Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Should Clinton resign? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Craig K who wrote (517)	9/22/1998 5:23:00 PM
From: James A. Shankland	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 567

the democrats instituted the Independent council statute, and until the president, were the only ones to use it....so turn about is fair play ... I could not disagree more with this view of the world. The independent counsel statute was not intended to be a political bludgeon, or for any kind of "play", fair or not. It was intended to deal with serious cases of corruption, in which there was doubt that an administration could effectively investigate itself. It was not created for Democrats to bash Republicans, or vice versa -- nor has it been, until now. Ironically, Starr himself argued unsuccessfully that the statute was unconstitutional, as it vested too much unrestrained power in one individual, and would hence be vulnerable to political abuse. Our republic has a few people in positions of enormous and relatively unchecked power: actually, the Supreme Court is the only example that comes to mind right away. The independent counsel statute created another. It is essential that we appoint only men and women of the highest character, judicial temperament, and non-partisanship, respected by both parties, to these positions -- the damage caused by having political hacks and partisans in these positions is enormous, and not quickly undone. Starr quite correctly saw the risk that the Independent Counsel position could be abused if a partisan or someone with a political axe to grind were given the job. At the time, I considered this risk overstated: I figured that both Democrats and Republicans had a common interest in invoking the statute only rarely, and appointing a prosecutor who was beyond political reproach. I was wrong; I overestimated the Republicans. Disgusted as I am with Clinton's behavior, I am more disgusted -- and alarmed -- that the special prosecutor position has been reduced to a political tool with which to browbeat one's political opponents. We all lose when this happens; now, unfortunately, it has. The notion that "turnabout is fair play," so it's OK to gouge your political opponent's eyeballs by whipping up a Constitutional crisis, is frightening. This is the kind of thing that happens in fledgling republics that are just shaking off dictatorship and learning the ropes of democracy; after over 200 years of practice, we should be doing better than that.