I do think we need the specifics here which Solomon didn't give us.
If we are talking about the Robert Ray office closure and his decision not to indict with his full report to be issued after AG review....and we are talking about Burton wanting to revisit all decisions then we are covering the whole concept of Prosecutorial Discretion and Secrecy, both with and without the Grand Jury.
Burton can persue...Bush can defend his AG Office oversight of the Independent Council's last months through Executive privelige and we can all read the report when it is out and them put up the cry for specifics where due.
Management by Congressional Committee was one of the chief reasons the Constitution was written. It didn't work in the Continental Congress or under the Articles.
Bush may want the information on Clintons' criminality in the sunlight but not at the expense of having Congress run roughshod over his Justice Department throughout all future years.
We need the specific of the exact issues before I feel right in going anymore strongly in one direction or another...I'm just appaled by Burton's "oversight" comment made in such a sweeping manner.
I am also not immune to the precident setting nature of certain actions on the part of the Executive Branch either. If we were talking about a national security issue where state secrets might be at risk, I might be more sympathetic to Bush's claim. What we have here is a criminal investigation. And unless Bush is actually trying to claim that an open inspection of the investigations of Clinton is going to damage his ability to rule, I can't see his logic on this. Here's why. Even Clinton waved Executive Privilege at least once, explaining that he was doing it on a one time only basis due to the nature of the requests. Why couldn't Bush?