Reno: Appoint Counsel

by Matt Buckley

Will she or won't she? Questions of whether Attorney General Janet Reno would appoint a special prosecutor to look into possible fundraising violations by President Clinton continued with the release of several videotapes of Clinton's White House coffees. With Republican lawmakers out for political blood, Reno made her way to hearings on the issue, a seeming sitting duck for Republican salvos.

The result was no surprise. Reno, who blasted Rep. John Conyers (D­MI) in her Congressional testimony over the Waco showdown , showed her prowess in dealing with tough questions. Her reputation rung true as she clearly bested House Judiciary Chairman Henry Hyde (R­IN) in a verbal showdown. Pointing to polls indicating the majority of Americans want to have an independent counsel assigned to investigate Clinton, Hyde demanded why Reno had not taken such opinion into account. Reno correctly blasted Hyde for trying to make poll standing the criteria for the appointment of a special investigator.

Reno's besting of Republicans in her testimony should come as little surprise. Not only did she have a reputation for tough candor, but Republicans have an equally clear reputation for bungling hearings. From the Senate Whitewater probe to the ongoing campaign­finance reforms, Republicans have been ineffective at using hearings as a platform for further action.

That such ineffectiveness occurs now is particularly troublesome, since the Republicans have strong arguments to make in favor of an independent counsel. There is little doubt that serious questions of Reno's independence should still exist. President Clinton, when all is said and done, is Janet Reno's boss. He appointed her, and has the power to fire her. Reno has admirably used the independent counsel statute to examine other Administration officials, but even given Reno's questionable independence, there are still pressing concerns over the Justice Department's competency to handle the investigation. Reno's adept handling of herself during Hill testimony belies the fact that under her reign the Justice Department has been notoriously unreliable. Inexperienced prosecutors have been placed in positions beyond their expertise on this crucial case. Important evidence linking the Chinese government to influence­peddling in California has been lost while under Justice Department care. Amidst these flaws, there are serious concerns that Reno's department cannot conduct a competent investigation, much less an independent one.

Interests of independence and competency indicate that a special prosecutor should be looking into the Clinton fund­raising allegations. That Clinton objects so is puzzling in light of his pre-election claims that his would be among the most ethical in history. If what he did was legal, then why the reluctance to have a competent, independent prosecutor investigate?

While Reno may have won her round before the House Judiciary committee, she has lost the war. The mixing of hard and soft campaign funds is a serious charge which deserves independent scrutiny.