsel is a must for the entire campaign fund-raising investigation. That independent investigation must be complete and comprehensive, covering the President and Vice President, not just bits and pieces. That is what career prosecutors have recommended. That is what the Attorney General should have done today. If she's not prepared to follow the law, she should resign.
from TPDL 1998-Aug-26, letter from Rep. Dan Burton (R-Ind.), Chairman of the Government Reform and Oversight Committee, sent the following letter today to Attorney General Janet Reno:
Dear General Reno:
Once again, I write to respond to the continued misrepresentations that your staff have disseminated. Yesterday your press spokesman claimed that turning over the La Bella and Freeh memorandum subpoenaed by the committee would be "unprecedented political tampering with prosecution decisions that must remain above politics."
As you and your spokesman must know by now, in our hearing on August 4, 1998, Director Freeh testified that he recognized that our subpoena for these documents was not unprecedented. Thus, in our hearing Director Freeh corrected the misrepresentation made in a letter you sent the committee on December 8, 1997, in which you stated: "It is unprecedented for a Congressional Committee to demand internal decision making memoranda generated during an ongoing criminal investigation." As the committee's contempt report outlined, this is not an unprecedented action and there have been no valid legal challenges to the committee's subpoena. You also are well aware that the subpoena allows for grand jury 6(e) information to be redacted and the memoranda would be reviewed in executive session. The only valid claim you could make to withhold the subpoenaed records would be a valid executive privilege claim asserted by the President -- an option which most clearly highlights the hopeless conflicts which you continue to have by overseeing the investigation of these matters.
The constant misrepresentations by you and your spokesman that the committee's action is "unprecedented" is yet another example of your politicization of this process. I want to make clear that this committee is not attempting to politicize this investigation; we are engaging in our proper oversight role. This committee is attempting to make sure that the Justice Department is not politicizing this investigation. You have already acknowledged that senior aides such as Robert Litt -- a Clinton/Gore 96 contributor -- is a key adviser to you on these matters. Indeed, until recently, your Deputy Chief of Staff, Kent Marcus, was a former Chief of Staff of the Democratic National Committee, a primary organization under investigation. The independent counsel statute was designed to ensure that investigations of the President's allies are conducted free of political influence. Just as Congress had a legitimate oversight role in reviewing the investigation of the Iran-Contra matter, Congress has a legitimate oversight purpose in reviewing your failure to appoint an independent counsel despite the recommendations of the FBI Director and Mr. La Bella that the law requires you to do so.
During the Iran-Contra investigation, Congress deposed numerous high ranking Justice Department officials such as Attorney General Edwin Meese and Assistant Attorney General Charles Cooper and others about their role in overseeing the Iran-Contra investigation. Attorney General Meese, as well as other top Justice Department officials turned over notes, calendars and schedules of their meetings. Our subpoena is far less intrusive into the decision-making process than the actions of congressional investigators in the Iran-Contra case. While your spokesmen claimed the support of former Attorneys General in your position on policy grounds, you know that there are former Attorneys General who are supportive of the committee's action and no one contends the legality of this action.
Despite the clear recommendations of the FBI Director and the Chief Prosecutor Charles La Bella that the law requires that the mandatory section of the independent counsel statute be triggered in the campaign finance investigation, and despite Mr. La Bella's view that you are not applying the independent counsel statute evenhandedly, you continue to insist upon overseeing an investigation which includes investigating the White House and your own boss. Perhaps we should not be surprised since your own former Deputy Attorney General Phil Heymann once observed: "I served in seven administrations, and I've never seen the [Justice] department so dominated in the policy realm by the White House." However, as FBI Director Freeh testified, his memo recommending an independent counsel focused on a core group of individuals that included the President and the Vice-President:
Q: Does the core group include the President and Vice-President?
A: Yes sir.To quote Director Freeh, "It is difficult to imagine a more compelling situation for appointing an independent counsel."
While I understand we have our differences on policy matters in this case, it does not serve this debate well to continue to misrepresent the law and the facts.
Sincerely,
Dan Burton
Chairman