Investigated
to Death
By
Joseph E. diGenova
As
independent counsel, I have just
wrapped up a three-year inquiry into the State Department's
search of Bill Clinton's
passport file when he was a Presidential
candidate. The investigation
found no criminality, just political
stupidity, in the Bush Administration.
It also found that there should
have been no special counsel appointed.
Far
too many special counsels have been
appointed since 1978, when the Ethics
in Government Act established them
in the wake of Watergate. At present,
four are looking into allegations
of wrongdoing in the Clinton Administration,
and a fifth is still probing Ronald
Reagan's Department of Housing
and Urban Development.
The
power to investigate and prosecute
is the power to destroy. When directed against an official by an independent
counsel, who functions outside
the standard constraints of executive
branch accountability, such power
is frightening.
An
independent counsel statute is necessary for the rare occasions when
constitutionality is threatened by
the acts of a President or his close advisers
or when conflict of Interest in
the Justice Department is clear. The
Iran-contra affair and Watergate justified special counsel. But determining
whether Housing Secretary Henry
Cisneros did not tell an F.B.I,
background reviewer the total amount
of money he gave his former mistress
does not.
The law
should be amended to make appointments
of special prosecutors less
common. The types of investigations
should be sharply limited. And
the grounds for undertaking them
should be tightly restricted.
Under
the law, anyone can go to the
Attorney General and accuse a high-level
Administration official of committing
a crime. The law says that if the allegation is "specific" and
the alleger "credible," the Attorney
General must conduct a preliminary
inquiry that involves only voluntary
interviews of witnesses. If the Attorney
General determines, according to
the law that "further investigation is warranted," the appointment
of an independent counsel must be sought. This is almost inevitable,
given the limitations of the process.
But if one is not appointed, career lawyers in the Justice Department
can look into the matter.
In
addition to the Cisneros inquiry, special
prosecutors are looking into Whitewater,
Commerce Secretary Ron Brown's
financial dealings and former
Agriculture Secretary Mike Espy's links to an Arkansas poultry processor.
Since 1978 and before Mr. Clinton
took office, 14 independent counsels
had been appointed to investigate
accusations involving Republican administrations.
I
am a lifelong Republican. But my concern
is not partisan. It's for the institution
of the Presidency and the well-being
of people who find themselves under the klieg lights. Mr. Clinton and
the Presidency have been injured, and
not just politically. When the
public is told again and again
that the Justice Department cannot be trusted to investigate a matter,
the executive branch is hurt. And
what about the emotional and financial
cost to people caught up in the
maelstrom? At great expense, lawyers
must be hired, even by the most
insignificant witnesses. The dire consequences of merely misspeaking,
which could result in a false-statement
charge, are high, given the
prosecutor's vast powers. Careers
are held captive, families are
torn apart and the mental and physical
health of those under investigation
are put under strain. It is not unusual
for people involved to lose their
jobs, just when they need money
to cover legal expenses.
If,
under an amended statute, an Attorney
General acted unwisely or unfairly
and failed to seek the appointment
of an independent counsel in
appropriate circumstances, Congress and the press would surely raise
the issue of accountability.
Democrats
who stoutly defended the statute
when Republicans held the White
House now bemoan its application.
The Republicans who criticized it then now defend its use. But
the issues are too serious to be left to petty political maneuvering. Now
that there has been bipartisan suffering,
the President, members of Congress
from both parties and the bar
should face up to the problem.
|