The Committee is sensitive to the concerns raised in your letter, but this is an extraordinary case, and those concerns must yield to this Committee's legitimate oversight role. The Committee has already attempted to accommodate your concerns, and for seven months, has withheld from enforcing its earlier subpoena for Mr. Freeh's memorandum. But now, in light of the fact that Mr. La Bella has reached the same conclusion as Mr. Freeh, this Committee must take action and assert its proper oversight functions. More important than the issues you have cited is the concern of this Committee, and the American people at large, that you have disregarded the advice of your two most senior people working on the campaign finance investigation regarding both the facts of the case and the interpretation of the Independent Counsel statute. The Independent Counsel statute was designed explicitly because the Attorney General was perceived to have a potential conflict of interest in matters involving wrongdoing by high-level executive officials.
Some outside person is absolutely essential.
Now, it appears it is you who is ignoring this guidance. It would be inconsistent with Congress' core oversight responsibilities to simply accept your assurances that you have adequately considered the recommendations of your advisors without looking beneath the surface of those assurances. Our investigation of the Department's nonfeasance in this case is consistent with Congress' oversight duties. In the past, precisely this kind of oversight has uncovered serious wrongdoing in the Department of Justice. Moreover, while your letter is concerned with the policy arguments against complying with the Committee's subpoena, it fails to address the numerous precedents for the Committee's action.