Mr. Chairman, during the course of the Justice Department Oversight investigation, my judgment has been that the Justice Department gets mixed reviews. I don't believe the Department deserves the criticism it got for the Wen Ho Lee case. The FISA issue was a close call, and other agencies were more responsible for the shortcomings of that case. Especially the FBI and Energy.
In the Peter Lee case, I believe that was also a close call, and the Navy did a lot to undermine that case. Yes, there was a communication lapse in that case by DOJ. But there was sensitive information involved in that case, the protection of which goes a long way to explaining decisions made in that case.
That brings us to the campaign fundraising case. Of all the cases we've looked at, this is the one in which I believe criticism of the Attorney General's position is warranted.
We now know that a second attorney hand-picked by the AG to look into the matter has recommended an outside counsel to investigate the Vice President. The Director of the FBI recommended the same. So did the former Principal Associate Deputy AG, Robert Litt.
It seems the Attorney General's judgment to deny the appointment of an outside counsel was based mainly on the arguments of Lee Radek. He's the chief of the Public Integrity Section.
Mr. Radek's operation has a reputation. The reputation of that office is that it's a black hole. Mr. Radek is called Dr. No by the investigative community because he declines their cases almost automatically. If you're seeking a legal opinion to not do something, just go to Public Integrity. They're a factory with a fast-moving assembly line of negative arguments for prosecuting.
I noted at our last hearing that Mr. Radek and the Attorney General changed their legal arguments in mid-stream about the hard money vs. soft money issue. First, the argument was that there were no illegalities. Then, when the FEC report came out in August 1998 saying there were illegalities, their argument conveniently switched to an advice-of-counsel argument. In other words, a new argument was needed, and so they went to Dr. No for an argument off the assembly line.
You may remember, Mr. Chairman, when Mr. Radek testified in May. We raised a lot of these issues, and they were written about in the newspapers the next day. Later that week, the inspectors general had their monthly meeting. And the issue was raised there. There was a prominent U.S. Attorney present in the room, who offered up their offices as an alternative to Public Integrity. Some of the IGs vowed to take up the offer, and some vowed never to deal with the Public Integrity Section again.
The same concerns about Public Integrity are shared within the U.S. Attorney community. I raise this issue to make a point. I can't believe the Attorney General and those around her didn't know about Public Integrity's reputation, and its practice. If I were aware of that reputation, and at the same time getting conflicting arguments from the FBI Director, your hand-picked attorney on the case, and the Principle Associated Deputy AG, I would have thought twice about taking Mr. Radek's advice.
Mr. Chairman, I do commend the Attorney General for an important point. And that is her appearance today. She is here to be held accountable, as she always has in these oversight efforts.
I am sorry the same cannot be said about the FBI Director. He has chosen not to come, despite the best efforts of Senator Specter. This committee too often gives the Director a pass when he most needs to give an accounting of his input in the decision-making process. We know from the documents we have read that he was most emphatic about the need for an independent counsel. And without his appearance, there will be a colossal void in the context of this hearing, and in the public's understanding.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.