Ashcroft will enforce the law. That's why Democrats are afraid of him.

Amelia

New member
From the WSJ

Damaged Justice

Ashcroft will enforce the law. That's why Democrats are afraid of him.

Monday, January 15, 2001 12:01 a.m. EST

There is a good reason why Democrats tomorrow will try to focus the nation's attention on John Ashcroft: Down the street the Justice Department is moving fast to shut down the probe of the Clinton-Gore campaign finance operation before a new Attorney General takes over. Last week, Justice concluded a wrist-slap plea deal with James Riady, the Indonesian billionaire and Clinton patron at the epicenter of the 1996 campaign-finance scandal. Mr. Riady agreed to plead guilty to one count of conspiracy to defraud through obstructing the work of the Federal Election Commission. He'll pay an $8.6 million fine for illegal contributions, most of it funneled to the Democratic National Committee from his Lippo Group conglomerate from, note the dates, 1988 to 1994.

The Justice Department deal appears to stop short of any conspiracy in the crucial 1995 to 1996 period. If that's off the table, it is good news for Mr. Clinton. It is now well established that money from Mr. Riady and his friends in 1995 and 1996 helped fuel a huge barrage of TV ads damaging GOP candidate Bob Dole, giving Mr. Clinton a decisive early edge in the election.

Recall that Mr. Riady attended an Oval Office meeting on September 13, 1995, with the President, an unknown Commerce Department official named John Huang, close Clinton aide Bruce Lindsey, and Arkansas businessman Joseph Giroir. It was at that meeting that Mr. Huang, a former senior Riady employee at Lippo, was dispatched to the Democratic National Committee and a conspiracy began to subsidize the 1996 presidential election with huge infusions of illegal money.

That is not simply our opinion but the investigative theory of senior law enforcement officials, including FBI Director Louis Freeh and one-time Justice Department task force head Charles La Bella. In four years of detailed memos to Attorney General Reno, painstakingly unearthed last year by Representative Dan Burton, Mr. Freeh argued for an independent counsel to probe a "core group," including President Clinton, aided by a floating cast of "opportunists." Mr. La Bella called the scheme a "loose enterprise" conspiracy. Ms. Reno repeatedly rejected the independent counsel requests, often over the objections of senior staff.

---


The status of this investigation as well as others, such as the Cisneros/IRS probe, are all live matters inside Main Justice. Thus we were startled to be told last week on good authority that the incoming Bush team might be thinking of appointing Janet Reno's primary deputy and close Clinton ally, Eric Holder, as interim Attorney General until Sen. Ashcroft is confirmed. This would be the single worst choice for interim AG, giving Judiciary Democrats an incentive to delay the Ashcroft vote as long as possible. Surely a better choice can be found.
Mr. Riady lives in Indonesia but has agreed to come to the United States and cooperate with investigators. His influence was sweeping and much of it remains mysterious. In an August 1992 limousine ride with candidate Clinton, Mr. Riady pledged $1 million to him; Mr. Clinton told federal investigators in April, implausibly to say the least, that he had no "specific recollection" of the huge pledge. Government documents in the plea filing show over 80 illegal contributions to various political entities by Mr. Riady's Lippo Bank of California.

A Riady venture in Indonesia now employs Jim Guy Tucker, Mr. Clinton's successor as Governor of Arkansas, convicted in a Whitewater-related fraud case by Independent Counsel Starr. In 1994, Mr. Riady provided a $100,000 consulting payment to Arkansas insider Webster Hubbell, the former Associate Attorney General at Reno Justice, then under pressure to cooperate with Mr. Starr. Mr. Hubbell did not cooperate and went to prison on fraud charges. What Mr. Tucker, Mr. Riady and Mr. Hubbell share, of course, is potentially damaging information about Bill and Hillary Clinton.

Mr. Freeh and Mr. La Bella were on the right track with the "loose enterprise" theory of a conspiracy directed out of the White House. That avenue was shut down by Ms. Reno. Also, questions of Chinese influence on the political process and related national security matters need thorough exploration. There is Buddhist Temple fundraiser Maria Hsia, who was convicted in the scheme last year but awaits sentencing. And there is the disposition of the host of figures in U.S. Attorney Mary Jo White's Teamster election-fraud case in New York.

---

It's hard not to have some sympathy for the Bush view to let the Clinton scandals fade into the past. But the problems at Justice are not about the past. Mr. Ashcroft, should he be confirmed, will inherit a damaged Justice Department. The Burton memos and a stream of news reports leave no doubt that Main Justice morale has been devastated by pressure from the Clinton coterie, internal battles over Ms. Reno's refusal to appoint an independent counsel in the campaign finance affair, wars with independent counsels Ken Starr, Donald Smaltz and David Barrett, China espionage cases and other matters. Many good people have left Justice and others have fallen silent as prosecutions and reforms languish.

A new Attorney General would go a long way to restoring confidence in Justice with a thorough audit and accounting of these matters. Sweeping it into the dustbin serves neither history nor the rule of law.
 
FWIW, I Just called my senators (Torricelli & Corzine :rolleyes: )to urge their support of this fine man
 
You know, it occurred to me that the opposition to Ashcroft, based on the argument that he doesn't ideologically support the underlying principles of some of the laws he will be required to enforce, therefore he can't be expected to enforce them, says a truckload.

There is an expectation, by the Democratic Socialists, of use of the AG's office to further an ideology, first and foremost. The concept of striving to be objective is just poo-poo'd by the left. Shows a lack of expectations, don't you think? It also shows a strange concept of the meaning of objective. Kind of like, ask a liberal what mainstream is ... and get ready to puke.
 
Sensop, Barbara Boxer was on one of the talk shows last night saying that Ashcroft was _way_ out of the mainstream. I'm assuming that she considers herself a moderate. Breszhnev was probably a bit too conservative for her tastes.

The '96 campaign finance scandal was the most treacherous of all of Clinton's "misdeeds" and it can't just fade away. My 83 year-old father will defend him, complaining that Reagan got $2 million for a speaking tour in Japan. That's chumpchange compared to this. A big part of Utah was "sold" to Riady for donations. The Chinese can now accurately target our cities with nuclear ICBM's thanks to the Clinton money machine.

They shouldn't be afraid of Ashcroft. They should be getting some orange jump suits tailor-fitted.

Dick
 
"... Barbara Boxer was on one of the talk shows last night saying that Ashcroft was _way_ out of the mainstream. I'm assuming that she considers herself a moderate. ..."

Ho, yeah!

Speaking of the mainstream ... I rail-gunned an email to one of the local Macon Telegraph editors about some language he'd used in describing his concerns with a recent "crime wave" in Macon (which follows on the heels of the Mayor firing the Police Chief, BTW. Hmmmm.) last Friday. He'd said something to the affect that he sure didn't want to see "the possibility of accidental mayhem or vigilante justice rising as more people pack handguns." MAN! I went off! "possibility?", "accidental?" Bull.

Well, I get to work Monday AM and while I'm checking my email. I come across this 5:30 PM email from the author. 'Says something like, "I guess you wanted this published, so if you don't tell me any different, it'll be in Monday's paper." 5:30 PM? On Friday? Still at my desk? 'You crazy? So I cruise over to the online version and there it was.

*************

I read your editorial, "Put brakes on armed robberies" and could not believe my eye when I read, "the possibility of accidental mayhem or vigilante justice rises as more people pack handguns."

With all due respect, what is that supposed to mean? Use of the words "the possibility" and "accidental" doesn't let you off the hook in my book. Shame on you for fostering the image that if people are armed, "mayhem or vigilante justice" will be the rule.

Rest assured that is what you have done. You would be surprised at the number of ordinary Georgia citizens that believe in responsible, safe firearms ownership and use, but also believe in self-reliance. Maybe you were talking about the perpetrators? Nah! We need to be afraid of the people that are being robbed (if they arm themselves). There is a saying in the community of activist gunowners and defenders of the Second Amendment. It goes, "Dial 911 and die."

Of course that makes me a wild-eyed radical. Let's see, father, husband, taxpayer, voter, career professional, gun owner, distruster of government - I think you guys have totally lost track of the middle of the political spectrum. You have no idea where the mainstream is.

Make no mistake about it, I do believe that inferences like the one in your article come from your politics. I am losing patience with you guys and your ideology-filled "reporting." Sheesh.

.........:D
 
Back
Top