The New York Times
December 21, 1997

ESSAY / By WILLIAM SAFIRE

Public Integrity?

WASHINGTON -- At the Public Integrity section of the Department of
Justice, where the Clinton campaign corruption scandal has been
contained, chief Lee Radek and Jo Ann Farrington are having fits. 

Reason for their ire, Justice sources say, is the demand by David
Barrett, Independent Counsel in the Cisneros case, for Public Integrity
telephone records. They suspect that Barrett is quietly going after them
for impeding his investigation. He's not the only one. As revealed in
this space last week, Justice's Office of Professional Responsibility
has been investigating Public Integrity malfeasance. But O.P.R.'s
Michael Shaheen retires next week and Janet Reno is likely to replace
him with a team player. 

One reason for Shaheen's belated internal inquiry was the refusal of
Public Integrity to prosecute a high official in the Department of
Agriculture; worse, Radek even went to court to impede prosecution of

the miscreant by an Independent Counsel. 

That special prosecutor, Donald Smaltz, persuaded a jury to convict the
official Radek sought to protect. Public Integrity was demonstrably not
on the side of justice; if Attorney General Reno's department had
succeeded in its obstruction, a criminal would be walking free and
keeping quiet about higher-ups today. 

Now another case has further shadowed Public Integrity. In Manhattan
last week, District Attorney Robert Morgenthau brought Jorge Castro
Barredo, 29, before a judge for sentencing in one of the earliest
schemes to channel foreign money into Clinton election coffers. 

The young man, a U.S. citizen, was used by his Venezuelan grandfather
and father to contribute $50,000 illegally to Democratic fund-raisers.
That palm-greasing bought the grandfather a photo opportunity with
President Clinton in the White House -- splashed all over Caracas
newspapers -- and a meeting at our State Department. 

When convicted for bank fraud by the Manhattan D.A., the young man
offered to sing to reduce his sentence. Morgenthau sent the leads to the
Miami U.S. Attorney interested in the South American connection, but the
case was snatched up to Main Justice in Washington -- where a
conspicuous lack of interest was shown in following up. 

Here was a conduit to U.S. politicians, proved to have been reimbursed
by the unlawful foreign contributor; he was hoping for a reduced
sentence and ready to provide leads to investigators. Who in Washington
knew of the foreign source of the funds? Who helped set the pattern of
campaign money-laundering later applied so effectively to Asian sources? 

Despite Morgenthau's urging, the languid crew at Public Integrity merely
went through the motions of interviewing the young man. Months passed.
The key date of Sept. 26, 1997, came and went. Two weeks later, Lee
Radek thanked the New York District Attorney for supplying the witness
but wrote, "We have concluded that there is at this time no further role
for him to play. . . ." 

Sept. 26 was the day on which the five-year statute of limitations ran
out on further prosecutions in this case. Radek's Public Integrity had
saved the Democrats embarrassment -- and thus showed how to impede the
due and proper administration of the law. 

Because the chief and acting chief of the Criminal Division have long
been absent or recused, the chief of Public Integrity should be
considered a person covered by the Independent Counsel Act. Specific
information from credible sources -- an Independent Counsel and a
District Attorney -- support a charge that Radek may have violated
Section 1505 of the Criminal Code, "Obstruction of proceedings before
departments, agencies and committees." Section 1505 makes it a felony to
try to "influence, obstruct or impede the due and proper administration
of the law. . . ." 

Justice cannot credibly investigate itself. 

Attorney General Reno can have nothing to do with a decision to seek
court-appointed counsel to examine Radek's section because she has
frequently testified how closely she supervises it. 

The new Deputy Attorney General, Eric Holder, is duty-bound to seek
outside counsel to investigate impedance in Public Integrity. That would
lead to lawful, unconflicted and unimpeded investigation of the campaign
conspiracy.    

Copyright 1997 The New York Times Company