US fraud case hits lawyer problem
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Dan Rostenkowski, the senior Democratic Congressman accused of defrauding taxpayers of dollars 500,000 ( pounds 333,000) is edging towards parting with Washington superlawyer Robert Bennett whom he shares with President Clinton. It was Mr Bennett's agreement to represent Mr Clinton over the sexual harassment claims of Paula Jones without telling Mr Rostenkowski which so angered the Congressman that he is considering finding a new lawyer.
Also in dispute was the rejection of Mr Bennett's advice to Mr Rostenkowski to agree to a plea bargain - including six months in prison - rather than face the full 17-count indictment last Tuesday. After this was read out, Mr Bennett wanted the former chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, a position which made him one of the most powerful men in Congress, to rebut immediately the indictment on television, but he refused.
By agreeing to represent Mr Clinton in the Paula Jones case, Mr Rostenkowski feels that his lawyer muddied the judicial waters, linking in the public mind the scandals in Little Rock and Washington. A source close to the Chicago democrat was quoted as saying he had 'lost confidence in Bennett as a result of Bennett's decision to take on representation of Clinton without telling Rostenkowski'. He must make a final decision on his choice of lawyer before he is arraigned on 10 June.
Democrats are still shocked by the severity of the charges against Mr Rostenkowski which include jury tampering, embezzlement and fraud.
Mr Bennett, saying he will only stay if he is given complete control of the case, has repeatedly denied that there is any conflict of interest in his representing Mr Clinton and Mr Rostenkowski. In a formal sense this may be true but Professor Alan Dershowitz of Harvard Law School writes: 'obtaining a good deal from a US Attorney appointed by the President for a crucial point man in the President's health care campaign, while representing the president, was certain to raise media and political outcries about favouritism'.
Professor Dershowitz also makes the point that by allowing it to be reported that he was recommending a plea bargain Mr Bennett gave the impression that he believed Mr Rostenkowski guilty.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments