Summary

The Senate Judiciary Committee is continuing its oversight hearing on the 1996 campaign finance investigation. Attorney General Janet Reno testified.

Source CONUS Archive
Record ID 256448
Story Slug JANET RENO AND CAMPAIGN FINANCE (2000)
Location WASHINGTON, DC
Format TVD
Date 6/27/2000
Archive Time 11:45
TRT 6:15
Supers 1) Janet Reno / Attorney General 2) Senator Robert Torricelli / D-NJ 3) Senator Arlen Specter / R-PA 4) Senator Patrick Leahy / D-VT 5) Senator Orrin Hatch / R-UT
Video Description Reno and others at desk w/ cuts
Description The Senate Judiciary Committee is continuing its oversight hearing on the 1996 campaign finance investigation. Attorney General Janet Reno testified.
Script (SUGGESTED TRANSCRIPT OF AUDIO) 00:00 and beyond and other instances, how would you compare the amount of investigatory work that went into this preliminary inquiry with others that were conducted? 00:12 I tried to be as thorough and as complete as I could each time I asked the court for the appointment of an independent counsel or I notified the court that there was no basis for concluding that further investigation was warranted. So I don't think it was exceptional. We just tried to be thorough and all the instances, Senator. The range of impressions and vague misunderstandings among all the meeting attendees is striking and undercuts any reasonable inference that a mere attendance at the meeting should have served to communicate to the Vice President an accurate understanding of the facts. We concluded that there was under the law farce. In this case, there is no direct evidence of such knowledge. While the Vice President was present at the meeting, there is no evidence that he heard the statements or understood their implications, so as to suggest the falsity of his statements two years later, that he believed the Media Fund was entirely soft money. Nor does anyone recall the Vice President asking any questions or making any comments at the meeting about the Media Fund, much less questions or comments indicating an understanding of the issues of the blend of hard and soft money needed for DNC mixed media expenditures. Witnesses were also 01:32 the Vice President committed perjury as Senator Torres Shelly has raised the question but only have sufficient evidence to go further. In light of what is on the record to the Vice President. How can you order independent counsel for Alexis Herman, but not for Vice President Gore? First 01:51 of all, I did not order an independent counsel. But I don't have that power. The court recommended I applied to the court and the court appoints in that instance, I have got to trigger a preliminary investigation, if I can, on two accounts. One, two, if I have specific and credible information that a crime may have been committed, or to, if I cannot show that the information was either specific and credible, or that I can disprove it. So that's what precipitated the triggering of the preliminary investigation. In Secretary Herman's case. In the course of the investigation, I could not disprove or I could not prove that he was not credible, and thus felt that the further investigation was necessary. Because I under the independent counsel act, while conducting a preliminary investigation did not have the tools to get to the answer. That wasn't such as a grand jury proceeding subpoenas for immunity issues. In the instant this person wins. I make the best judgment I can. Under the independent counsel statute when it existed. Congress placed on me the responsibility to make the judgment. I made the best judgment. I could. And I will continue to try to do that as the number of occasions. And that is, I do not think it proper for me to comment on pending investigations and pending prosecutions. I think those matters should be handled thoughtfully and professionally, not in headlines, but in courtrooms and in the processes of an investigation. I mean, actually 03:46 put it in the best perspective. These issues now belong to the American people. Vice President Gore may have made some mistakes of judgment. I do not believe he made mistakes of law. I commend those questions now to the American voter. He like all Americans deserves to be judged in the totality of his life and his service. He's done some things he'd like to change. He's dealing with a great deal. That is good, I hope. But it is inconceivable to me that either the Justice Department generally or Janet Reno specifically, could be criticized on questions with regard to either her independence but raises issues of integrity or her willingness to use the independent counsel Statute 04:48 of the hard money. At this point, it is important to put in perspective that the independent counsel law van in the fact did not call for or a conclusion that the Vice President had committed a crime, but only that there was specific and credible information, not evidence, just information that there may and I emphasize the word may have been a violation of the federal criminal laws. 05:21 Concern. Mr. radik, who met frequently with these officials, does not remember any such conversation on this topic, acknowledges that he may have felt pressured to do a good job. Mr. radica denied the claims of the FBI that the pressure he felt was in any way related to the Attorney General's job status. And I understand that 05:44 is in the public interest. There are many legitimate questions concerning the process of the department that resulted in the Attorney General's refusal to appoint an independent counsel for campaign finance and measure and the merits of those decisions. The committee 05:58 chair tour Sharlee Thank you, Miss 06:01 Chairman, for 06:02 another round. I don't mind you're asking another question, but I don't want to 06:07 the best conclusion to be reached on how you have performed the responsibilities of Attorney John Doe. declared war
Not everything listed in the CONUS Archive is necessarily licensable. Reporter sound/image is not licensable
}