|
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
Ray Interview: Clinton Prosecution 'Is an Option of Last Resort' Newsmax.com WiresQ. During the impeachment process, President Clinton's defenders argued that if he were an ordinary citizen, he would not be prosecuted for lying under oath in such circumstances. Is he more likely to be prosecuted now because he was president? A. I'm bound to abide by the principles of federal prosecution. ... Every subject of an investigation is entitled to all of the fairness that a prosecutor can bring to the effort. That's not to say that every individual is treated the same. ... I have to make judgments about the unique aspects of this case, just as I would make judgments about the unique aspects of any other case. And there are aspects of this case that are very unique. It involves the president of the United States. Q. What are the differences between deciding whether to prosecute the president vs. an ordinary citizen? A. All of the players with regard to this difficult issue are ultimately going to be judged in the eyes of history, whether we acted in the best interests of the country. My decision-making is not in a political vacuum. I have to account for notions of fairness about whether it's appropriate to prosecute the president of the United States. That has never been done before. I have to make an assessment about whether this is the appropriate case to be the first. I have to make a judgment about whether there has been sufficient accountability for conduct and a full acknowledgment of responsibility. I have to make a judgment about whether there are adequate alternatives to federal criminal prosecution. Federal criminal prosecution is a sledgehammer; it is an option of last resort, not of first resort. I'm the person who makes the judgment of whether the full power of and authority of the U.S. government are brought to bear with regard to any prospective defendant. I also am mindful that no person is above the law, including the president of the United States. Q. Just what does ''a full acknowledgment of responsibility'' mean? A. Speaking generically now, not with respect to this case: Even in a circumstance in which a prosecutor is firmly convinced that probable cause supports the charges, that the charges are provable beyond a reasonable doubt to a fair-minded jury and that the evidence is sufficient to sustain conviction on appeal – a prosecutor, after all of those judgments, must ultimately make a discretionary call whether it's appropriate to bring those charges. Are there other adequate remedies short of federal criminal prosecution? Are there administrative sanctions that appropriately deal with the conduct involved? Has there been cooperation with the investigation and a full acknowledgment of responsibility, and in some sense in financial cases, has there been restitution? Has there been an accounting? The long and short of it is that every sustainable case a prosecutor sees is not a case that a prosecutor brings. Q. Does the fact that there has been an impeachment process affect your decision? A. Sure, it's a factor. Is it a dispositive factor? No. Is any one factor a dispositive factor? No. There are lots of factors that go into whether to bring a case. Q. When do you expect to make your decision? A. I have said that the viability of this investigation continues during this administration and not much beyond it. When I have said, ''shortly, very shortly after the president leaves office,'' I meant it. ... The decision won't be made until very shortly after the president leaves office. Q. President-elect Bush says President Clinton ought to be able to go about his life. Do his comments affect your decision? A. The president-elect also made it perfectly clear that in his judgment it was not appropriate to consider a pre-charge pardon. I have considered the president-elect's comments; I have considered former president Bush's comments. ... I will say this: I appreciate the implicit confidence that the president-elect has shown in me and in this investigation to make an appropriate judgment whether to bring a prosecution. Q. How does the possibility that George W. Bush will pardon Clinton affect your decision? A. I'm not going to speak to that issue directly, but you should know that during Watergate, [special prosecutor] Leon Jaworski was very concerned about being engaged in a fruitless, academic exercise. In other words, using the power of the grand jury toward a charge, knowing that a pardon would follow. What I have just said requires some analysis. I do not believe that the president-elect has signaled that a pardon would follow a charge. ... So to answer your question, yes, it is something that I think about. But, again, it becomes one of those issues that one thinks about [in the context of] the particular facts and circumstances that we find ourselves in here. Q. Have you had any contact with Bush or his aides regarding the possibility of a pardon? A. That's not an appropriate task for me. Jaworski described it as, ''I don't tell the president how to be president; he doesn't tell me how to prosecute.'' A pardon is a political question entrusted to the chief executive. The authority of this office is with regard to prosecutorial decision-making, whether it's appropriate to bring a charge. ... The investigation has not had any contact with regard to this matter with the president-elect or any member of his team. Q. One factor you say you'll consider is whether an appropriate penalty already has been paid. Clinton faces a disbarment effort in Arkansas. Do you consider the loss of a legal license an appropriate penalty? A. I don't think that principles of federal prosecution speak to penalties in that sense. What they speak to are appropriate administrative sanctions, sure ones, effective ones that either have been achieved or will be achieved. The short answer is yes, but not a dispositive factor. Q. Your predecessor, Ken Starr, was not available to the media as he was approaching key decisions. Why are you publicly sharing your thinking? A: Because the public will never have any confidence in the exercise of my authority if it doesn't first see me, hear me, try to understand me – even if many don't agree with me. My job is to explain what it is we are doing, consistent with my professional obligations. There are some things, obviously, that I cannot talk about, given an ongoing investigation. There are, however, in my judgment many things I can do to explain better what it is we are doing, what it is we have done. Q: Broadly, how do you think the public views this process? A: Hard [to say]. Things ... don't happen the way the public might like them to, which is to say there is definite resolution all of the time, and quickly. ... The country has a great desire to move on. The new president is entitled to have an administration free from the past administration. Q. How would you contrast your manner of investigation with Starr's? A: Judge Starr recognized, in retrospect, that more attention needed to be paid to explaining at all relevant times precisely what the independent counsel's investigation was doing, what the objectives were and being clear about what their intentions were. You should explain to the extent you can the basis for your decision. If you can't explain your decisions because it's premature, explain the process. In the modern world, we are all dependent on the public confidence that we meet expectations and that we abide by promises and that we do what it is we said we were going to do. I tried to lay out 15 months ago what it was I was going to try to accomplish, and then went about trying to accomplish it. And I think, hopefully, that has been the major difference. © Copyright 2000 USA TODAY, a division of Gannett Co. Inc.
Related Products:
Read more on this subject in related Hot Topics: |
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
| All Rights Reserved © 2009 NewsMax.Com |