|
|
|
|
Jared L. of Boston, MA, asks:
Is the problem with Janet Reno or with the wording of the independent counsel statute?
Michael Carvin,
former Justice Department official during the Reagan administration, responds:
The statute is quite straightforward. The attorney general shall appoint an independent counsel if there is credible information of a crime by a covered person, i.e., a high ranking official of the government or the president's re-election campaign. She may do so if there is a political conflict of interest. Both standards seem clearly to be met here.
Doug Kmiec, professor of law at Pepperdine Law School, responds:
It's a bit of both. As a matter of legal policy, the statute has far too
low a threshold. It triggers investigation of both the trivial and the
profound. The problem is -- the statute does not allow the public to gauge
which is which. The trigger for investigation is reasonable grounds to
further investigate. These almost always exist. The threshold ought to be
at least evidence of clear and convincing evidence that a crime has been
committed and a clear-eyed assessment that proof beyond a reasonable doubt
either is in hand or will be forthcoming in an investigation.
But Janet Reno must enforce the law as written, even if it is a bad one.
Here, she is in disregard of her obligations to take care that the laws are
faithfully executed -- something the Constitution imposes directly on the
executive branch, and especially the chief law enforcement officer of the
nation.
Next question...
|
