Do not make the mistake of thinking that because my conclusion is the same as another person's that my reasoning is the same
WASHINGTON -- The case is not yet a week old, but to some senators it is already compromised. They say the Justice Department should appoint a special counsel to investigate accusations that senior administration officials broke the law by revealing the identity of a covert C.I.A. officer. One senator has said he intends to reintroduce a version of the Independent Counsel Act, which expired in 1999.
That would be a mistake. The career prosecutors at the Justice Department have experience investigating politically charged cases (campaign finance improprieties, for example). By contrast, the independent counsel statute, under which a panel of judges appoints a lawyer accountable essentially to no one, creates terrible incentives for the prosecutor and distorts the priorities of the legal system. A special counsel, who would work under the attorney general, would suffer from some of the same problems.
The Justice Dept., under Ashcroft, has greater incentive to distort the process than any special investigator. Why do I say this?