Gore either deceived America or the Department of Justice

Will Reno Get Away With Nonsensical Testimony?

Either Vice President Al Gore did not tell Justice Department investigators the same story about his White House fundraising solicitations that he told the American people in his now infamous March 3, 1997, press conference, or Atty. Gen. Janet Reno is covering up for a Vice President who plainly incriminated himself during a criminal inquiry.

How do we know? Janet Reno tells us so.

In sworn testimony December 9 in the House Government Reform and Oversight Committee, under cross examination from a well-prepared Rep. John Shadegg (R.-Ariz.), Reno said that the words and phrases Gore used to describe his White House fundraising solicitations at his March 3, 1997, press conference described the solicitation of "hard money"-that is, money intended to influence a federal election campaign.

She also admitted that soliciting "hard money" in the business quarters of the White House is illegal.

So what gives? How could she avoid naming an independent counsel to investigate Gore for soliciting hard money in the White House when she herself admits under oath that Gore said he solicited hard money in the White House?

Reno presumably doesn't believe Gore told the truth in his press conference. But she won't release a transcript or even a summary of Gore's interview with Justice investigators, so his statements can be compared. Here is a transcript of Rep. Shadegg's tying Reno in knots over this question in her own sworn testimony:

Shadegg: "I'd like to walk through just a series of events in your report and address some of those, if I can. I believe you invited us to go over your report."

Reno: "Which report?"

Shadegg: "The report with respect to Vice President Gore, if you would, and the question of whether or not he illegally sought hard-money contributions in the calls he made from the White House. First of all, your report concludes, does it not, Madame Attorney General, that Vice President Gore did in fact make calls from his White House office? I believe it concludes that he did so on 10 or II occasions, and that he spoke to it least 45 people. Is that correct?"

Reno: "That's correct..."

Shadegg: "Good. Your report also concludes that some of the money was in fact-raised by the Vice President-was in fact used by the DNC as hard money. That's on page 8. You would agree with that?"

Reno: "That's correct."

Shadegg: "Okay. Your report also concludes that at least for the purposes of the report, you will assume that the statute makes it illegal for the Vice President from the White House to raise hard-money contributions."

Reno: "That's correct. . . . When you say the White House, I mean, again, we're talking about the official places in the White House."

Shadegg: "Right. Let's assume that. So if you had found that Mr. Gore had solicited money for the purpose of influencing an election for a federal office-that is, hard money- from his White House office and had known that he was doing so, you would have concluded at least that an independent counsel was necessary, would you not?"

Reno: "It would depend on the circumstances, sir. Again, what I would try to do is apply the policy that I've described here with respect to whether there were aggravating circumstances."

Shadegg: "Okay. Putting aside the aggravating circumstances question, you then conclude, I believe at page 10 of the report, that there is, and in your words, `no evidence on which to conclude that the Vice President was raising contributions that were hard money.' That is, that were campaign contributions. Is that correct?"

Reno: "That he was soliciting hard money."

Shadegg: "No evidence to believe that he was doing that?"

Reno: "That's correct."

Shadegg: "And based on that, you conclude there is no reasonable ground to believe that a further investigation of the allegation that he broke the law is required?"

Reno: "That's correct."

Shadegg: "Okay. Would you agree with me, Madame Attorney General, that the best evidence of whether or not the Vice President was soliciting hard money campaign contributions would be his own words?"

Reno: "It would be a variety of information."

Shadegg: "Certainly it would be fairly good evidence, would it not? His own description of what he was doing?"

Reno: "Yes. But again, we wanted to make sure that we did not rely on the Vice President predominantly, that we looked at all the evidence."

Shadegg: "Well, your report pretty well concludes that, number one, yes, he made the calls, yes, some of the money was used as hard money, but he didn't know of the DNC policy to use it as hard money so he didn't know he was raising hard money. And you just agreed with me that if he was raising hard money that that would appear to be a violation of the law-at least your report assumed that-and that it was likely, absent the issue of aggravating circumstances, that you would have called for an independent investigation, right?"

Reno: "Depending on the circumstances and the aggravating circumstances."