A: Yes, but obstruction of what? In terms of aid to the contras, where Congress had tried to speak, the Boland amendments were exquisitely ambiguous in order to allow people to be on both sides of the issue depending on which way the wind blew. I don't know what the differences were.
Nobody in Congress was willing to take the hit for having sold Central America to the Soviets. Nobody wanted to do that, so they provided secret aid. But they wanted to be able to use the criminal justice system to punish Republicans politically, depending on which way it came out. It's that intersection of policy where you have this ethical overlay and ultimately criminal overlay, and it's not good for the conduct of foreign policy.
Q: How would you solve this larger problem?
A: There was a group that was put together late in the Bush presidency . . . to decriminalize the ethics regime in all of it's glory--not just the independent counsel statute, but all of the rules that apply . . . . It was a very collegial, very diverse group of scholars and practitioners that came together to agree to this decriminalization under the auspices of the American Bar Assn. . . . . That, combined with the non-reauthorization of the independent counsel statute, would have done wonders to defuse this highly charged situation--where it's hard to figure out what's politics and what's a violation.
Now, of course, Monica Lewinsky is a private thing. Whitewater is pre-White House. But they are all manifestations of the subjugation of our politics to this kind of ethical hijacking. And I think it's unfortunate and it ultimately reflects that there is just too much power being wielded at the highest levels of government . . . . The ultimate answer is to get the power out, to privatize some of the enforcement of, say, the environmental laws so you don't have to worry about PAC money flowing in and out.
Q: So you're saying that while we have been distracted by a sex scandal involving a White House intern, the real issue is the power of economic decision-making in government.
A: I believe so. I'm not condoning anything that is at stake in the Lewinsky matter, all I'm saying is it's not as important as some of the other matters.
Q: I gather you think the president should not have asserted executive privilege, attorney-client privilege or the protective privilege of the Secret Service.
