1. Statute did not function as intended. Should expire
2. If we need an ISC, should revise law in light of experience.
Congress wanted to 1) fix conflict of interest and 2) avoid constitutional problems and be fair to people being investigated.
Interesting idea: an INDEPENDENT prosecutor can be criticized and diminished by the president. Importance of charges minimized by both Bush and Clinton.
Walsh indicted Weinberger immediately before election, accused Bush of involvement. Was that abuse?
With unlimited $ and time, is a prosecutor going to keep going until he “gets somebody.”
p. 137. ISC contributed to culture of scandal. (pj: I’d need some evidence there. Seems like scandals contribute to the culture of scandal, but maybe that’s just me)
Fairness to Target: no limit on $ or time. Not like ordinary prosecutors, who must prioritize $ time and effort.
p. 142. This seems like crap to me “Twenty-five years after the firing of Archibald Cox, there is as much concern about the abuse of power by the independent counsel as there is about the abuse of power by the President” hogwash.
What about role of ISC in impeachment proceedings? (Recall, Ken Starr felt compelled to make case for Congress, even though others said he should not feel that way.)