Your recent editorial (Oct. 17) took me to the woodshed for my suggesting to Atty. Gen. Janet Reno that several reputable polls indicate a strong public preference for the appointment of an independent counsel to investigate allegations about White House campaign fund-raising.
The point of my recital of these polls was not to legitimize “pollster justice,” but to respond to Ms. Reno’s own testimony on May 14, 1993, when she supported the extension of the independent counsel statute. She told the Congress: “The reason I support the concept of an independent counsel with statutory independence is that there is an inherent conflict whenever senior executive branch officials are to be investigated by the department and its appointed head, the attorney general. . . . It’s absolutely essential for the public to have confidence in the system and you cannot do that when there is a conflict or appearance of conflict in the person who is, in effect, the chief prosecutor. There is an inherent conflict here, and I think that that is why this act is so important.”
Polls show that the public thinks the investigation of this case should be taken out of the Justice Department and put in independent hands. My point was that one of the objects of the statute is to preserve confidence in the administration of justice that the polls would suggest the public now lacks. I know of no other way to measure the public’s lack of confidence except by polling, and while polls may not be determinative, they are data that deserve consideration.
