 |
|
| Email this article | Printer friendly page |
| For Immediate Release | |
| Nov 24, 1997 | Contact: Press Office 202-646-5172 |
|
Public Relations Blitz Precedes Formal Announcement During Holiday News Cycle Judicial Watch Cites Further Obstruction in Related Michael Brown Sentencing In Federal Court When Janet Reno appears before Congress, or decides that she does not want to answer a question about her investigation of the campaign finance scandal, she cites the secrecy rules of the Justice Department to avoid having to make a response. However, in recent days, in an unprecedented public relations blitz, replete with "friendly profiles" in major newspapers, Janet Reno is leaking information to lay the foundation for again turning down Congressional requests to appoint an independent counsel in the campaign finance scandals. Ironically, in a "fluff" piece in Sunday's New York Times, Reno is depicted as an attorney general who "micromanages" each important case matter. How is it possible, that time and again she has feigned a lack of knowledge when confronted with facts and information that her Department's "career lawyers" have failed to pursue, as recently underscored by award winning journalists William Safire and Bob Woodward? Larry Klayman, Chairman of Judicial Watch, the watchdog group that deposed John Huang and sparked the campaign finance scandal, offered this observation: "Reno's public relations ability is remarkable. No attorney general has ever had as cozy a relationship with so many in the press. However, it is now time to follow the lead of the editorial pages of The New York Times ,The Wall Street Journal and other responsible editors and to start asking the hard questions. For the good of the country, this stonewall cannot continue. Reno clearly has a major conflict of interest in continuing to conduct the investigation herself. This was seen recently when the Clinton Justice Department offered a plea to Michael Brown, the son of the late Commerce Secretary Ron Brown, and charged him only with a misidemeanor, in the face of testimony that he was part of a scheme to pass bribes to his father from John Huang confidants, Nora and Gene Lum. Rather than obtaining Michael Brown's complete cooperation to talk about all he knows about the campaign finance scandal, the Associated Press reported that Reno only got his cooperation to testify against Nolanda Hill, who, not coincidentally, has shown herself willing to expose the Clinton Administration's conduct in the campaign finance scandal. By having Michael Brown cooperate to only ‘put away' Hill, Reno is trying to suppress information that might indict her own Administration. It is a further example of the obstruction, and inherent conflict of interest, of the Clinton Justice Department." Judicial Watch, which attempted to challenge the Michael Brown plea agreement, will be taking an appeal, and pursing other legal means, to bring about a just result. |
|
