The Special Prosecutor In American Politics

The federal special prosecutor: unprincipled abuser of power or staunch defender of the law? As Katy Harriger shows, the special prosecutor was a hotly debated and controversial subject throughout much of its existence. This was especially true, she argues, during the lengthy, expensive, and highly-politicized investigations of Lawrence Walsh and Kenneth Starr into allegations concerning Presidents Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton. Harriger offers the most complete assessment available of the use of special prosecutors in the post-Watergate era. She analyzes the independent counsel's role within the framework of the separation of powers, explaining how each has interacted with other key players in the political and legal system and showing how those relationships have affected the prosecutor's ability to conduct investigations. Harriger's previous edition focused on the legacy of Watergate but was published before Walsh's Iran-Contra investigations were concluded. Her new study adds substantially more information on Iran-Contra, provides a clearheaded appraisal of Starr's sensationalized Whitewater-Lewinsky investigations, examines a number of senior-level cabinet probes, and critiques and clarifies the role of Attorney General Janet Reno in these latter matters. A completely new chapter compares Iran-Contra and Whitewater-Lewinsky to explore the limits of the law in the special prosecutor's efforts. In this new edition, Harriger includes 20 new interviews with Washington insiders-including one with Kenneth Starr-and covers the debates that led to both the reauthorization of the independent counsel statute in 1994 and its demise in 1999. She then examines the pros and cons of the office and offers constructive suggestions for improvement should it be revived. For students, scholars, and concerned citizens, her book takes us well beyond frenzied media hype and partisan politics to provide a timely reminder about the crucial role of separation of powers in our system of governance.

Congress created the Office of the Special Prosecutor in 1978. Its mandate was to insure the rule of law, to check abuses of power in the executive branch, and to restore public confidence in government after the Watergate scandal. Harriger (politics, Wake Forest U.) focuses on the symbolic, constitutional, and political dimensions of her subject to provide a comprehensive, in-depth review of the Office of the Special Prosecutor and how it has operated in practice. Annotation copyrighted by Book News, Inc., Portland, OR

"[This book provides a] history of special prosecutors in American politics. For more than a century, special prosecutors have struck fear into the hearts of presidents, who have the power to fire them at any time. How could this be, [the author] asks? And how could the nation entrust such a high responsibility to such subordinate officials? [The author] demonstrates that special prosecutors can do much to protect the rule of law under the right circumstances. Many have been thwarted by the formidable challenges of investigating a sitting president and his close associates; a few have abused the powers entrusted to them. But at their best, special prosecutors function as catalysts of democracy, channeling an unfocused popular will to safeguard the rule of law. By raising the visibility of high-level misconduct, they enable the American people to hold the president accountable. Yet, if a president thinks he can fire a special prosecutor without incurring serious political damage, he has the power to do so. Ultimately, [the author] concludes, only the American people can decide whether the President is above the law."--

Twenty years after the Starr Report and the Clinton impeachment, former special prosecutor Ken Starr finally shares his definitive account of one of the most divisive periods in American history. You could fill a library with books about the scandals of the Clinton administration, which eventually led to President Clinton's impeachment by the House of Representatives. Bill and Hillary Clinton have told their version of events, as have various journalists and participants. Whenever liberals recall those years, they usually depict independent counsel Ken Starr as an out-of-control, politically driven prosecutor. But as a New York Times columnist asked in 2017, "What if Ken Starr was right?" What if the popular media in the 1990s completely misunderstood Starr's motives, his tactics, and his ultimate goal: to ensure that no one, especially not the president of the United States, is above the law? Starr -- the man at the eye of the hurricane -- has kept his unique perspective to himself for two full decades. In this long-awaited memoir, he finally sheds light on everything he couldn't tell us during the Clinton years, even in his carefully detailed "Starr Report" of September 1998. Contempt puts you, the reader, into the shoes of Starr and his team as they tackle the many scandals of that era, from Whitewater to Vince Foster's death to Travelgate to Monica Lewinsky. Starr explains in vivid detail how all those scandals shared a common thread: the Clintons' contempt for our system of justice. This book proves that Bill and Hillary Clinton weren't victims of a so-called "vast right-wing conspiracy." They played fast and loose with the law and abused their powers and privileges. Today, from the #MeToo aftermath and Russiagate to President Trump’s impeachment trial, the office of the American presidency is in crisis—and Starr’s insights are more relevant now than ever.

Congress created the Office of the Special Prosecutor in 1978. Its mandate was to insure the rule of law, to check abuses of power in the executive branch, and to restore public confidence in government after the Watergate scandal. Harriger (politics, Wake Forest U.) focuses on the symbolic, constitutional, and political dimensions of her subject to provide a comprehensive, in-depth review of the Office of the Special Prosecutor and how it has operated in practice. Annotation copyrighted by Book News, Inc., Portland, OR

"In February 2016, while testifying in a House Appropriations Subcommittee hearing, U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch, a Barack Obama appointee, promised that her department would act with independence in investigating Hillary Clinton's usage of a personal email server during her tenure as Secretary of State. During that hearing, Congressman John Carter (R-TX) asked Lynch: If the FBI makes the case that Hillary Clinton mishandled classified information and put America's security at risk, will you prosecute the case? . . .[P]lease look the American people in the eye and tell us what your position is as you are the chief prosecutor of the United States. In response to this questioning, Lynch asserted that: [The matter] is being handled by . . . independent attorneys in the Department of Justice. They follow the evidence, they look at the law and they'll make a recommendation to me when the time is appropriate. . .This will be conducted as every other case. We will review all the facts and all the evidence and come to an independent conclusion as how to best handle it. And I am also aware of no efforts to undermine our review or investigation into this matter at all (Goldman 2016). Despite strong claims of prosecutorial independence, many Republicans complained that a Department of Justice run by Obama appointees could not impartially pass legal judgment on the Hillary Clintonemails matter. A June 27, 2016 meeting between Lynch and former U.S. President Bill Clinton would not help matters. The two privately talked for approximately 20 minutes on a plane sitting on the Phoenix Sky Harbor airport tarmac in a meeting described as unplanned and "primarily social." Despite the meeting's claimed innocuous content, it "caused a cascading political storm" for Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign and "provided fodder for Republicans who have accused the Justice Department of bias in its inquiry into Secretary Clinton's use of a private email server at the State Department" (Chozick 2016). Even Democrats expressed concerns about the meeting Senator Chris Coons (D-DE) remarked that "I do think that this meeting sends the wrong signal . . . I think she should have steered clear, even of a brief, casual social meeting with the former president"--

"In the first and only inside account of the Mueller investigation, one of the special counsel's most trusted prosecutors breaks his silence on the team's history-making search for the truth, their painstaking deliberations and costly mistakes, and Trump's unprecedented efforts to stifle their report." -- Amazon.com.