Gunfight At the JD Corral

Showdown at the J.D. Corral
by Mac MacArthur

FBI Director, Louis Freeh

Attorney General Janet Reno

TUESDAY, DECEMBER 2ND 1997 --- New York (APJP) -- While the mainstream media salivates over a possible "Showdown at the JD Corral" between lawslingers Janet Reno and FBI Director Louis Freeh, the White House has already begun a quiet attack on the FBI Director's competence.

Freeh, who was appointed FBI Director by President Clinton in 1993, has faded in popularity among the majority of White House insiders, and there are those who have whispered in the President's ear that it's time for the Director "to go." Relations between the White House and Freeh have been deteriorating for a long time. Waco, Ruby Ridge and subsequent FBI investigations did not help. The failure of the Bureau to bring the TWA 800 crash investigation to a quicker close is a thorn in the side of some White House staff. The botched up FBI investigation and public relations "non-effort" by the Bureau over the Richard Jewell fiasco added fuel to an already smoldering fire, and other problems within the Bureau have embarrassed and irked the White House.

As relations began to freeze between J. Edgar Hoover Headquarters and 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, Director Freeh, understandably may have sought comfort with Republican leaders, and some say -- may have provided them with damaging material on the White House -- including background on the hundreds of FBI files found idling in there. FBI cooperation with Kenneth Starr and others, in investigating the myriad allegations re the Clintons, has not helped the White House build trust the Freeh-run Bureau.

But it's unclear whether the President himself is disappointed with Freeh, or if the icefall between the Administration and the Bureau is really a "construction" by White House aides loyal to the President ,unhappy with Freeh, and eager to show him the door.

Wolf Blitzer, CNN White House correspondent and reputed closet Clinton-basher, tells us that one Administration official said of Freeh, "He's a great disappointment." But Blitzer, often over-critical of the White House, must be read with a sharp eye. It seems not beyond him to construct scenarios that cause contention and which are based on thread-like truth.

Now, comes the "difference of opinion" between Freeh and Janet Reno over the issue of whether or not to seek an independent counsel to investigate both Mr. Clinton and Mr. Gore. The mainstream press seems to think that Freeh is considering resigning over this issue. But if he does -- and we doubt that he will -- it will be the wrong move for everyone involved - including Mr. Freeh and his Republican abettors.

Others feel he'll do it -- as a favor to certain key GOP leaders who know such a departure will exacerbate the situation and leave the White House defending itself for "causing his early departure." We doubt that's true.

Certainly a leave-taking now, would put Freeh in position to embarrass the White House, and could be viewed as "pay back" for months of whispering campaigns emanating from the Executive Office Building regarding Freeh's alleged "incompetence" -- particularly one vicious tale aimed at his "failure" to clean up problems at the FBI laboratory - problems we think were blown way out of proportion in the first instance.

Pennsylvania U.S. Senator Arlen Specter

As early as June 4th, the Director's opinions on Janet Reno's reluctance to appoint yet another special prosecutor were still well hidden. During a "confrontation" with the Senate, Arlen Specter -- a blowhard on this matter -- asked Freeh about the brewing Justice Department / FBI spat:

SEN. ARLEN SPECTER, (R) Pennsylvania: I would ask at this time if you did give the attorney general your judgment that there ought to be independent counsel appointed.

LOUIS FREEH, FBI Director: Sir, I certainly understand the import of the question. It is certainly an important matter. With the greatest respect, however, my view is that the views that I've given the attorney general, which she has asked for on this matter, in particular, are really confidential discussions.

Check.

Added to the fracas was the leave-taking of FBI Agent Howard Shapiro to join the high-powered law firm, Wilmer-Cutler, early next year and who, the FBI and Justice Department claimed, undercut the appearance of FBI independence. Shapiro, according to sources, showed "very poor judgment" when he told the White House that congressional investigators had seen an FBI file on former White House security director Craig Livingstone, or so said a report by the Office of Professional Responsibility.

But the real question is how, and why the FBI was sharing its classified files on White House staff with congressional investigators? Whatever the facts, it must have appeared to the Administration that certain people in the FBI were out to "get" the President or to at least embarrass him for not being an able enough FBI booster.

Freeh has, for quite a while, urged Janet Reno to seek an independent counsel to investigate Democratic fund-raising abuses in the 1996 presidential campaign. And he's don it in writing. He bases his advice on his view that current or former White House officials may be involved in the case, and that the Justice Department could have a conflict of interest in conducting the investigation.

But just what it is that pushes Freeh to assume some sympathetic relationship between Justice and the White House that would smack of a "conflict of interest" is beyond me. Having been inside the White House over a period of years, I know that there has been little interaction between most presidents and the Justice Department on matters such as these since the Nixon-Mitchell years when such relationships were put under a media microscope. There is careful attention paid to the separation of Justice and Administration powers, especially on hot potato issues, and one need only look at Reno's unhesitant appointment of several independent counsels already, to suspect something more than a "fear of compromise" is in the FBI Director's mind.

However, that does not mean Freeh is a whore for Republican interests. He may merely be concerned -- no matter how misguided -- that Republican criticism will fell him along with General Reno in the end. Of course, this is not true. Republicans, as reflected in large random polling, have been singularly unsuccessful in their witch hunt stage show to embarrass the White House.

Americans simply aren't buying it.

Freeh is, of course, correct from one point of view. If one believes the President controls Janet Reno and her top staff because he appointed her and some of them, then it could look like a conflict. But from another point of view -- and a far more competent one to my mind -- it looks quite unfair for Reno to "have to" appoint a special counsel merely from Republican political pressure and America' s lack of clear understanding that a line really is drawn between the Executive and Prosecutorial branch of the federal government. A clear understanding made murky by continuous Republican spinning of the truth.

Reno was bullied by Republican Chairman Henry Hyde's House Committee two months ago to "swear" she would consult director Freeh on the issue of whether to appoint an independent counsel. But legally Reno has no duty to do so. Under the law, only she can decide whether to ask a three judge panel for "aid" in this regard.

But Reno did ask Freeh, as a courtesy to him and a courtesy to Republican witch hunters who have dared to interfere with the judicial process and flaunt the Constitution in their harsh attempts to extort her, under threat of impeachment, to launch an independent counsel against the White House on campaign finance issues.

This might have been her biggest mistake. Any cow towing to Republican cat calls to undermine the judicial process should have been met firmly and unswervingly with a resounding NO! Reno might have been well advised to come directly before the American people and explain the process as fully as she could, to undermine further attempts by constitutional manipulators to take away the very power invested in her.

"Some senior FBI officials privately have predicted for months that an independent counsel will be inevitable," reports the ultra right wing spin publication "Capitol Hill Blue." But they name no names as usual. To their credit however, they also point out that other "unnamed" FBI officials questioned whether the FBI, which has provided 38 agents -- at a cost of $5 million a year plus --- to conduct the fund-raising probe, should even be involved in making recommendations to Reno about an independent counsel.

And that's the point isn't it?

How can a supposedly independent investigative body like the FBI make recommendations on a matter they are investigating?

It's sheer nonsense.

Some White House officials say their disappointment with Freeh is based in his failure to reform the FBI, including modernizing its controversial crime lab according to Blitzer. Others charge he has engaged in "self-protective attacks" to get closer to Republicans.

Blitzer reports, "He's terrified of the Republicans," says one official.

We doubt that.

But Freeh has allegedly circulated his memo urging Reno to appoint an independent counsel. The White House is saying -- publicly -- only that Reno's decision should be based on the facts, and not pressure or politics. Privately they are livid. If Freeh has circulated his memo, he is telegraphing a political rather than law-keeping agenda -- a no-no for federal law enforcement officials.

There is still no confirmation whatsoever that Freeh will resign if Reno fails to appoint an independent counsel. In his own words, Freeh has stated that on this issue, "there is no right answer."

He's certainly correct there. But there is one "legally correct" answer -- and that is that neither the President nor the Vice President are under suspicion of commiting federal crimes or misdemeanors that could trigger the independent counsel statue. And that's the control here -- not the outrageous lies spread so effectively by certain elements within the Republican Party leadership in an effort to destroy the Democrat-controlled White House.

Among several arguments made by Freeh is that ending the probe into phone calls would hamper the investigation into whether there might have been a broad conspiracy to violate campaign laws. But is this the right path to take?

If the Director believes this, then he also believes that people should be investigated far beyond the scope of any original charge in a kind of dragnet approach -- "It's the 'Let's put out the Big Net and see what we can find' approach ," as one senior official told me this morning.

Freeh's support for an independent counsel may also put him in the difficult position of being seen as a partisan in his role as FBI Director. His memo has already provided fodder for Republican scandalmongers in Congress. "When you have a squabble between the attorney general and the head of the FBI, you known darn well that there's a reason to appoint an independent counsel and to get rid of the conflict of interest," says Senator Orrin Hatch. (See "Pundit Pap" Yesterday's American Politics.)

Al Gore and Bill Clinton wait for Ms. Reno's Decision

Another problem we've highlighted before is the legal relationship between the FBI and the Attorney General. It is not the FBI Director, but the Attorney General of the United States who is this nation's "Top Cop." In most matters Reno's wishes supercede those of the Director. Even the appearance of insubordination here is a matter of some concern.

I have some friendly advice for Director Freeh, -- a fine judge I respect highly.

This is not a good place to find yourself in as FBI Director. Too often you can be perceived, albeit unfairly, as "untrustworthy" by both sides if it merely appears you are subscribing to one side or the other -- and especially if against the side who put you in your position in the first place. A fact of life, although one that should not have to be a consideration by the chief of the FBI.

Like the woman who leaves her husband for the "other man," political appointees who desert their benefactors are never trusted -- even by those that "adopt" them for personal use.

- Mac Smith

If you don't get my points about Janet Reno and her extraordinary care to protect your rights and uphold the Constitution, perhaps you should take a peek at these transcripts taken from two Reno press conferences.

I think you'll see how careful, trustworthy and just plain bright she is.

These are her comments to journalists re the Clinton / Gore investigations.

See if you don't agree with her.

ON BEING A GOOD PROSECUTOR

RENO: One of the points that a prosecutor faces is how you conduct an investigation in an orderly way, that builds on one fact and then on another, with the recognition that the ultimate goal, if wrongdoing has been done, is to file charges, but, more importantly, to get a conviction. You don't get a conviction by doing things hastily or in an order that does not lead to the solidest case possible. I've never ever done things based on the timing of a newspaper reporter's suggestion as to how an investigation should be conducted, because it would lead to real trouble, since I think your goal is more "What can I do for a headline?" than "What can I do to build a case that will secure a conviction that will last through appeal?"

ON NEWT GINGRICH

QUESTION: Ms. Reno, in an effort to build a headline here --

ATTORNEY GENERAL RENO: You? [Laughter.]

QUESTION: -- Speaker Gingrich on the White House lawn suggested that you should just forego this 90 day preliminary investigation and go after an independent counsel. Can you even do that under the independent counsel law? Does he really know what he's talking about?

ATTORNEY GENERAL RENO: Well, I didn't quite hear what the Speaker had suggested, so I really could not comment. But what I am trying to do is to apply the Act, make sure that I review everything as carefully as possible, consider all issues. And I will take whatever time I have to do that.

QUESTION: Regardless of what Speaker Gingrich said, then, under the law can you ignore the 90-day preliminary investigation and seek an independent counsel?

ATTORNEY GENERAL RENO: Again, it would depend on the facts and the circumstances.

QUESTION: Ms. Reno, you said that it could be argued that the three-judge panel, it could be argued that they're not independent.

ATTORNEY GENERAL RENO: No, no, that was not the point that I made. Under the independent counsel statute, I petition the court for the appointment of an independent counsel pursuant to the statute. The court appoints. But under the statute I'm the only one who can remove. And so my point was that some people could argue, as they argued that Fiske was not independent because I appointed him, they could argue that the independent counsel is not independent because I can remove him.

ON OVERREACTION

ATTORNEY GENERAL RENO: I would not comment on whether anyone is overreacting or not. But I would comment -- and just put yourself in the shoes of somebody who -- let's say somebody identified you as participating in a bank robbery, but it really wasn't -- they didn't really identify you. They just put this piece together with this piece and they said: He must have done it. And you didn't do it and you were totally innocent. It is very important for the person that has the responsibility for pursuing investigations and determining whether the evidence is sufficient to prosecute or sufficient to trigger the independent counsel statute, that we do it with regards to protecting everyone involved from a wrong decision, from a decision that is not based on the evidence and the law. For as long as I have been a prosecutor, I have tried to do my level best to make sure that I work through all the statements, find out what's true, what's not true, how the law should be applied, and then make a decision. I think it is very interesting to see how the media in these last several weeks is looking at the issue and I think recognizing that we have got to be very careful. We must not prejudge. We must seek the truth and we must apply the truth as the law dictates.

ON THE IMPACT OF APPOINTING AN INDEPENDENT COUNSEL

QUESTION: Let me ask you this. Does it weigh on your mind that the mere appointment of an independent counsel can often politically have the consequence of judging that person who's the subject of the independent counsel investigation guilty in the eyes of many people and can have damaging consequences?

ATTORNEY GENERAL RENO: What I try to do is follow the law. Whether you seek the appointment of an independent counsel or even announce that you're investigating, or if you file charges, all of those have an impact, whether it be on an officeholder or on the average citizen. A kid 12 years old wrongfully charged with a crime, that has a terrible impact on his life. And whether you're dealing with an officeholder or dealing with just an average citizen, what we do has such an impact and it is so important that we do it right. I'm going to continue to try my level best to see that we do it the right way.

-------

ON THE HYDE / HATCH ET AL LETTER

RENO: My statement really is addressed to the American people, because I think they are the people that count in this whole equation. I think they have got to understand what is being done. I think they share -- and there is an innate sense of justice in the American people -- that share a feeling: Don't just make allegations without having foundation. Don't take action without foundation when you conduct criminal investigations, when you institute criminal processes.

Make sure you know what you are doing. And I think it is important for us all -- people have reminded me -- my sister reminded me last night that what we are seeing is not anything really new. She had apparently read some recent history of Thomas Jefferson, and it suggested that he had some of the same comments directed at him. And I think it is important that we understand this in the context of history and that we do everything we can to let the American people know what the process is and what we are trying to do.

One of the frustrations, however, that a prosecutor has and that an investigator has is that while the investigation is underway, while a Grand Jury investigation is underway, you cannot discuss the details of the investigation. There may be some that think we should. But I think the American people would rather have their investigations conducted in a solid, professional way -- not in the headlines, but in a thorough, methodical way, that builds the evidence that stands up in court. Because one of the things I know the American people do not like is investigations that lead to prosecutions, that lead to convictions, that get reversed on appeal. And we do not want that to happen.

QUESTION: Ms. Reno, is it a problem, though that -- (off microphone) -- and that it really does not matter what you say -- (off microphone) --

ATTORNEY GENERAL RENO: One of the things that I do not pay much attention to as well as editorial writers is polls. Because one of the things that I have learned is that the questions posed in polls sometimes confuse the situation. And what I have got to do is do the best that I can; let the review of the investigation, when it is concluded -- let people be the judge of what we did. And I am willing to subject myself to that scrutiny.

Judging by the comments that I am receiving -- and they are anecdotal and they certainly do not represent all the American people -- people want it done right. They do not want it done based on polls. They do not want it done based on speculation. They do not want it done in dribs and drabs and dribbles here. They want it done right. And we are going to try to do it right.