Experts Dispute Meese on Ethics

Experts on federal ethics laws Tuesday challenged a central point in the contention by Atty. Gen. Edwin Meese III that he had been fully vindicated by an independent counsel’s decision not to seek criminal prosecution against him.

Even if no criminal wrongdoing is established, they said, the counsel’s report may properly question Meese’s ethical conduct in the activities under scrutiny.

“The important thing to remember is that the single duty of the independent counsel was to determine whether any of these allegations that have been made . . . formed the basis for criminal proceedings,” Meese said at his Sacramento press conference. If independent counsel James C. McKay also commented on Meese’s ethics in the sealed report he filed with a federal court Tuesday, that would be “mere commentary and opinion,” Meese said.

But Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), who heads a Senate committee that has investigated Meese’s actions, said Meese cannot claim vindication until any assessment of his ethical behavior that might be in the independent counsel’s sealed report is aired.

Two government ethics officials who asked not to be identified cited language in the law governing independent counsels directing them to file a final report that “fully and completely” describes the issues investigated.

When Congress revised the statute last year, legislators specifically noted in the report describing the amended law that the counsels “have the authority to refer possible ethical violations to appropriate agencies,” such as the Office of Government Ethics and the Justice Department’s own anti-corruption unit.

By resigning, Meese would take himself out of the jurisdiction of the government ethics office. The Justice Department’s Office of Professional Responsibility, however, would still have jurisdiction to look into whether any of Meese’s actions violated the department’s internal rules. That office is expected to look into Meese’s actions now that McKay’s inquiry has concluded.