Editorial

June 25, 2000

Let the Voters Rule on Mr. Gore

Because of her brazen dereliction of duty as attorney general, Janet Reno has now stirred up a political mess for herself and Vice President Al Gore and created an electoral quandary for the public. It turns out that yet another top official in the Justice Department has concluded that Ms. Reno should name a special counsel to investigate Democratic campaign fund-raising irregularities in 1996, especially the activities and statements of Mr. Gore. Had Ms. Reno agreed to such an investigation years ago, as the law clearly required, the public would have answers about the legality of Democratic fund-raising in 1996. Such an inquiry might have exonerated the vice president, just as Robert Ray has closed the Travel Office inquiry with no charges against Hillary Rodham Clinton.

With Mr. Gore newly entangled by charges in several fund-raising areas, Ms. Reno has created an excruciating choice between orderly legal process and an orderly presidential campaign. One option would be for her to reverse course and immediately appoint a respected lawyer outside the department to look into the latest allegations involving Mr. Gore. We have long favored special prosecutors to look into all the campaign irregularities, including these.

But at this late date, even with a fast-moving investigation, that would mean that virtually the entire campaign would be conducted in an atmosphere of disruption. We conclude that as a practical matter, if all that would be investigated is the vice president's veracity in his most recent sworn statements, it would be best for the department to share any contradictory information with the public, and let the voters decide. It is a cliché to speak of the court of public opinion, but in a presidential year, that is a lofty tribunal indeed. And Gov. George W. Bush is a prosecutor who will not give Mr. Gore a free ride.

This awkward situation exists because Ms. Reno has mishandled this matter from the beginning. She ignored the recommendations to appoint an independent counsel from Louis Freeh, the director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and Charles LaBella, her chief prosecutor on campaign finance. According to the latest news accounts, Robert Conrad Jr., the head of the Justice Department's campaign finance team, told Ms. Reno more than a week ago that new evidence suggested Mr. Gore might have been less than truthful in denying that he knew anything about fund-raising irregularities. Mr. Gore made a smart move Friday in releasing the transcript of his interview with Mr. Conrad, in which he denied again that he knew that the Buddhist temple event was a fund-raiser. If the new evidence cited by Mr. Conrad is simply Mr. Gore's most recent statements, it is unlikely that a special prosecutor could get a perjury conviction on that basis. The debate over Mr. Gore's veracity can be resolved through the public's examination of his words during the campaign.

The vice president's team will be making a serious mistake, however, if it carries out reported plans to launch a Clinton-style personal attack on Mr. Conrad. The vice president needs to separate himself from Mr. Clinton's tactics, not emulate them.

There is, finally, some irony in the new allegations coming out at a time when Mr. Ray, the successor to Kenneth Starr as the Whitewater prosecutor, has concluded that there is insufficient evidence to prosecute the first lady on the firings of seven employees in the White House Travel Office. The independent counsel did, however, realistically underscore the strong indications that Mrs. Clinton had understated her role in dismissals. The White House has complained about Mr. Ray's comments, but the public has a right to know about Mrs. Clinton's efforts to disguise her role in an unseemly episode. Even so, that case is closed, and Mrs. Clinton has the opportunity to move beyond it. Whether Mr. Gore can do the same should be decided by the voters in November.