On the recordApril 15, 1997
let me just say in closing, on this particular issue, before I move to the other with Senator Hagel, this is a matter of the Attorney General's discretion. Whether that Attorney General is a Democrat or a Republican, under this statute the Attorney General is to gather the evidence, listen to the testimony, and decide whether or not that evidence and testimony crosses a threshold to suggest that a crime has been committed, either by a covered person in the administration or a Member of Congress, or creating a conflict of interest between the administration and the investigation. If I listened and heard correctly, the Senator from Utah questions whether or not an Attorney General, appointed by a President, can exercise appropriate discretion when there has been a suggestion that that President or his Cabinet be investigated. What the Senator from Utah calls into question is more than the judgment of any specific Attorney General. He calls into question the very existence of the statute. I think there are many deficiencies in this statute. I think we should address those, and perhaps reauthorize it with some changes. Among those changes, I might add, is that if an independent counsel is to be appointed, that independent counsel be truly independent. In the history of this statute, 15 independent counsels have been named: 11 Republicans, 2 Independents, 2 Democrats. This process has been loaded to appoint Republican independent counsels. And how?…
Source
govinfo.gov




