3 Fox, The Edge with Paula Zahn (March 14, 2000).
4 Testimony of Rep. Dan Burton, House Committee on Rules, Subcommittee on Rules and
Organization of the House (July 15, 1999) (available at www. house. gov/ reform/ oversight/ 99_ 07_ 15db-rules. htm).
5 Id.
6 Id.
7 NBC, Meet the Press (June 11, 2000).
8 NBC, Meet the Press (Aug. 29, 1999).
MINORITY VIEWS REPORT ON
"JANET RENO'S STEWARDSHIP OF THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT: A FAILURE TO SERVE THE ENDS OF JUSTICE"
Over the past four years, Rep. Dan Burton has waged a vendetta against the Attorney General of the United States. Mr. Burton has accused Attorney General Janet Reno of "deceit" 1
and "corruption." 2 He has called her the President's "chief blocker." 3 He has charged that the Attorney General "eroded the people's respect for the Department of Justice" 4 and established a
"legacy" of "incompetence and partisan zeal." 5 He has said that the Attorney General has brought the Justice Department to "to shame and disrepute" 6 and has made a "mockery of
justice." 7 He also has stated, "When you ask me, do I trust her, I certainly do not." 8
In August 1998, Mr. Burton and the other members of the majority even voted to hold the Attorney General in contempt of Congress.
There is a fundamental problem with Mr. Burton's accusations against the Attorney General: they have no basis in fact. Over the course of the Committee's investigation, the
Committee has heard testimony from a dozen Justice Department lawyers and FBI officials who have worked with Attorney General Reno. Several of these individuals, including FBI Director
Louis J. Freeh and former campaign finance task force head Charles G. La Bella, have strongly disagreed with some of the Attorney General's judgments. But not one witness has said that the
Attorney General is deceitful, corrupt, or partisan.
Rather, witness after witness has testified --under oath --to the Attorney General's integrity. As Director Freeh testified, "I have stated many times my respect for Attoorney General
1
1
Page 2
3
9 Testimony of FBI Director Louis Freeh, House Committee on Government Reform,
Hearings on the Current Implementation of the Independent Counsel Act, 105 th Cong., 1 st Sess., 1128 (Dec. 9-10, 1997) (H. Rept. 105-89).
10 House Probe of Campaign Fund-Raising Uncovers Little, Piles Up Partisan Ill Will,
Los Angeles Times (May 2, 1998) (quoting Norman Ornstein, a congressional expert at the American Enterprise Institute). This article and other news stories are attached as exhibit 1.
11 A House Investigation Travesty, New York Times (Apr. 12, 1997). This editorial is
attached with other editorials and commentaries as exhibit 2.
12 Mr. Burton Should Step Aside, Washington Post (March 20, 1997)..
13 Letter from John P. Rowley III to Rep. Dan Burton (July 1, 1997).
14 Burton Tape Fiasco Pitted Panel's Pros Vs. Pols, The Hill (May 13, 1998).
15 Id.
2
Reno. In the 4 1/ 4 years we have worked together, I have seen her bring nothing but integrity and honesty to the table." 9
The majority's main complaint about the Attorney General boils down to a dispute over conflicting interpretations of the independent counsel statute. The majority believes that the
Attorney General was required to appoint an independent counsel to examine campaign finance matters. The Attorney General reached a different conclusion. This type of disagreement over
interpreting the law is not unusual. Unfortunately, Mr. Burton seems to take the position that disagreeing with his opinion is evidence of "bad faith" and "corruption."
It is the height of irony that the majority pronounces judgments on the handling of the campaign finance investigation by the Department of Justice given the widespread criticism this
Committee has received for misconduct in its own campaign finance investigation. The Committee's campaign finance investigation has been referred to as a "case study in how not to
do a congressional investigation and as a prime example of investigation as farce," 10 a "parody of a reputable investigation," 11 and "its own cartoon, a joke, and a deserved embarrassment." 12
Three years ago, the Chief Counsel of the Committee quit and told Mr. Burton that he had "been unable to implement the standards of professional conduct I have been accustomed to at
the U. S. Attorney's office." 13 Two years ago, when Mr. Burton released doctored transcripts of former Associate Attorney General Webster Hubbell's phone conversations, one Republican
investigator was quoted saying, "I'm ashamed to be part of something that's so unprofessional." 14 Over the course of the investigation, the majority has gone through four chief counsels and at
least three different chief investigators. One former senior Republican investigator said, "Ninety percent of the staff doesn't have a clue as to how to conduct an investigation." 15
2
2
Page 3
4
16 Minority Staff Report, Unsubstantiated Allegations of Wrongdoing Involving the
Clinton Administration (Oct. 2000) (attached as exhibit 3).
17 Congress Forfeits Its Role, Wall Street Journal (Sept. 21, 2000).
18 Press Release, House Committee on Government Reform (May 19, 2000).
3
This Committee is in no position to criticize the Attorney General --and the majority's report reflects this fact. As will be discussed below, the report is based on unfounded allegations
and improperly injects the Committee into prosecutorial decisions. The report is also highly partisan.
I. UNFOUNDED ALLEGATIONS REGARDING ATTORNEY GENERAL RENO AND THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT
Over the last six years, the majority has made a series of false allegations of wrongdoing by the Clinton Administration. These allegations have included accusations that Deputy White
House Counsel Vince Foster was murdered as part of a coverup of the Whitewater land deal; that the White House intentionally maintained an "enemies list" of sensitive FBI files; that the IRS
targeted the President's enemies for tax audits; that the White House may have been involved in "selling or giving information to the Chinese in exchange for political contributions"; that the
White House "altered" videotapes of White House coffees to conceal wrongdoing; that the Clinton Administration sold burial plots in Arlington National Cemetery; and that problems with
the White House e-mail archiving system are "the most significant obstruction of Congressional investigations in U. S. history" and "reach much further" than Watergate.
As documented in a staff report recently released by Rep. Henry A. Waxman, these allegations have proven to be unsubstantiated. 16 According to Al Hunt of the Wall Street
Journal, "the accusations have a common denominator: They are blatantly false." 17
Attorney General Janet Reno and the Department of Justice have been frequent targets of these false allegations. Further, in its efforts to suggest wrongdoing on the part of the Justice
Department, the majority has unfairly smeared numerous individuals along the way. The major allegations that have been leveled against the Department and others over the last few years and
in the majority's report --and the actual facts as established in the record before the Committee --are described below.
C Allegation: Attorney General Reno has been "blatantly protecting the President, the Vice President and their party from the outset of this scandal" 18 and "the record clearly
shows that this Justice Department has bent over backwards to avoid investigating the
3
3
Page 4
5
19 Statement of Rep. Dan Burton, House Committee on Government Reform, Has the
Department of Justice Given Preferential Treatment to the President and Vice President?, 106 th Cong., 6 (July 20, 2000) (stenographic record) (hereinafter "July 20 hearing").
20 Rep. Dan Burton appearing on Fox, Hannity & Colmes (Aug. 3, 1999).
21 House Committee on Government Reform, Majority Report entitled Janet Reno's
Stewardship of the Justice Department: A Failure to Serve the Ends of Justice, at i (hereinafter "Majority Report").
22 Testimony of Charles La Bella, Senate Committee on the Judiciary Subcommittee on
Administrative Oversight and the Courts, Hearing on 1996 Campaign Finance Irregularities (May 2, 2000).
23 Statement of Charles La Bella (May 3, 1998).
24 Fox, Hannity & Colmes (March 13, 2000).
4
President, the Vice President and other senior White House officials." 19 It is "evident to anyone who's been closely involved in this that she's blocking for the president." 20 It is
"hard to escape the conclusion that the Attorney General has acted politically to benefit the President, the Vice President, and her own political party." 21
The Facts: Mr. Burton's allegations have been repeatedly refuted by sworn statements before this Committee and other committees from, among others, FBI Director Louis Freeh and
Charles La Bella, the former head of the Campaign Finance Task Force. Although Mr. Freeh and Mr. La Bella disagreed with Attorney General Reno's decision regarding appointing an
independent counsel for campaign finance issues, they repeatedly affirmed their belief in the Attorney General's integrity and denied that she acted to protect the President or others or to
impede their investigation.
For example, Mr. La Bella stated, "My perception is [the Attorney General] made no decisions to protect anyone." 22 He also said:
The Attorney General and the Deputy Attorney General have fully supported the Task Force, and I have every confidence in the way they are handling the matter. They are
committed to a vigorous investigation and prosecution of all campaign finance matters and have told me to pursue the evidence wherever it leads. That is what I have done and
what I expect the Task Force to continue to do. 23
According to Mr. La Bella, "when you jump to the conclusion that this is corruption, I think you're making an incredible leap." 24
4
4
Page 5
6
25 Testimony of Louis J. Freeh, House Committee on Government Reform, Hearing on
The Need for an Independent Counsel in the Campaign Finance Investigation, 105 th Cong., 71 (Aug. 4, 1998) (hereinafter "Aug. 4 hearing").
26 Testimony of William J. Esposito, House Committee on Government Reform, The
Justice Department's Implementation of the Independent Counsel Act, 106 th Cong., 73-74 (June 6, 2000) (stenographic record) (hereinafter "June 6 hearing").
27 Testimony of William J. Esposito, June 6 hearing at 80.
28 Testimony of Neil Gallagher, June 6 hearing at 129.
29 Testimony of Robert J. Conrad, July 20 hearing at 55.
30 The witnesses were FBI Director Louis Freeh; Charles La Bella, former head of the
Justice Department's campaign finance task force; James DeSarno, former lead FBI agent for the campaign finance task force; Lee Radek, chief of the Justice Department's public integrity
5
Similarly, Mr. Freeh stated:
I have tremendous respect for our Attorney General. . . . I do not believe for one moment that any of her decisions, but particularly her decisions in this matter, have been
motivated by anything other than the facts and the law which she is obligated to follow. If I thought anything differently, I would not be sitting here today as the FBI Director. I
think in all of the matters that I have dealt with her, and this is over five years, you get to know a person pretty well. She has always brought honesty and integrity to the table. 25
Mr. Freeh's and Mr. La Bella's views about the Attorney General have been echoed by other senior FBI and Justice Department officials appearing before our Committee. William J.
Esposito, former Deputy FBI Director, testified, "My dealing[] with the Attorney General was quite extensive, especially in my last year in the FBI. I found her to be a person of high integrity,
a person who would do the right thing." 26 He further stated that "in all matters that I've dealt with her on, she acted very even-handedly." 27 Neil Gallagher, Assistant FBI Director for
Terrorism, stated, "I have the highest respect for the Attorney General. I have dealt with her on many issues, and I have no reason to question her at all." 28 And Robert Conrad, a career
prosecutor who has been chief of the campaign finance task force since January 2000, told our Committee that "my experience has been that I have had a fair hearing from her on issues that I
have brought before her and my expectation would be that I would have a fair hearing on any recommendations in the future." 29
In total, the Committee heard testimony from 12 senior Justice Department lawyers and FBI officials who worked with the Attorney General on the campaign finance investigation and
other matters. 30 Although several of these witnesses disagreed with the Attorney General's
5
5
Page 6
7
section; William Esposito, former FBI Deputy Director; Neil Gallagher, Assistant Director for Terrorism, FBI; James K. Robinson, Assistant Attorney General; Robert Raben, Assistant
Attorney General; Robert Conrad, head of the Justice Department's campaign finance task force; Alan Gershel, Deputy Assistant Attorney General; John R. Schmidt, former Associate Attorney
General; and John Hogan, former Chief of Staff to Attorney General Reno.
31 Rep. Dan Burton quoted in Reno Rejection of Ickes Probe Dims GOP Support for
Counsel Law, Associated Press (Jan. 30, 1999).
32 Majority Report at 62.
33 Majority Report at 1.
34 Majority report at 1.
35 Those seven independent counsels were: Kenneth Starr (Whitewater, White House
Travel Office, FBI files, and Monica Lewinsky); Donald Smaltz (Agriculture Secretary Mike Espy); David Barrett (HUD Secretary Henry Cisneros); Daniel Pearson (Commerce Secretary
Ron Brown); Curtis von Kann (Americorps head Eli Segal); Carol Elder Bruce (Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt); and Ralph Lancaster, Jr. (Labor Secretary Alexis Herman).
6
judgment, not one witness questioned her motives or integrity.
Allegation: The Attorney General misapplied the independent counsel statute to protect the White House. "Janet Reno has defied the spirit and the letter of the independent
counsel statute . . . Her investigation has become a sham," 31 and "the Attorney General placed politics over impartial enforcement of the laws." 32 "Reno engaged in a creative
analysis of the law in what appeared to be an effort to avoid the implementation of the Independent Counsel Act." 33 "The Attorney General was able to avoid the appointment
of an independent counsel through a disregard of the law and a narrow view of the evidence." 34
The Facts: Attorney General Reno has appointed more independent counsels than any of her predecessors. Since enactment of the independent counsel statute in 1978, 20 independent
counsels have been appointed. Seven of those appointments were made at the request of Attorney General Reno. 35
Rep. Burton relies on memos written by Mr. Freeh and Mr. La Bella as evidence that the Attorney General misapplied the Independent Counsel Act. These memos recommended the
appointment of an independent counsel. However, Mr. Burton dismisses and overlooks other memos provided to the Committee which recommended against the appointment of an
independent counsel or which took issue with recommendations in the Freeh and La Bella
6
6
Page 7
8
36 See, e. g., Memorandum from Public Integrity Section Chief Lee Radek to Assistant
Attorney General James K. Robinson (Aug. 5, 1998) (DOJ-FLB-00130 to 00150) (attached as exhibit 4); Memorandum from Robert S. Litt to the Attorney General, the Deputy Attorney
General, and James K. Robinson, Assistant Attorney General (July 20, 1998) (DOJ-3149 to 3153) (attached as exhibit 5).
37 Testimony of Louis J. Freeh, Aug. 4 hearing at 93.
38 Testimony of James Robinson, July 20 hearing at 65. See also Testimony of Deputy
Assistant Attorney General Alan Gershel, July 20 hearing at 66-67 (noting that "it's certainly very common for prosecutors to engage in good faith discussions, disagreements, debates on the
application of the law, the application of the facts, the appropriate way to charge or not charge a case. So it does not strike me as unusual at all"); Testimony of Lee Radek, Public Integrity
Section Chief of the Department of Justice, Senate Committee on the Judiciary Subcommittee on Administrative Oversight and the Courts, Hearing on Attorney General's Decisions Regarding
Campaign Finance Investigations, 106 th Cong (May 24, 2000) (page numbers not available) (hereinafter "May 24 hearing") (stating that "[ i] nternal disagreements among Department of
Justice officials about various aspects of the Independent Counsel Act date back to its passage over twenty years ago. What is new is the determination of some to delve into those confidential
discussions and disagreements that were intended as an honest and frank exchange of views between the attorney general and her various advisors"); Testimony of Lee Radek, June 6 hearing
at 31-32 (noting that the style of the Attorney General "has been to seek out the views of a variety of advisors, listen carefully to each of us, consider our arguments, ask her own questions,
and then reach her own decisions" and that "[ a] ny group of lawyers grappling with complex legal and factual issues are bound to have disagreements, and the issues we faced were both complex
and difficult").
7
memos. 36 The record shows that the Attorney General solicited and received conflicting advice from a number of advisors.
The record also shows that the conflicting advice was rendered in good faith. Mr. Freeh and a number of senior Justice Department officials testified that there was nothing unusual in
the Attorney General receiving conflicting advice in the course of the campaign finance investigation. Mr. Freeh testified, "I would hope and expect that Attorney Generals, past, present
and future, always receive different, good advice. And I think the more divergent it is at times, the better it is for that Attorney General to make what he or she thinks is the best decision." 37
James Robinson, head of the Justice Department's criminal division, stated that the internal documents released to Congress demonstrated "honest good faith differences of opinion between
prosecutors and investigators who are not shy about expressing their views." 38
In these circumstances, it was the Attorney General's prerogative --and her responsibility --to choose which advice to follow. Not a single witness before the Committee suggested that
her decision was influenced by favoritism or politics. Rather, as Mr. Robinson testified, the
7
7
Page 8
9
39 Testimony of James Robinson, July 20 hearing at 65.
40 Majority Report at 13-16.
41 Majority Report at 14-16.
42 Majority Report at 15-16.
43 Notification to the Court Pursuant to 28 U. S. C. 592( a)( 1) of the Initiation of a
Preliminary Investigation and Application to the Court Pursuant to 28 U. S. C. 593( c)( 1) for Expansion of the Jurisdiction of an Independent Counsel, In Re William David Watkins (D. C.
Cir., March 20, 1996). The Independent Counsel Act (which expired in 1999) specified a list of "covered persons" who automatically fall under the Act's mandatory provision. 28 U. S. C.
591( a) & (b). In her filing with the court regarding the Watkins investigation, the Attorney General stated, "I have concluded that Watkins is a covered person under the Independent
Counsel Act." In Re William David Watkins, at 2 (emphasis added). In the filing, the Attorney General reasoned that the Act:
8
record indicates that the Attorney General made a "good faith effort to reach absolutely the correct view from her vantage point as the decision maker under the Independent Counsel Act." 39
Allegation: Attorney General Janet Reno "changed her interpretation of the Independent Counsel Act" to "set the bar for appointing an independent counsel even higher for the
campaign finance investigation than previous investigations." 40 The Attorney General has stated that the discretionary clause of the independent counsel statute requires that
she must conclude there is potential for an actual conflict of interest, rather than merely an appearance of a conflict of interest, when she invokes this clause. Yet in "at least
four" earlier investigations, she referred matters to an independent counsel under the discretionary clause and applied a standard of "apparent conflict." 41
The Facts: The majority is engaging in pure speculation regarding whether the Attorney General based earlier independent counsel referrals on an "apparent conflict" standard in the
discretionary clause of the Independent Counsel Act. The referral documents in which the Attorney General described her rationale for these earlier decisions do not support the majority's
interpretation.
For example, one of the four examples cited by the majority as an earlier "discretionary clause" referral is the matter involving former Assistant to the President for Management and
Administration David Watkins. According to the majority report, this referral was made under the Act's "discretionary provision," as "David Watkins did not satisfy any of the requirements for
the mandatory provision of the Act." 42 In fact, the specific reason the Attorney General cited for recommending an independent counsel on this matter was that Mr. Watkins did fall under the
Act's mandatory provision. 43 The Act's discretionary clause was not invoked in the Watkins
8
8
Page 9
10
includes as a covered person, for the entire duration of the incumbency of the President: "the chairman and treasurer of the principal national campaign committee seeking the
election or reelection of the President, and any officer of that committee exercising authority at the national level." Watkins was the Vice President and Secretary of the
Clinton/ Gore 1992 Campaign Committee, and functioned as the Deputy Campaign Manager for Operations. On the basis of an investigation into Watkins' role on the
campaign, I am satisfied that Watkins meets the criteria set out by the statute.
Id.
44 Majority Report at 16.
45 Id.
46 Notification to the Court Pursuant to 28 U. S. C. 592( a)( 1) of the Initiation of a
Preliminary Investigation and Application to the Court Pursuant to 28 U. S. C. 593( c)( 1) for the Expansion of the Jurisdiction of an Independent Counsel, In Re Anthony Marceca, 3 (D. C. Cir.
June 21, 1996).
47 Notification to the Court Pursuant to 28 U. S. C. 592( a)( 1) of the Initiation of a
Preliminary Investigation and Application to the Court Pursuant to 28 U. S. C. 593( c)( 1) for the Expansion of the Jurisdiction of an Independent Counsel, In Re Bernard Nussbaum, 3 (D. C. Cir.
Oct. 24, 1996); Application to the Court Pursuant to 28 U. S. C. 592( c)( 1) for the Appointment of an Independent Counsel In Re Madison Guaranty Savings & Loan Association, 3-4 (D. C. Cir.
July 1, 1994); In Re Anthony Marceca, supra note 45, at 3.
9
referral.
Another of the four examples cited by the majority was a referral involving former White House detailee Anthony Marceca. 44 Mr. Marceca's referral concerned allegations that the White
House had improperly obtained files from the FBI. According to the majority, the "conflict" at issue in the Marceca referral was based on Mr. Marceca's "relationship with
President Clinton or the White House generally." 45 This characterization, however, is inconsistent with the rationale set forth in the Marceca referral. The referral states that an
investigation by the Department of Justice would constitute a political conflict of interest "because it necessarily will involve an inquiry into dealings between the White House and the
FBI." 46
Further, with respect to the three referrals cited by the majority which did invoke the discretionary clause, there is simply no discussion of an "apparent conflict" standard anywhere in
the referral documents. In these documents, the Attorney General cites "political conflict of interest" as the basis for the decision to refer, and does not discuss whether she perceived an
"apparent" as opposed to an "actual" conflict. 47
9
9
Page 10
11
48 Majority Report at 14-15.
49 Id. at 15.
50 Id.
51 Congressional Record, H9507 (Dec. 13, 1982) (emphasis added). The majority also
faults the Attorney General for citing "negative legislative history" by drawing inferences regarding congressional intent from the fact that Congress rejected language. The majority is
apparently concerned that in 1997 testimony, the Attorney General noted that Congress in 1994 decided to reject a proposal for a more flexible standard for invoking the discretionary clause.
Majority Report at 14-15. This criticism ignores the fact that the Attorney General does not rely purely on "negative legislative history" in discussing her interpretation of the Act's discretionary
clause. For example, as the majority report acknowledges in a footnote, the Attorney General also relies on the floor statement of Rep. Hall that explicitly described why Congress deleted the
"appearance" language from the discretionary clause. E. g., Letter from Attorney General Janet Reno to Senator Orrin G. Hatch, 3 (Apr. 14, 1997) (DOJ-02046 to 02055) (attached as exhibit 6).
10
60;I>Allegation: In explaining her view that the Independent Counsel Act's discretionary clause requires a finding of potential for an actual conflict of interest instead of merely
an appearance of a conflict, the Attorney General "neglected to mention the report language supporting the idea of an apparent conflict of interest." 48 "[ T] he Senate
Report accompanying the 1982 Amendments to the Act stated '[ t] he Committee recognizes that there may be instances when investigations by the Attorney General of
persons not covered by the Act may create an actual or apparent conflict of interest. '" 49 The Attorney General "ha[ s] a problem with her interpretation of the Act's legislative
history." 50
The Facts: The majority's reference to the Senate report is misleading. The report language cited by the majority concerned the discretionary clause provision in the Senate-passed
version of the 1982 Amendments to the Independent Counsel Act. The discretionary clause language in the Senate-passed bill authorized appointment of an independent counsel based on an
"appearance" of a conflict of interest. That language, however, was deleted before Congress enacted the 1982 Amendments into law. In fact, the floor manager of this bill, Rep. Sam Hall,
specifically noted:
The Senate-passed bill provides that the Attorney General may apply for the appointment of a special prosecutor to investigate persons other than the class of individuals
specifically covered whenever the Attorney General determines a personal, financial, or political conflict of interest or the appearance thereof may result if an officer of the
Department of Justice conducts the investigation. The bill as amended deletes the reference to appearances, and thereby requires the Attorney General to determine that an
actual conflict may exist in order to utilize the special prosecutor procedures. 51
10
10
Page 11
12
52 Fox News, Fox News Sunday (Sept. 12, 1999).
53 Morning Edition, National Public Radio (Aug. 31, 1999).
54 John C. Danforth, Special Counsel, Interim Report to the Deputy Attorney General
Concerning the 1993 Confrontation at the Mt. Carmel Complex, Waco, Texas, 54 (July 21, 2000).
55 Press Release, House Committee on Government Reform (Nov. 1, 1999).
11
Allegation: The Attorney General intentionally misled the Committee about Waco by withholding evidence on the use of "military rounds" of tear gas during the siege of the
Branch Davidian compound in Waco, Texas. The basis of this allegation was that the Justice Department purportedly didn't produce the 49 th page of a memo that was,
according to Mr. Burton, "the very definitive piece of paper that could have given us some information." 52 Referring to allegations that the Justice Department had withheld
Waco-related information from Congress, Rep. Burton also stated that the Attorney General "should be summarily removed, either because she's incompetent, number one,
or, number two, she's blocking for the President and covering things up, which is what I believe." 53
The Facts: At the time Mr. Burton made these statements, evidence produced by the Justice Department regarding the use of "military rounds" of tear gas was in his own files --and
had been since 1995. The Office of Special Counsel John Danforth investigated this issue, and concluded:
[W] hile one copy of the report did not contain the 49 th page, the Committees [the House Government Reform and Oversight Committee and the House Judiciary Committee] were
provided with at least two copies of the lab report in 1995 which did contain the 49 th page. The Office of Special Counsel easily located these complete copies of the lab
report at the Committees' offices when it reviewed the Committees' copy of the 1995 Department of Justice production. The Department of Justice document production to the
Committees also included several other documents that referred to the use of the military tear gas rounds, including the criminal team's witness summary chart and interview
notes. 54
Allegation: The Attorney General has "a double standard for Republicans and Democrats," and "Republicans who break the law get the book thrown at them,
Democrats who break the law get off with a slap on the wrist." 55 "[ A] s far as the equal application of justice, it doesn't appear to me that there has been an equal application of
11
11
Page 12
13
56 Statement of Rep. Dan Burton, House Committee on Government Reform, Hearing on
the Role of John Huang and the Riady Family in Political Fundraising, 106 th Cong. (Dec. 15, 1999).
57 Statement of Rep. Dan Burton, House Committee on Government Reform, Hearing on
justice by this Justice Department." 56 "When Democrats do get convicted, they get very light sentences. When Republicans get convicted of the same conduct, they're given
The Facts: The majority's statements ignore the fact that Democrats have received harsh fines for campaign finance offenses. For example, in December 1998, Future Tech International
In addition to receiving fines, Democrats have also served actual jail time for their offenses, unlike their Republican counterparts:
In September 1997, Democratic party fund-raisers Gene and Nora Lum were sentenced to 10 months in custody, half in a community confinement center, the
Rep. Burton's allegation of favoritism also conveniently overlooks the fact that Attorney
12
61 Affidavit of Peter F. Cloeren, House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight
campaign finance violations ever committed by a member of Congress." Former Rep. Kim,
General Reno has not initiated prosecutions against prominent Republicans involved in alleged campaign finance violations. For example, no action has been taken against former Republican
For its part the RNC, while apparently not on a par with the DNC, had its fair share of abuses. The Barbour matter is a good example of the type of disingenuous fundraising
The validity of Mr. Burton's allegation can be tested by comparing the treatment received by two former members of Congress who committed campaign finance violations, former
2d. Sess., Minority Views at 123-25 (Sept. 17, 1998) (H. Rept. 105-728).
68 Testimony of Charles La Bella, Aug. 4 hearing at 110.
14
Allegation: The Attorney General delayed releasing the Freeh and La Bella memos in order to protect herself from public embarrassment. "By withholding the memos from
The Facts: The Attorney General's reluctance to produce the Freeh and La Bella memos was consistent with the longstanding departmental policy against releasing internal memoranda
The last thing in the world that I want to see as the prosecutor heading this Task Force is that this memo ever get disclosed. . . . I don't think it should ever see the light of day,
that could be made public I think without risk to anybody or anything." Fox, Hannity and Colmes (Dec. 29, 1999).
71 Press Release, House Committee on Government Reform (May 19, 2000).
15
Despite these well-founded reservations, the Attorney General made significant efforts to accommodate the Committee. In early 1998, the Justice Department provided a briefing to the
Allegation: "[ W] e have a piece of evidence from the Director of the FBI that makes it abundantly clear that we have been right all along. Janet Reno and Lee Radek have been
The Facts: The majority's evidence is a December 9, 1996, memo from FBI Director Freeh to former Deputy FBI Director Esposito, which stated:
16
Radek's alleged comment interpreted the comment differently. Mr. Esposito testified that he considered the remark to be "totally inappropriate," 74 and he evidently communicated his belief
Mr. Radek is a 29-year career prosecutor who began working for the Justice Department in the Nixon administration and who has never been involved in Democratic party politics. 77 He 060;BR>
testified that while he has no recollection of the alleged conversation with Mr. Esposito, he "would undoubtedly, in conversations with Mr. Esposito, talk about pressure on the Public
C Allegation: The Vice President "apparently suggested that the DNC issue ads be shown to James Riady." 81 The Justice Department failed to review an incriminating tape of a
88 The majority also asserts, "The Vice President himself admitted that it was his voice,
The Facts: The videotape in question is of a December 15, 1995, White House coffee attended by Arief Wiriadinata, the son-in-law of Hashim Ning, a business associate of Lippo
Furthermore, as the majority is aware, the tape in question was provided to the Justice Department in October 1997. 87 Thus, it is entirely possible that the Department reviewed the
Allegation: The Justice Department is "more interested in defending the White House in
17
Mr. Gershel assured the Committee that the Department had not impeded or limited the scope of Mr. Ray's investigation, and the Committee has received no information to question this
Dan Burton, Sept. 26 hearing at 41 (emphasis added). In their e-mail report, released shortly thereafter, the majority asserted, "It appears that for at least part of its e-mail investigation, the
94 Transcript of Interview of Attorney General Janet Reno, House Committee on
18
the e-mail matter than investigating it" 89 and "it has become known that the one part time lawyer handling the e-mail investigation for the Department has recently left
96 Testimony of Alan Gershel, Sept. 26 hearing at 35.
scandal." Majority Report at vii. In support of this assertion, the majority claims that "[ i] n an October 5, 2000, interview with the Committee, Attorney General Reno made it clear that she
Majority Counsel: . . . is the Department of Justice doing an investigation of any sort of matters that go to Congressional investigations?
19
"there are sufficient resources committed to it based on the recommendations of the prosecutors involved." 95 Similarly, Mr. Gershel observed:
Mr. Gershel also pointed out that "with respect to the White House e-mail matter the [Department's] task force and the office of the independent counsel are working together in a
100 Ms. Poston was seeking information for a client, a member of an international religious
related to whether Mr. Abe had been arrested or detained in Seattle in 1963. Mr. Abe maintained that he had never been detained and that statements to the contrary made by Ms. Poston's client
Allegation: In July 1999 testimony before the House Rules Committee, Rep. Burton claimed that the Government Reform Committee had received information indicating that
The Facts: Mr. Burton's allegations concerned a decision by the Justice Department to confirm the lack of existence of records in response to a FOIA request by a Miami attorney,
154 (July 27, 2000) (stenographic record). The majority also alleges that Ms. Poston took "illegal actions" and that she "Request[ ed] Her Private Investigators to Break the Law." Majority
In its discussion of the Poston matter, the majority report also states that according to Mr. Lucas, Barry Langberg, an attorney for Soka Gakkai, hired Jack Palladino, a private investigator,
102 Majority Report at 108.
21
individuals showed that the Attorney General had recused herself from the decision. 101
The Facts: In 1996, Democratic party national committees contributed to Kansas state candidates and county committees, and to Democratic party committees in other states. Some of
106 Letter from Henry Helgerson to Carol Williams (Sept. 3, 1997) (attached as exhibit 9).
lobbying. See the Home Page of the Commission at www. state. ks. us/ public/ gsc/.
109 Deposition of Henry Helgerson, House Committee on Government Reform and
from the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee in his capacity as chairman of the
Kansas Democratic Party. 104 Media accounts reported concerns that these actions may have constituted illegal circumvention of a Kansas law that caps contributions by national party
In 1997, state representative Henry Helgerson wrote the bipartisan Kansas Commission on Governmental Standards and Conduct asking for clarification of the Kansas law. 106 The
the Role Of Yah Lin 'Charlie' Trie in Illegal Political Fundraising, 106 th Cong. (March 1, 2000).
58 Majority Report at 109.
massive fines." 57 The Attorney General's conduct reflects "uneven enforcement of the law." 58
Inc. and its chief financial officer, Juan Ortiz, were fined $1 million for reimbursing employees for their campaign contributions to Democratic campaigns. In February, the Federal Election
Commission also imposed a $209,000 civil penalty --the fourth largest in FEC history --on Future Tech and several company officials.
In December 1999, Yogesh Gandhi was sentenced to one year in prison and ordered to pay more than $237,000 in back taxes to the IRS for tax evasion, mail
fraud, and helping to make an illegal $325,000 campaign contribution to the Democratic National Committee.
other half in home detention. Each also received $30,000 in fines and two years of probation for arranging about $50,000 in illegal contributions in 1994 and
1995.
In 1996, Jack Webb and Jeffress Wells, two former officials of the U. S. Department of Agriculture, were sentenced to 30 days in jail, two years of
supervised probation, and 120 hours of community service and given a $2,500 fine for conspiring to raise contributions for a PAC from coworkers and
subordinates. Mr. Wells and Mr. Webb were both active Democrats, the persons solicited were Democrats, and the PAC supported the Clinton campaign.
12
Page 13
14
59 Interim Report from Charles La Bella and James DeSarno for Attorney General Janet
Reno and FBI Director Louis J. Freeh, 83 (July 16, 1998) (DOJ-FLB-00030 to 00127).
60 House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, Investigation of Political
Fundraising Improprieties and Possible Violations of Law, 105 th Cong., 2d Sess., v. 4, at 4020-24 (Nov. 5, 1998) (H. Rept. 105-829).
(Aug. 6, 1998).
62 In March 1998, Rep. Kim was sentenced to two months home confinement under
electronic monitoring, one year of probation, and 200 hours of community service, and received a $5,000 fine. According to prosecutors, his case represented "the largest amount of criminal
13
National Committee Chairman Haley Barbour, who formed the National Policy Forum (NPF) and was alleged to have solicited and secured a $2.1 million loan from a foreign national for the
NPF which he funneled into the RNC. According to Charles La Bella, the former head of the campaign finance task force:
and loan transactions that were the hallmark of the 1996 election cycle. In fact, Barbour's position as head of the RNC and NPF --and the liberties he took in those positions --
makes the one $2 million transaction even more offensive than some concocted by the DNC. Indeed, with one $2 million transaction, the RNC accomplished what it took the
DNC over 100 White House coffees to accomplish. 59
Similarly, no action has been taken against Republican Majority Whip Tom DeLay, despite specific and credible evidence that Mr. DeLay and a Republican congressional candidate,
Brian Babin, knowingly participated in a scheme to funnel illegal contributions to Mr. Babin's campaign. 60 The evidence relating to Mr. DeLay includes a sworn affidavit from Texan
businessman and Republican donor Peter Cloeren stating that Mr. DeLay instructed him to funnel money illegally to Mr. Babin's campaign. 61
Republican Rep. Jay Kim and former Democratic Rep. Mary Rose Oakar. Rep. Kim knowingly accepted $230,000 in illegal contributions --over 14 times the amount of money that Rep. Oakar
conspired to contribute illegally ($ 16,000). But Rep. Kim received a comparable sentence to Rep. Oakar. 62
13
13
Page 14
15
Convicted in 1997, May Run Again, Los Angeles Times (Dec. 4, 1999). Rep. Oakar received a sentence of two years' probation and 200 hours of community service, and a $32,000 fine.
63 Letter from Rep. Dan Burton to Attorney General Janet Reno (March 10, 2000).
64 Majority Report at 128.
65 E. g., Charles J. Cooper, Response to Congressional Requests for Information Regarding
Decisions Made Under the Independent Counsel Act, 10 Op. O. L. C. (Apr. 28, 1986); see also House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, Contempt of Congress, 105 th Cong.,
66 Letter from Attorney General Janet Reno and FBI Director Louis J. Freeh to Rep. Dan
Burton (Dec. 8, 1997).
67 Testimony of Louis J. Freeh, Aug. 4 hearing at 110.
this Committee, you tried to keep the Committee from learning how you had mishandled the investigation." 63 Furthermore, "when the Justice Department finally turned the
documents over to the Committee, it was clear that the Justice Department's objections had been utterly false and baseless." 64
concerning ongoing investigations to Congress. 65 Both Mr. Freeh and Mr. La Bella stated on numerous occasions that public release of their memoranda would jeopardize the task force's
investigations and have a 4;chilling effect" on pending prosecutions.
For example, Attorney General Reno and Director Freeh warned in a December 8, 1997, letter to Rep. Burton that release of the Freeh memo would provide a "road map" of their
investigation. 66 In his testimony before the Committee on August 4, 1998, Director Freeh was asked whether he thought Congress should receive his memorandum. Director Freeh replied that
"I certainly believe it not prudent to receive it at this point." 67 Mr. La Bella stated at the same hearing:
because this, in my judgment, would be devastating to the investigations that the men and women of the Task Force are working on right now and that I have put my blood, sweat
and tears into, and I don't want to see that jeopardized." 68
14
14
Page 15
16
69 See Letter from Rep. Henry Waxman to Attorney General Janet Reno and FBI Director
Louis J. Freeh (Dec. 19, 1997).
70 Mr. La Bella apparently concurred in the Attorney General's decision in May 2000 to
release the minimally redacted memoranda to Congress. In December 1999, he stated, "I would think now that the investigations are all concluded, there's a lot --a good portion of the memo
72 Majority Report at v.
73 Memorandum from FBI Director Louis J. Freeh to Deputy FBI Director William J.
Esposito (Dec. 9, 1996).
Chairman, Ranking Member, and certain staff of the Committee on redacted portions of the Freeh memorandum. 69 In late 1998, the Justice Department provided a briefing to the Chairman,
Ranking Member, and certain staff of the Committee on redacted versions of the Freeh and La Bella memoranda, and permitted review of these documents. And in May 2000, after the
Department's successful prosecution of individuals mentioned in the memoranda, the Justice Department provided the documents in minimally redacted form to the Committee. 70
blatantly protecting the President, the Vice President and their party from the outset of this scandal." 71 "Justice Department officials believed that a key supervisor of the
campaign finance investigation thought that the Attorney General's political future hinged on her decisions regarding her political superiors." 72
I also advised the Attorney General of Lee Radek's comment to you that there was a lot of "pressure" on him and [the Public Integrity Section] regarding this case because the
"Attorney General's job might hang in the balance" (or words to that effect). I stated that those comments would be enough for me to take him and the Criminal Division off the
case completely. 73
The meaning of Mr. Radek's alleged comment is unclear. The testimony before this Committee and a Senate Judiciary subcommittee suggests that the two people who heard Mr.
15
15
Page 16
17
74 Testimony of William J. Esposito, June 6 hearing at 119.
75 Testimony of Neil Gallagher, June 6 hearing at 126.
76 Testimony of Neil Gallagher, June 6 hearing at 125.
77 Testimony of Lee Radek, May 24 hearing.
78 Testimony of Lee Radek, May 24 hearing.
79 Testimony of Lee Radek, May 24 hearing.
80 Testimony of Lee Radek, May 24 hearing.
81 Majority Report at 65.
82 Statement of Rep. Bob Barr, July 20 hearing at 100.
83 Statement of Rep. Dan Burton, July 20 hearing at 10.
to Mr. Freeh. But Neil Gallagher, Assistant FBI Director for Terrorism, testified that he "did not put any great significance" on the statement, 75 and that "the implication that I took was that Lee
Radek was making a statement of how sensitive and tough this investigation was going to be that we were about ready to enter." 76
Integrity Section at frequent occasions, whenever he and I would talk" but that "[ i] t was pressure to do the job and do it right." 78 Asked what pressure he got from the Attorney General, Mr.
Radek responded that "I got pressure to do a good job and to do it well." 79 As for the Attorney General herself, Mr. Radek said that he was "aware of no pressure being put on her." 80
December 1995 White House coffee which is "evidence that the Vice President knew that those [DNC issue] ads were being paid for by foreign money. That is evidence that the
President knew that there was a connection between those ads and Mr. Riady." 82 "I don't think the Justice Department has even looked into this. In five interviews with the
Vice President, they didn't ask him a single question about it. I don't think they have even asked to see the original tape." 83
16
16
Page 17
18
84 Statement of Rep. Dan Burton, July 20 hearing at 9.
85 Justice Department Won't Discuss Gore Video, Reuters (July 21, 2000).
86 Fox, Hannity and Colmes (July 19, 2000).
87 Letter from Counsel to the President Beth Nolan to Chief Counsel James C. Wilson
(Sept. 23, 2000) (noting that "in a recent conversation with Lisa Klem of my office you indicated that you knew the Department of Justice had the videotape in October 1997").
but deflected questions by saying it was a political attack using news that had been available for years." Majority Report at 71 (citing Congressman Focuses on Gore Videotape Comment,
<;P>
Associated Press (July 19, 2000)). However, the news article the majority cites for this assertion says nothing about the Vice President's reaction to, or comments about, the videotape --nor do
any of the other articles cited by the majority.
17
founder Mochtar Riady. James Riady, Mochtar's son, is suspected of making conduit campaign contributions in the 1992 and 1994 election cycles. According to Rep. Burton's description of
the videotape:
Mr. Wiriadinata moves away from the camera and you hear a voice in the background. It sounds very much like the Vice President. It sounds like he is saying, "We oughta, we
oughta, we oughta show Mr. Riady the tapes, some of the ad tapes." 84
According to neutral observers, however, the tape is virtually unintelligible. A Reuters reporter describing the playing of the videotape at the Committee's hearing wrote, "Gore's
muffled words were not clear." 85 When the tape was played on a Fox TV show, the person in charge of transcribing the show was also unable to make it out. The transcript for the show
reads: "We ought to, we ought to show that to [unintelligible] here, let [unintelligible] tapes, some of the ad tapes [unintelligible]." 86
tape three years ago and came to the same conclusion as other unbiased observers --namely, that the tape is unintelligible. 88
17
Page 18
19
89 Majority Report at vii.
90 Majority Report at vii.
91 Majority Report at vii-viii.
92 Testimony of Alan Gershel, House Committee on Government Reform, Hearing on
Contacts Between Northrop Grumman Corporation and the White House Regarding Missing White House E-Mails, 35 (Sept. 26, 2000) (stenographic record) (hereinafter "Sept. 26 hearing").
assurance. Sept. 26 hearing at 48.
93 The majority has repeated this accusation with increasing conviction, despite being
unable to cite any evidence to support it. Mr. Burton said in a hearing on September 26 that "We have heard from --heard the task force was using just one part-time lawyer." Statement of Rep.
Justice Department had only one part-time lawyer assigned to its e-mail investigation." House Committee on Government Reform, The Failure to Produce White House E-Mails: Threats,
Obstruction and Unanswered Questions, 106 th Cong., 141 (2000) (stenographic record) (emphasis added). Now, the majority asserts simply that "it has become known that the one part
time lawyer handling the e-mail investigation for the Department has recently left government employment." Majority Report at vii (emphasis added).
Government Reform, 4 (Oct. 5, 2000) (hereinafter "Attorney General Reno interview");
government employment." 90 The Department has given the White House "preferential treatment" by failing to investigate whether the e-mail matter involves "obstruction of
Congressional investigations of the campaign finance scandal." 91
The Facts: The Department's e-mail investigation is being carried out in coordination with Independent Counsel Robert Ray. 92 There is no reason to believe that Mr. Ray and the
Justice Department are not pursuing an appropriate investigation.
The report offers no evidence to support its allegation that the Department has relied on one part-time lawyer to handle the e-mail investigation. 93 Asked about this allegation, Attorney
General Reno and Deputy Assistant Attorney General Alan Gershel each made clear that they were unable to respond, due to the Department's longstanding policy of not disclosing staffing
levels for ongoing investigations. 94 However, the Attorney General assured the Committee that
18
18
Page 19
20
Testimony of Alan Gershel, Sept. 26 hearing at 34-35.
95 Attorney General Reno interview at 9.
97 Testimony of Alan Gershel, Sept. 26 hearing at 35. The majority also asserts that the
Department has given the White House "preferential treatment" by failing to investigate whether the e-mail matter involves "obstruction of Congressional investigations of the campaign finance
would not take proactive steps to determine whether the White House had obstructed Congressional investigations by failing to take steps to produce subpoenaed e-mail records."
Majority Report at viii.
This assertion is without merit. The interview with the Attorney General included the following exchange:
Attorney General Reno: I will be happy to check and see what I can provide you based on what might be known or any complaint that you have made of obstruction. But I don't
know the full range of your investigations, so I can't tell you.
Attorney General Reno interview at 25.
Moreover, in the course of the interview, majority counsel conceded that the Department had asked the majority months ago which congressional subpoenas may not have been complied
with --and the majority declined to cooperate with this request:
the Attorney General regularly consults with Robert Conrad, the chief of the campaign financing task force, and me to ensure that the task force has the resources it needs. Bob
and I both believe that the task force currently has sufficient staff to handle the White House e-mail matter as well as its other responsibilities. 96
coordinated investigation. So it is not just the task force's resources that are involved." 97
19
19
Page 20
21
Majority Counsel: Mr. Gershel a number of months ago called me directly and said he wanted to interview me specifically to try and determine whether Congressional
subpoenas had not been complied with or whether there was obstruction of a Congressional investigation. I said to him at the time I would be happy to comply with
his request for an interview pending consultation with my superiors, but first we had the outstanding question of whether there was a special counsel to be appointed. And I
indicated that it would perhaps be counterproductive if I did an interview with him when, as Mr. Raben had indicated --actually had not yet indicated, but as indicated by you,
there was an ongoing determination as to whether a special counsel would be appointed.
Attorney General Reno interview at 32.
98 Testimony of Chairman Dan Burton, House Rules Committee (July 15, 1999) (available
at www. house. gov/ reform/ oversight/ 99_ 07_ 15db-rules. htm).
99 Testimony of Richard Huff, House Government Reform Committee, Felonies and
Favors: A Friend of the Attorney General Gathers Information from the Justice Department, 150 (July 27, 2000) (stenographic record) (hereinafter "July 27 hearing").
organization known as Soka Gakkai. Ms. Poston's client had been sued in a Japanese court for libel by a Japanese citizen named Nobuo Abe. The alleged statements at the heart of this lawsuit
were defamatory. Ms. Poston's FOIA requests sought records that would have established that her client's statements were true and that Mr. Abe had, in fact, been arrested or detained. E. g.,
Letter from Russell J. Bruemmer and Patrick J. Carome of Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering, to Richard L. Huff (March 31, 1995) (DOJ- 02812 to 02817). The Justice Department's
confirmation that no such records existed was adverse to the interests of Ms. Poston's client.
20
the Attorney General "personally" changed a policy related to release of information by the Justice Department so that an attorney she knew "could help her client." 98
Rebekah Poston. This decision to confirm the lack of records was legal, 99 and it was damaging to Ms. Poston's client. 100 The records produced to the Committee and testimony by the relevant
20
20
Page 21
22
101 Memorandum from Attorney General Janet Reno to Staff of the Attorney General (Apr.
28, 1995) (attached as exhibit 7); House Committee on Government Reform, Felonies and Favors: A Friend of the Attorney General Gathers Information from the Justice Department,
Report at 163, 168. The majority's allegation appears to be based on the premise that Ms. Poston inappropriately directed her private investigators to access a restricted FBI database. In
testimony under oath before this Committee, however, Ms. Poston denied asking private investigators to break the law. House Committee on Government Reform, Felonies and Favors:
A Friend of the Attorney General Gathers Information from the Justice Department, 63 (July 27, 2000) (stenographic record). Richard Lucas, the investigator who received instructions from Ms.
Poston on what she wanted investigated, also testified that she did not ask him to access restricted information. Id. at 50, 55-56, 66-67. In fact, contrary to the majority's allegation, no
evidence received by the Committee demonstrates that Ms. Poston instructed private investigators to break the law.
to look into the issue of whether Mr. Abe was arrested in 1963. The majority report alleges that it is possible that through their actions on this matter, Mr. Palladino and Mr. Langberg "broke the
law." Majority Report at 162. The Committee, however, never interviewed Mr. Palladino or Mr. Langberg. On October 31, 2000, Mr. Langberg wrote the Committee to address allegations in the
majority report that relate to him. According to Mr. Langberg, the majority's account "contains numerous demonstrable factual errors, and recklessly accuses private individuals of criminal <;BR>
wrongdoing without any pretense of due process or any substantive evidence." He also stated that he has "no personal involvement with the activity criticized in the report." Letter from Barry
B. Langberg to Rep. Dan Burton and Rep. Henry Waxman (Oct. 31, 2000) (attached as exhibit 8).
103 Id.
Allegation: There was an "apparently illegal conduit contribution scheme by the Democratic National Committee to funnel more than a third of a million dollars to the
Kansas Democratic Party." 102 "The Justice Department failed to pursue the Kansas conduit contribution scheme." 103
these candidates, county committees, and state party committees subsequently contributed to the
21
21
Page 22
23
104 E. g., Deposition of Jim Lawing, House Committee on Government Reform and
Oversight, 22-29 (Feb. 18, 1998).
105 E. g. Local Demos Say They Felt Need to Repay State Party: Legality of Transfers
Questioned, Winfield Daily Courier (Oct. 9, 1997). The state law provisions at issue are Kan. Stat. Ann. 25-4153 (1996) and Kan. Stat. Ann. 25-4154 (1996).
The Commission is charged with administering, interpreting and enforcing the Kansas Campaign Finance Act and laws relating to conflict of interests, financial disclosure and the regulation of
107 Kansas Commission on Governmental Standards and Conduct, Opinion No. 1997-45
(Sept. 11, 1997) (attached as exhibit 10).
108 See id. (stating that there is no violation of the Kansas statute if "A" gives money to
"B" and "B" then contributes the money to "C," "so long as there was not an understanding between 'A' and 'B' that the money was to be contributed to 'C'").
Oversight, 16 (Feb. 19, 1998); Deposition of Jim Lawing, House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, 12-13, 22-23 (Feb. 18, 1998) (testifying that he received a contribution in
22
committees to state party committees and prohibits making contributions in the name of another. 105
Commission issued an opinion on this matter on September 11, 1997. 107 Under the Commission's opinion, national party committees could contribute to a Kansas state candidate,
Kansas county committee, or other state party, and that candidate, county committee, or state party could subsequently contribute to a Kansas state party committee without violating the
Kansas statute. A violation would occur only if the national party committees had an understanding with the entity to which they made the contribution that the money was to be
contributed to the state party committee. 108
In February 1998, the Committee deposed a total of five individuals on this matter, four of whom were Kansas Democratic state legislative candidates in 1996 and one of whom was a