Don’t get me wrong. I don’t disagree at all with Rep. Darrell Issa’s contention that an alleged attempt to buy Rep. Joe Sestak (D-PA) out of the Democratic Senate primary in Pennsylvania with a White House job would show an ethical deficiency and a deplorable attempt to manipulate an election. It might even have broken laws, although that seems like a less-than-certain proposition. But even if it did, which is the worse evil — the crime, or the appointment of an unaccountable prosecutor?
Should top-ranking government jobs be bought, sold or traded? Should they be offered as inducements to get candidates into or out of particular political races important to a president? Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., the ranking minority member of the House Government Reform and Oversight Committee, says no. So does federal law. After a month of the White House refusing to give its side of the story about an alleged dirty deal for a high-ranking post, Issa is threatening to call for a special prosecutor to investigate.
On Feb. 18, Rep. Joe Sestak, D-Pa., revealed that somebody in the White House offered him such a post if he would in return drop his Democratic primary challenge to Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania. Given several chances to recant his story, Sestak has instead repeatedly confirmed it. He has declined, however, to specify who made the offer and which job it was. Specter spoke out on the Sestak affair two weeks ago, suggesting that Sestak name names, or else pipe down. “I’m telling you it is a federal crime punishable by jail,” Specter said, “and anybody who wants to say that ought to back it up.” …
But the question of whether it is “in the past” is not for Gibbs or Sestak to decide — it is a matter of criminal law. If the White House remains silent until April 5, Issa will call on Attorney General Eric Holder to appoint a special prosecutor. Given the very public evidence that a crime may have occurred, Holder should consider himself duty-bound to do so.
First, let’s acknowledge that such a call will have zero effect. Eric Holder will sooner try KSM in military commissions than appoint a special prosecutor to look into the political workings of his boss. It’s not even really clear that a crime was committed in the offer, as it would depend on how the offer was communicated, who made it — and whether it happened at all. Let’s not forget that Sestak is running against the Democratic Establishment in this primary bid. Whether we like it or not, political appointments get offered and accepted for political reasons in every administration, even in the HopeyChangey ones.
Let’s say for the sake of argument that this somehow crossed the line into a criminal act. We have an entire Department of Justice to investigate that — and not just the DoJ, but also Congress itself. Some will rightly say that a Democratic-controlled Congress will never bother to conduct oversight on a Democratic administration, which is just as true as Holder not bothering to appoint a special prosecutor to look into Obama’s White House. But that’s a political issue itself, and should be handled through the political process. If the White House is corrupt and Democratic leadership in Congress won’t act, that’s an argument for replacing them in the midterm elections, one of many such reasons this year.
Our experience with special prosecutors since Watergate has not been terribly successful. They almost always expand their mandates, spend tons of money, take years to conduct their investigations, and rarely produce prosecutions on the core issues. The Scooter Libby conviction is just one case in point, where a probe into the leak of sensitive information ended up doing nothing to the leaker (Richard Armitage) but got someone else a felony conviction for perjury and obstruction of justice. Meanwhile, special prosecutors operate with near impunity, not accountable to anyone but unaccountable judges, and almost always produce nothing at all besides bills.
In the final analysis, the special prosecutor allows Congress and the DoJ to escape their own responsibilities. They’re a crutch to which we’ve become far too accustomed over the last 35 years. We don’t need special prosecutors; we need our elected officials to do their jobs, and a DoJ that actually meets its mission of independent justice for all. Ultimately, Congress is responsible for both. So why let them off the hook?
Join the conversation as a VIP Member