BREAKING NEWS Purdue football draws Tennessee in Music City Bowl Full Story

Why Kavanaugh needs to brush up on his Watergate history

President Donald Trump's Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh declared in 2016 that he wanted to "put the final nail...

Posted: Jul 22, 2018 2:03 PM
Updated: Jul 22, 2018 2:03 PM

President Donald Trump's Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh declared in 2016 that he wanted to "put the final nail" in the coffin of Morrison v. Olson, a Supreme Court decision that upheld a court-appointed special prosecutor's power to investigate high-level executive branch criminality. Recently CNN also unearthed a 1998 video of Kavanaugh saying, "It makes no sense at all to have an independent counsel looking at the conduct of the President." ("Special prosecutor" and "independent counsel" can be used more or less interchangeably, although there are slight differences.)

As co-author of the 1978 special prosecutor statute, I find these views troubling. They don't bode well for Robert Mueller's investigation.

The nail-in-the-coffin remark generated significant media attention, but what does it really mean? A closer look at the 1988 Morrison decision -- particularly at the dissent Kavanaugh appears to be echoing -- shows why Kavanaugh's statement is so worrisome. If he is confirmed and uses a long enough nail, overturning Morrison could lead to ending the Mueller probe, too.

Many legal thinkers on the right have never accepted the Morrison decision, looking instead to Justice Antonin Scalia's dissent in the case, which claimed the special prosecutor provisions were unconstitutional. But Scalia's opinion was riddled with errors. He argued that prosecutors who investigate presidential criminality should give the president and top aides and officials "sympathetic" treatment. You read that right: Scalia actually wrote that presidents deserve a prosecutorial "forum that is attuned to the interests and policies of the Presidency." It's supposed to be a "natural advantage" that presidents earn by winning elections, according to Scalia.

Aside from sounding crazy on its face, that dissenting opinion is deeply hostile to the fundamental point of the special prosecutor statute: No one, not even the president, is above the law. Therefore no one, not even the president, should get preferential treatment from "sympathetic" prosecutors and be insulated from prosecutors who are objective and follow wherever the evidence leads.

Scalia's view that presidents must be shielded and can't be scrutinized by unbiased prosecutors not under "complete" presidential control is nothing short of chilling. The Ethics in Government Act of 1978, which had provisions for naming a special prosecutor when serious allegations were lodged against a president, was specifically designed to ensure that a president wouldn't get favorable treatment from a prosecutor. If Kavanaugh is confirmed and adopts Scalia's view, it will threaten Mueller, and could undermine the rule of law itself.

Another contention of Scalia's dissent is that prosecution is "quintessentially" an executive function and the creation of an independent prosecutor weakens the presidency and threatens liberty. For Scalia, any incursion into a president's powers would be unconstitutional. His dissent urged us not to worry about integrity in government if we don't have an independent prosecutor law. Pointing to Watergate, he wrote that "political pressures" would ensure the appointment of one when needed.

Again, that's factually wrong. The political pressures around Watergate did not guarantee that Nixon's wrongdoing would come to light or that there would be unanimous support for his impeachment in the House Judiciary Committee -- far from it. Things could have turned out very differently, and almost did. We basically got lucky, but that doesn't mean we should trust luck in the future.

The Watergate special prosecutor was appointed out of a series of accidents. From the moment the burglars were apprehended in June 1972, the Justice Department handled the case. But Nixon's cover-up was so effective that the investigation did not lead to him or his top aides. On April 30, 1973, Acting Attorney General Richard Kleindienst resigned and Nixon picked Elliot Richardson to replace him. There was no special prosecutor statute at the time, but the Senate Judiciary Committee refused to confirm Richardson unless he committed to naming a special prosecutor and ensuring that prosecutor's independence.

Richardson agreed and named Archibald Cox as the special Watergate prosecutor, and the rest is history. Cox subpoenaed the Nixon White House tapes and insisted they be produced. Nixon had him fired for it, triggering impeachment proceedings in the House.

It is safe to say that without the special prosecutor, the tapes might not have been obtained, the House Judiciary Committee might not have started its impeachment inquiry, there might have been no bipartisan vote on impeachment, and Nixon might never have resigned. The rule of law might never have prevailed, and the President and his men might never have been held accountable. Constitutional order hung by a thread, and the special prosecutor was the key to restoring it.

In light of Watergate, Kavanaugh's claim that "it makes no sense" to have an independent counsel investigating presidential conduct is sheer nonsense, and historically wrong, since the special counsel's investigation was key to the Judiciary Committee's impeachment inquiry. (Again, technical distinctions between an independent counsel and a special counsel aren't important here.)

The special prosecutor provisions in the Ethics in Government Act and the Department of Justice regulatory scheme that succeeded them were an outgrowth of the Watergate experience. Congress did not want to leave the appointment of a special prosecutor to chance again, if and when future allegations of grave presidential misconduct arose.

After I co-authored the original special prosecutor law in 1978, its provisions were modified several times, and it was finally allowed to expire in 1999 as a result of the unfortunate experience with independent counsel Kenneth Starr's investigation of President Bill Clinton (in which Kavanaugh played a significant role). The law had flaws, but in my opinion they could have been corrected.

It was replaced by a regulatory scheme under which Mueller was appointed and his investigation is being conducted. The regulation allows, but does not require, the attorney general (or the deputy if the attorney general is recused) to appoint and remove a special prosecutor. The special prosecutor is not given the full powers of the attorney general but cannot be removed except for cause. Those protections are not as robust as Congress and I envisioned in 1978. But they are better than nothing.

For now, Mueller's position is insecure, if not precarious. Trump has threatened to fire him, repeatedly castigated his investigation as "a witch hunt" and called his appointment "unconstitutional." That may be a nod to Scalia's dissent in the Morrison decision, which Kavanaugh has already signaled he wants to spike.

We're already dealing with threats to our democracy -- Russia interfering in our 2016 presidential elections and the likelihood it will do it again, not to mention our President standing with Vladimir Putin's denials of interference and against the unanimous findings of our own intelligence community. The last thing we need now, or at any time, is a threat to the rule of law in high places. That's why Kavanaugh, with his hostility to independent, hard-nosed, unbiased investigation of presidential wrongdoing, shouldn't be on the Supreme Court.

West Lafayette
Cloudy
48° wxIcon
Hi: 48° Lo: 29°
Feels Like: 44°
Kokomo
Cloudy
46° wxIcon
Hi: 47° Lo: 28°
Feels Like: 39°
Rensselaer
Cloudy
43° wxIcon
Hi: 42° Lo: 32°
Feels Like: 37°
Fowler
Cloudy
48° wxIcon
Hi: 45° Lo: 30°
Feels Like: 44°
Williamsport
Cloudy
48° wxIcon
Hi: 48° Lo: 29°
Feels Like: 43°
Crawfordsville
Cloudy
48° wxIcon
Hi: 50° Lo: 30°
Feels Like: 42°
Frankfort
Cloudy
48° wxIcon
Hi: 48° Lo: 29°
Feels Like: 42°
Delphi
Cloudy
45° wxIcon
Hi: 47° Lo: 30°
Feels Like: 40°
Monticello
Cloudy
45° wxIcon
Hi: 47° Lo: 31°
Feels Like: 40°
Logansport
Cloudy
43° wxIcon
Hi: 44° Lo: 29°
Feels Like: 38°
More active weather headed our way...
WLFI Temps
WLFI Planner

Indiana Coronavirus Cases

Data is updated nightly.

Cases: 1118335

Reported Deaths: 17712
CountyCasesDeaths
Marion1455892240
Lake724831254
Allen67063882
Hamilton51060487
St. Joseph49820649
Elkhart40268546
Vanderburgh34714497
Tippecanoe30808276
Johnson27696467
Hendricks26313385
Porter25657386
Madison21131455
Clark20238279
Vigo19059309
LaPorte17192261
Howard16770314
Delaware16761303
Monroe16628220
Kosciusko14293167
Hancock13113186
Bartholomew12983190
Warrick12210190
Wayne12090269
Floyd12011226
Grant11998245
Morgan10409192
Boone9869124
Noble9316122
Henry9177169
Marshall9152147
Dearborn8970100
Dubois8835140
Shelby8281130
Cass8167128
Lawrence8057185
DeKalb7817109
Jackson770793
Huntington7661115
Gibson7102118
Montgomery7101123
Harrison6954100
Knox6915116
Steuben669089
Whitley659660
Miami6595113
Putnam645085
Clinton627179
Wabash6221111
Jasper613192
Jefferson5856105
Ripley557294
Adams542281
Daviess5076117
Scott491580
Wells4836105
White478469
Greene4701101
Clay464662
Decatur4611110
Fayette452496
Jennings452067
LaGrange427491
Posey410044
Randolph3944107
Washington390956
Fountain375964
Fulton364874
Spencer362247
Starke355574
Owen353577
Sullivan348555
Orange331372
Jay331050
Rush309533
Carroll296239
Franklin292744
Perry290553
Vermillion283658
Tipton251167
Parke250130
Pike248644
Blackford222144
Pulaski210359
Newton182452
Brown177550
Crawford169129
Benton168417
Martin152120
Switzerland147612
Warren135816
Union122616
Ohio92413
Unassigned0595

COVID-19 Important links and resources

As the spread of COVID-19, or as it's more commonly known as the coronavirus continues, this page will serve as your one-stop for the resources you need to stay informed and to keep you and your family safe. CLICK HERE

Closings related to the prevention of the COVID-19 can be found on our Closings page.

Community Events