Text 2: This is Why We Have Impeachment

Here is a part of an article of The Wall Street Journal, written by Robert Barr and published on January 22, 1998.

Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr's recent authorization to investigate allegations that President Clinton conducted a sexual affair in the White House with a 21-year-old intern, then attempted to tamper with a witness, to obstruct justice, and to induce her to commit perjury has drawn wide attention, as it should. The matter once again raises the troubling question of how best to hold the president accountable for his actions.

Some might now argue that this scandal, as it has developed in the past few days, shows that the independent counsel statute has teeth and the Justice Department has integrity. But in fact we know that such important matters deserve a forceful political reaction – including possible impeachment proceedings – if only because the independent counsel law, so beloved inside the Beltway, has proved unworkable.

Following public revulsion on a mass scale over the Watergate scandal. Congress in 1978 passed legislation to allow «independent counsels» to investigate and prosecute top executive branch officials suspected of wrongdoing. The law has been used, on the whole, quite effectively, resulting in many successful prosecutions, such as those of former Arkansas Gov. Jim Guy Tucker and Tyson Foods Inc. It has also served as a potent encouragement for top officials to follow the law.

Lately, however, this well-intended law has ceased to serve its purpose, and is now working to hide the wrongdoing it was meant to expose. Rather than a sword to fight corruption, the independent counsel statute is being used as a shield to protect a rogue executive by a complicit Justice Department. Justices thwarted and corruption becomes the norm.

Attorney General Janet Reno and a three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals acted promptly on Mr. Starr's request to expand his mandate to cover the president's role in alleged perjury from Monica Lewinsky, who claims to be his former lover. But it's doubtful whether Mr. Starr can indeed gather evidence sufficient to prove a criminal case against the president, and even more unlikely that under our Constitution a sitting president can be prosecuted through the courts for criminal conduct.

The question then becomes: How do we fight corruption at the highest levels of government without special prosecutors? The answer is simple: We do what we did before 1978. We use the mechanisms provided in the Constitution, including if necessary the process of impeachment. Even before the news about the former White House intern, Mr. Clinton had provided sufficient grounds for the House to begin a debate on drawing up articles of impeachment. His alleged conduct with Ms. Lewinsky, if true, only adds to an already imposing mountain of evidence against the president.

Because history does frequently repeat itself, Congress may indeed be moved by public outcry to enact a new version of the independent counsel statute. But for now, this law should be removed from the books. Keeping it while openly and brazenly refusing to enforce it does too much harm to the credibility of federal law enforcement. Instead it's time for Congress to step into the breach and perform its constitutionally mandated role to root out corruption in the executive branch.

Дата добавления: 2015-07-19