Reno, Gephardt, Clinton and Gingrich: A Lot in Common this Week

RENO, GEPHARDT, CLINTON AND GINGRICH
A lot in common this week
by Mac MacArthur

Bill Clinton
THURSDAY, DECEMBER 4TH, 1997 -- New York (APJP) -- Today finds Janet Reno putting out fires that may not exist, the President and Newt Gingrich fresh from raising more campaign cash, and House Majority Dick Gephardt moving as fast as he can to create a semantic differential between himself and Al Gore.

Different groups, for different reasons, remain hot under the collar, but most interesting is a widely reported feud going on in her own office.

Newspapers and television are reporting that Reno's decision not to appoint and independent counsel for the President and Al Gore has cost her the support of FBI Director Louis Freeh, but we suspect something else may be going on here - a deliberate effort on the part of some Republicans to salt the wound, now open and weeping, to Louis Freeh's pride.

Freeh's upset with Reno is somewhat understandable, but seems to be a bit overblown inasmuch as the FBI will proceed with the examination of the theory that the White House engaged in a broad pursuit of allegations that the phone calls themselves and a variety of other actions taken by the Clinton-Gore campaign were part of a wide effort to circumvent campaign spending regulations.

So the phone calls are still in the mix, and the FBI is still out their digging in the dirt. And a lot of dirt there is, on both sides of the aisle. One would think that Director Freeh appreciates that the most Janet Reno did for the White House on Tuesday was to pull the President and Vice President off GOP-designed meat hooks, only to keep marinating them for the future.

Inside the Justice Department Reno's campaign cash investigative team, headed by Charles La Bella, is still at odds with the Department's own Public Integrity Section which he also heads. La Bella is also reportedly furious with the FBI for deserting the Attorney General in what was her most difficult decision to date.

As I wrote Monday, White House staff had already begun a smear campaign on Freeh anticipating his "revolution" against Reno's choice to skip yet another independent counsel on the narrow issue of whether Clinton and Gore violated the 114 year old Pendleton Act. which most elected officials think should be repealed -- at least those parts which force some incumbents to run across the street to make calls for campaign donations. Reno had to weigh the ridiculous nature of the law -- one never before used in any prosecution for phone calling -- against the beating she'd take for her decision. She chose correctly, saving taxpayers another few million in outside counsel fees and FBI and other law enforcement direct and indirect costs.

And she preserved Freeh's investigation pretty much intact. So what's the problem?

To tell the truth, I'm really not sure. But I think we're witnessing a chess game where the pawns are Reno and Freeh and the players -- The White House and Republican Leaders.

Both Reno and Freeh thus far have almost pooh-poohed their supposed spat. David Johnston, a wonderful writer for the New York Times, which has seemingly become a right-wing re-make of itself since young Sulzberger took the helm, reports Administration insiders calling Freeh names while the President is keeping away from the issue altogether. Johnston, among others, points out that Reno and Freeh look at investigation leading to successful prosecution in different ways. Freeh is a "wide netter" who likes to operate under the auspice of a special counsel and Reno won't name one unless she is compelled to under law.

Both can defend their positions well, but it seems to me that Freeh has the best of both worlds no matter what Reno's decision on this particular and narrow aspect of the campaign finance reform brouhaha, ha. But Freeh might argue that rounding up all the remoras will lead them to the sharks. That's certainly possible.

Janet Reno
But Freeh's other argument is without merit. He argues the Republican line that because Reno was appointed by Clinton she will be perceived as favoring him in any investigation. Yet the people that count -- American voters -- don't think that Reno made her decision based on such favoritism. By wide margins, voters think Reno chose not to prosecute based on the law, not her relationship with the White House. Underscoring that view is that the same people would like to see a special counsel appointed.

What does that tell you? That even the most vehement Clinton-bashers believe Reno is honest, made an honest choice and don't even mind her sticking to it. According to Gallup, Reno lost only 3 points on her favorable scores as a result of this fiasco.

So Freeh should not worry.

Okay. So if Freeh can continue investigating as much as he wants and America is largely behind Reno's decision - what's the problem?

Well, there is none really. Except for the Republican Party which unwisely does not want this issue to recede. They think keeping the White House on the 6 o'clock news is the best thing happening.

Could it be that some GOP elves are stirring the pot? Could it be that the most sophisticated political spin doctors in the world are creating a problem where there is none?

I think so.

What if we assume the Mr. Freeh is a conservative. I think that's a fair assumption.

Al Gore
Freeh was born in Jersey City, New Jersey. He graduated Phi Beta Kappa from Rutgers College in 1971. and received a J.D. degree from Rutgers Law School in 1974 and an LL.M. degree in criminal law from New York University Law School in 1984.

He served as an FBI Special Agent from 1975 to 1981 in New York. During this time, Director Freeh was the lead prosecutor in the "Pizza Connection" case, the largest and most complex investigation ever undertaken by the Federal Government. Following that investigation, he served as the Federal Government's principal courtroom attorney in the 14-month trial and won the conviction of 16 of 17 codefendants.

In July, 1991, former President George Bush appointed Director Freeh a United States District Court Judge for the Southern District of New York. He was serving in this position when nominated to be Director of the FBI by Bill Clinton on July 20, 1993.

Freeh, the father of four sons is married to a former FBI employee and is a highly respected investigator and prosecutor. But his ties to Republicans are strong and long and a host of GOP leadership has his ear at any given time. If they convinced him that President Clinton in concert with Janet Reno were making him look weak, purposely or not, Freeh could understandably be angry.

If the President has not built a trusting relationship between himself and Freeh and followed that up with a cautious arms-length chat this week, he's made a mistake. Freeh could easily feel himself "out in the cold" and cling closer to Republican political allies - AND their interpretation of reality.

It's just a scenario. But why not try it on to see if it fits.

Freeh has allies in the Reno camp as well. Some, especially in her investigative group, side with Freeh while others sided with the recommendation not to seek a special counsel in this instance.

And Reno's people are still investigating. La Bella himself has adopted Freeh's position from time to time and La Bella owed his position , at least partially to the FBI itself whose NY contingent new La Bella as a tough, take charge prosecutor.

La Bella is said, by many, to be intent on building a huge conspiracy case -- if he can gather the elements -- that would force Reno to appoint an independent prosecutor. But this is an unfair characterization of La Bella. He has no choice but to build a deep case. Without it Reno would not consider special counsel. Under the law, she must be convinced of the existence of a real crime before she does so. So, La Bella is just doing his job, constructing his case and seeing how it might stand.

So far there is no case, but further investigation may yield the fruits of prosecution against at least some Administration officials and executives of the Democratic National Committee.

Meanwhile Republicans at least, are about to get what they want. There are at least two grand juries in operation on these matters, one in Washington and another in Los Angeles. Justice Department observers think it won't be long before indictments are brought against Charlie Trie and Pauline Kanchanalak - both Democrat fund raisers, and both out of the country and unreachable my United States law enforcement officials.

Bruce Babbitt
The case against Interior Secretary Babbitt's possible rejection of an Indian gaming license for purely political reasons is also hot this month and Reno may decide to appoint an independent counsel for him and former White House staffer Harold Ickes who Republicans allege masterminded the rejection as a "gimme" for a large donation from a competing tribe afraid a new casino would bite into their bottom line.

Even I think there may be something to it.

The task force is also stepping up its investigation of several top DNC officials and whether a conspiracy was operating to circumvent federal spending limits. That will be tougher to prove, even if it did happen, because the law is no cloudy and the only hard evidence that seems to exist is the practice of taking part of soft money donations and converting them to hard dollars which could be spend directly on campaign ads and not simply issue advocacy ads which favor party lines rather than candidates directly.

Reno has not chosen to appoint special counsel in this area either, preferring instead to have investigators continue their work. Thus an equal argument could be made that Reno herself wants to indict any co-conspirators if evidence can be found to do so.

Keep this in mind. The attorney general can indict anyone for breaking the law at any time. Janet Reno does need an independent counsel to do so.

The problem is that Justice has spent more than a year on these matters and found nothing with which to prosecute. It's as simple as that.

The Washington Post reports that Freeh's memo to Reno urging the appointment of an independent counsel is complete with cites on evidence which he feels is enough to go ahead. This evidence includes "secret grand jury material" but fails to allege specific crimes by individuals.

To my mind one need only watch GOP Senator Arlen Specter to see what's going on here. He is pitting Reno against Freeh and Freeh against Reno. At the same time he and his colleagues are embarrassing Freeh and the White House by underscoring -- at every available opportunity -- the rift between certain White House staff and the FBI Director.

I cannot believe that either Reno or Freeh is foolish enough to fall for Specter's dirty tricks. It must be obvious to each of them what he's up to -- To drive a triple wedge between all the parties and in doing so foment public outrage at the spectacle. So far neither Freeh, Reno or Clinton is biting.

Specter said, this week, that Reno is "protecting" the White House and that Freeh's anger "will" provoke a "fire storm" of public pressure that will cause Reno to seek a special counsel. "Otherwise," said Specter (R-Pa.), "I don't believe that Freeh can stay."

Need I go on?

WHAT'S DICK GEPHARDT UP TO?

Meanwhile, across town House Minority Leader Dick Gephardt is up to some wedge pounding himself, taking advantage of Al Gores plight and setting himself up for a presidential run in 2000 or 2004.

He's coming out as a "New Progressive" and picking up some the old mantle of the Democratic Party now obliterated by the far more conservative Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) which was the architect for the Clinton Victory in 1992. In short, the DLC made Clinton and other Democrat candidates look like Republicans to the electorate. They, and others who implanted the new Democrat ideal in voters minds, did a very good job and delivered the White House to Mr. Clinton handily.

Gephardt is not a DLC-er, but he was a founder of its philosophy and attacked Democrat liberal ideals and unions early in his career. Now Gephardt is claiming he's a born-again liberal - true to the values which first elected him to the city council in St. Louis.

Gephardt is wielding a double-edged sword. On one hand he attacks Republicans as mean and uncaring and on the other chides Democrats for leaving their traditional values on the doorstep in 92. He opposed President Clinton's welfare reform , the balanced budget and tax cut agreement, and most Clinton trade ideas.

But Gephardt is simply an opportunist. Even he weren't I'd join his team.

This isn't the first time he's changed his spots, and probably not the last.

What Gephardt has going against him is lightweight/heavyweight pollster Mark Mellman, who must be convincing him he's on to something by becoming an overnight progressive.

Gephardt tore apart the New Deal philosophy at every turn when he first arrived in Washington. So well did he try that conservatives rated him higher that liberals during those years. He voted to end busing and against union-favored legislation and he pushed health care legislation that increased private competition and killed federal proposals to curb the cost of medical care.

Then he did an about face in 1988 supporting abortion rights and union-backed trade legislation.

He has the right message, but can't be trusted to carry it through, Today he talks about the average worker who still struggles while corporate empires flourish. But Gephardt's rift with the White House has divided the Democrat caucus with many supporting the President and others supporting Gephardt. That's no place to be going into the 1998 House elections. America isn't ready to adopt progressive views this year, according to every public and private poll I've read. And they won't be ready until the economy tanks which it inevitably will.

Gephardt must count on this in order to carry an election for President whether in 2000 or 2004. Right now, however, he's just lining up his cards to become the messiah when things do turn sour.

The victims, however, could be more of his House Democrat colleagues, who if tied to Gephardt in '98 may fall victim to his new philosophies. I think Gephardt could be described as an opportunist extraordinaire. He knows that at some point America will tire of the "let's get richer and more powerful" agenda that Republicans have pushed so well. Gephardt knows resentment will out as the bubble bursts.

And he's right. But not caring who gets taken down in the mean time is irresponsible.

His timing couldn't be worse.

THE BI-PARTISAN CASH REGISTER JUST KEEP RINGING

And... On the campaign trail is Newt Gingrich, fresh from "pleading guilty" to money laundering and even fresher for paying most of his $300,000 fine for doing so.

Newt's planning a 17 state money-grabbing blitz which his puppet-like campaign aides want to label a" step toward his presidency."

Ha, ha, ha, ha.

Rather than run for president, Gingrich will be lucky to maintain his seat and his leadership -- and that's what the tour's about. Raising money for Republicans so they owe him their loyalty and vote for his retention as Speaker.

"A lot of this is a process of endurance," Gingrich told reporters just before Congress left for winter recess last month. "You get up off the mat and try again." Which is NewtSpeak for "If you wait long enough, they'll forget you're a felon."

Gingrich, busy criticizing Democrat fund raising himself raised more than $300,000 in 24 hours last month during fund-raisers for the National Republican Congressional Committee, blowhard J.C. Watts of Oklahoma and Rep. Bob Riley of Alabama.

The Speaker will be gone from January 12th through February 7th - a relief for Washington I'm sure.

House Majority Leader Dick Armey, has flown off on a "Scrap the Tax Code" tour with House intellect Billy Tauzin, of Louisiana, Paid for by Citizens for a Sound Economy.

Meanwhile, Republican secret leader Bill Paxon of New York, who'll probably topple the Tweedledum-like Speaker next year, will not discuss his prospects or plans to do so. He's got scores of Republicans on his side and more waiting in the wings that would like to remove Gingrich as the blot on their reputations he is, but are afraid of his wrath if they lose.

And...the President is no campaign cash slouch himself.

After conducting a town hall meeting on race relations the president jetted off to Chicago for two political events. He raised more than $350,000 for Democratic House candidates and $550,000 for the near-bankrupt Democratic National Committee. The DNC is $13.2 million in debt with ninety percent of that due to legal bills.

And that's the way it is.