Tom Harkin: “A few weeks ago, I used a barnyard term that is quite known in Iowa to describe what I thought of this case. The longer…”

“A few weeks ago, I used a barnyard term that is quite known in Iowa to describe what I thought of this case. The longer this case has gone on, the more I am convinced this characterization is correct. This case should never have been brought before the Senate. I think it is one of the most blatant partisan actions taken by the House of Representatives since Andrew Johnson's case was pushed through by the radical Republicans of his time. I think it is important for us to take a look at how this case got here. One might ask why is it important how it got here? Well, if you believe that the end justifies the means, it is probably not very important. But if you believe the end doesn't justify the means, that those who are charged with enforcing the law cannot break the law in order to bring someone to the bar of justice, and if you believe the rule of law applies not only to the defendant, the President in this case, but also to the prosecutors and those sworn to uphold that rule of law, then it is important to look at how the case got here. First, we have a statute, the independent counsel statute which at best I believe is flawed and at worst unworkable which allows someone to be targeted without regard to money or time. In fact, it has essentially created a fourth branch of Government with no checks or balances.”