Reno: No Need For Independent Counsel Probe Of Demo Fund-Raising Finds No Evidence, She Says

Facing mounting calls for an independent counsel to investigate questionable Democratic fund-raising tactics, Attorney General Janet Reno Thursday insisted that the Justice Department is aggressively pursuing all leads but still has found no evidence that would trigger a request for a special prosecutor.

With a federal grand jury hearing its first witnesses this week, Reno said she still has seen no evidence that would give her a reason to ask a federal judicial panel to name an independent counsel.

“I want to make clear, first of all, that the department is conducting a vigorous, thorough and comprehensive investigation into all the allegations,” Reno told reporters at a briefing. “Some people tell me, ‘Why aren’t you doing anything about this?’ And I want to make it very clear we’re pursuing every lead, using all the resources that are necessary.”

Reno has come under pressure to seek appointment of an independent counsel, but she has insisted that career prosecutors and FBI agents are capable of handling the case, which gained momentum this week with the release of documents showing President Clinton’s involvement in Democratic National Committee fund raising.

DNC officials expect to release today an audit showing dozens of additional illegal contributions that the party plans to return.

Two prominent Democrats - Sens. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, N.Y., and Russell Feingold, Wis. - have joined the Republican chorus calling for an independent investigation.

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., who is spearheading a drive to reform campaign-finance laws, said Thursday that Reno had applied for independent counsels “to investigate far less serious allegations” about then-Housing and Urban Development Secretary Henry Cisneros and then-Agriculture Secretary Mike Espy.

Experts on the independent-counsel law differed on whether it should be invoked. Some noted that the law was meant to guarantee that politically charged cases would be handled appropriately and said the 5-month-old DNC controversy creates an incendiary situation in which the administration has been left to investigate itself.

“The key placement of the president in very important planning sessions, the vice president in planning and attending a function like the Buddhist temple fund-raiser, the role of (former deputy chief of staff) Harold Ickes in the fund raising, the use of the White House facilities … puts the Justice Department increasingly, if not at the moment, in a conflict of interest with regard to the entire issue,” said Joseph E. diGenova, a Republican who served as independent counsel investigating the Bush administration’s handling of Clinton’s passport file.

Others said that however troubling the revelations about Democratic fund raising and Clinton’s concierge-in-chief role in wooing donors, the evidence of potential criminal activity by high-ranking officials had not yet developed to the extent that an independent counsel was necessary.

Sen. Carl M. Levin, D-Mich., an author of the latest version of the law, said it was “not designed to review ethical conduct but only possible criminal conduct” by high-ranking officials.