The Real Reno
Underestimate her at your peril.

By David Limbaugh, lawyer, syndicated columnist, and author of Absolute Power, currently a New York Times Bestseller
May 22, 2001 8:50 a.m.

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.