Litt defended his evaluation of Cisneros' tax case, asserting that every Justice Department lawyer who had reviewed the case agreed with the conclusion. He said in his letter that Barrett's accusations of obstruction were "a scurrilous falsehood."
I suggest you read the comment letters, available here, particularly that of Williams & Connolly on behalf of Cisneros (page 9), and those of Robert S. Litt, at page 51 and 62. Some snippets from Litt's letters:
Even the expurgated version of the report that I was allowed to read, however, is a fitting conclusion to one of the most embarrassingly incompetent and wasteful episodes in the history of American law enforcement. This independent counsel spent ten years – ten years! – and tens of millions of dollars on his investigation. His Herculean labor produced a no-jail misdemeanor plea from his target – a plea that Mr. Cisneros would undoubtedly have been willing to enter on the day of Mr. Barrett’s appointment. He continued his investigation for almost six years after that guilty plea, chasing gossamer theories of obstruction of justice even after the statute of limitations expired. He took years to write a report that could have been written in months. A major theme of that report – that officials in the Department of Justice somehow corruptly conspired to obstruct the Independent Counsel’s investigation when they opposed the expansion of his jurisdiction – is a scurrilous falsehood.
....I was one of the lawyers at the Department of Justice who reviewed the Independent Counsel’s 1997 request that his jurisdiction be expanded to cover four years of potential tax violations. As others did, I carefully reviewed every page of the Independent Counsel’s submission, met with the OIC (on several occasions) and Cisneros’ counsel, and reviewed documents and interview memoranda. After full consideration I concluded that the Independent Counsel’s submissions were (barely) sufficient to justify expansion of his jurisdiction with respect to one of those years and insufficient for three others.
Each and every Department lawyer who reviewed the Independent Counsel’s request, from line attorneys in both the Criminal and Tax Divisions of the Department of Justice to the Attorney General, came to the same conclusion. Each and every one of them agreed that there was no basis to grant the tax jurisdiction sought by the Independent Counsel. To the extent there was any doubt whatsoever, it was resolved in the Independent Counsel’s favor by granting him jurisdiction over one year. There was no political pressure, no thought of “protecting†anyone, no obstruction of justice – nothing other than a good faith application of settled legal standards and procedures.
