|
 anet
Reno announced over the weekend that she would decide by the end
of the year whether to seek the Democratic
nomination for governor of Florida — and she wasn't kidding.
This was the second of two recent events that have affected my view
of Reno, the first being her bizarre performance under questioning
by Fox News's Sean Hannity. What is striking to me about both is
that she seems to be completely oblivious or, worse, unconcerned
about the very real and abundantly significant complaints that have
been lodged against her tenure at Justice.
In witnessing Reno's responses to Sean Hannity I was astounded by
her level of detachment. When asked how she could justify her failure
to recommend the appointment of an independent counsel to investigate
the campaign-finance scandal despite the recommendations of Louis
Freeh, Charles La Bella, Robert Litt, and Robert Conrad she passionlessly
allowed that other career Justice attorneys came to a different
conclusion. And, of course, she threw in the always-handy platitudinous
dodge, "I based my decision on the law and the facts."
Yes, but what were those facts and what was the relevant law? Obviously
she was either unaware of them or deliberately ignoring them, because
they both cried out for an independent counsel. Besides, if there
were any doubt, especially when she had such a palpable conflict
of interest, that doubt should have been resolved in favor of appointment.
No matter. Reno just continued to stare blankly and repeat robotically
the same mantra and we were reduced to scratching and shaking our
heads in disbelief.
Sean also asked her whether she believes the FBI misled her concerning
the final storming of the Davidian compound at Waco. Unhesitatingly,
she replied, "No." Which leads me to believe either that she is
truly unaware of the mess they made of the situation that ultimately
lead to the unnecessary deaths of scores of people, or that she
is acutely aware and arrogantly discounts any government culpability.
Both are substantially troubling to me.
Finally, Sean asked her whether she disapproved of certain Clinton
conduct in the White House. She nodded her head and said quite unconvincingly,
"Yes, he made a mistake." Whoa! How can you graduate from law school
and serve in the lofty public positions she has and fail to understand
the difference between mistakes and intentional misconduct? Irrespective
of which Clinton episode Reno was referring to, it was all intentional,
whether his:
-
adulterous tryst with Monica,
- Jones
deposition perjury, his grand jury perjury,
- subornation
of perjury, his witness tampering,
- obstruction
of justice,
- lying
to the American people,
- trashing
of Linda Tripp, Ken Starr, Starr's deputies, or Kathleen Willey,
- commission
of private investigators to dig dirt on his political opponents,
- usurpation
of the Senate's advise and consent power by using an inapplicable
statute to appoint Bill Lann Lee to head the Civil Rights Division
of the Justice Department over the Senate's objection,
- attempt
to circumvent Congress's role by resorting to the courts with
his frivolous lawsuit against the tobacco companies,
- refusal,
for political reasons to afford Elian Gonzalez a hearing on his
asylum application — and his and Reno's refusal to allow
the INS even to follow its existing guidelines by interviewing
Elian,
- gross
violation of the Fourth Amendment rights of Elian's Miami relatives
when he dispatched his storm troopers to seize Elian at gunpoint,
- slander
and attempted criminalization of Billy Dale and the other travel-office
employees,
- frivolous
and abusive assertion of presidential privileges, or
- intentional
acquisition of millions of dollars of illegal foreign campaign
contributions.
If, in fairness, Reno was referring only to Clinton's affair, it
was still disingenuous for her to refer to it as a mistake because
to so label it implies an element of accident and thus, less culpability.
Clinton's multiple encounters with Monica (and other women not his
wife) were anything but accidental. Reno, as the second highest
law-enforcement officer of the land owes this nation — owes
the rule of law — sharper and firmer distinctions.
The bottom line is that now that I have watched Reno's interview
and read that she is considering running for governor of Florida,
I'm convinced that she, like Clinton, feels no remorse for any of
her egregious decisions and actions at the Justice Department. In
view of the voluminous evidence of her facilitating Clinton's many
abuses of power and subordinating the rule of law, I find her consummate
refusal to accept responsibility indefensible and reprehensible.
For that reason alone her candidacy must be vigorously opposed.
I also want to caution those inclined to underestimate Ms. Reno
and her potential formidability in such a race. If Republicans didn't
understand this before the 36 days in Florida, they surely do now:
The Democrats are conducting an all-out political war to regain
control of this nation, state by state and at the federal level.
No behavior is disqualifying, provided their candidate can serve
their ends. Reno is one of them with full pedigree and if she secures
the nomination, she'll have her party's unflinching loyalty and
support.
The election will transcend Janet Reno versus Jeb Bush. It will
be about George Bush and Al Gore; it will be about Republicans versus
Democrats; it will be about the future direction of this nation.
All of Janet Reno's regrettable behavior at Justice will likely
be of minimal concern to most Florida Democrats. Republicans underestimate
her at their peril.
|
