Robert Mueller—the special counsel appointed by U.S. Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein to oversee the investigation into the alleged Trump-Russia collusion—has mostly gotten applause across the political spectrum for his uprightness since the announcement Wednesday. He certainly has the experience needed for the task he’s been given, with 12 years at the helm of the FBI. But while his integrity and skills are not at issue, critics are not so sanguine about the investigation he will head up.
First, a bit of clarity. While advocates of an investigation, including Daily Kos, have sought a “special prosecutor” to handle the probe, “special counsel,” and “independent counsel” have the same function. But the ways they are chosen are not the same.
After Watergate, Congress decided to set up an Office of the Independent Counsel in 1978. To avoid conflicts-of-interests, the independent counsel was appointed by a panel of judges from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. That’s how the crimes of the Iran-contra affair were handled, as was the Whitewater investigation into the Clintons, with Ken Starr running it. By bipartisan agreement, the OIC was allowed to expire in 1999. So we no longer have an independent counsel.
Instead, special counsels are now appointed by the Department of Justice, which would normally mean the attorney general making the selection. But A.G. Jeff Sessions III recused himself from any of the Trump-Russia investigation, and his deputy made the appointment. Usually special counsels come from inside Justice, but picking an outsider like Mueller is done when conflicts-of-interest may be at issue.
The problem with this as opposed to having independent counsel is that the special counsel is not really independent.
As my colleague Laura Clawson wrote Wednesday, Mueller can be reined in or deprived of resources, something that worries some Democrats.
from Daily Kos http://ift.tt/2qWgBL8
0 التعليقات:
Post a Comment