Uninteded Prosecutions

Uninteded Prosecutions

The Democratic leadership has been calling for a special prosecutor ever since Donald Trump won the presidency.  But this call has nothing to do with a desire to learn the truth. In fact, they really do not want the truth because it may exonerate the Trump campaign and the Democrats would lose their only hope of stopping President Trump’s agenda and picking up new seats in the midterms.

At best, the Democrats could have argued for an independent commission to investigate whether there was any collusion, but certainly not a special prosecutor. A special prosecutor should only be called when crimes have been known to have been committed – to prosecute those that committed crimes. There has not been any evidence that any of Trump’s associates colluded with the Russians or there was any wrongdoing by Trump associates. The Democrats only have speculation, wild accusations and overused conspiratorial hyperbole.

Chuck Schumer is no Mulder and Nancy Pelosi is no Scully; they are not saying “the truth is out there.” The only truth to soured Democrats is the left’s ‘resist’ and ‘oppose’ Trump movements.

Before the firing of James Comey, Democrats had at least a basis to call for a special prosecutor, even though no crimes have been committed, because The Democrats lost confidence in James Comey during the 2016 election. If they believed he acted to harm Hillary Clinton so that Donald Trump would become president, then Democrats certainly wouldn’t want this same FBI director overseeing the Russian-Trump probe.

Since President Trump has fired Comey and will appoint a new FBI director that will require Senate approval, this confirmed director should lay aside all fears. The Democrats should have peace of mind knowing that the person who helped Donald Trump get elected, according to Hillary Clinton, is no longer the head of the FBI’s investigation. The investigation will continue, it will be fair and it will get to the truth.

There is a reason that all Democrats have been calling for a special prosecutor since day one of Donald Trump’s presidency. They want a broad investigation that may unearth dirt that has nothing to do with Russia. The unsubstantiated ‘leaks,’ not facts, would dog the President and may turn the public against Trump and his agenda. Traditionally, the special prosecutor has had broad powers and can go wherever their investigation takes them.

For instance, Kenneth Starr took over the Whitewater investigation, which was an investigation into Bill and Hillary Clinton’s real estate investments, but it ended up leading to the impeachment of Bill Clinton. Mr. Clinton was impeached by the House for lying under oath regarding his relationship with Monica Lewinski, but was saved by the Senate from being removed from office. The whole affair, pun intended, was a major distraction to the Clinton Administration and forever tarnished his presidency.

Independent Counsel

The Independent Counsel Law, first drafted in 1978, could have been used by Congress or the Attorney General to investigate crimes by government officials. This law was allowed to elapse in 1999. It was terminated because of their exorbitant costs due to an unlimited budget, their broad powers, their unlimited time frame due to no deadline imposed, and their secrecy.

A special prosecutor is prohibited to reveal any details of their investigations unless it relates to an indictment. So if there are not any charges filed, the entire investigation remains hidden from the public. This is problematic to the public and Congress if it’s in the public’s interest to learn more information.

If the Democrats really want the truth, there will not be any facts known through a special prosecutor unless there’s an indictment. For example, if there was collusion between a Trump operative and Russia, but no laws were broken, the public will never learn of it. On the other hand, a congressional committee’s investigation would reveal such facts.

DOJ Special Counsel

Even though the Independent Counsel Law was allowed to elapse, the Attorney General still has the authority to appoint a special counsel. He is the only person that can call for it. But because Jeff Sessions recused himself from the Russian investigation, the Deputy Attorney General, Rod Rosenstein is the only person who can call for a special prosecutor to investigate all things Trump-Russia.

The difference between the Deputy Attorney General’s special prosecutor and one under the previous law is the AG can define the scope of its jurisdiction and can reverse any of the special prosecutor’s actions. The AG can also cancel the special counsel for any good cause.

If Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein appoints a special counsel, he could provide the prosecutor with very narrow guidelines on what to investigate and what is not permissible. This is certainly not what the Democrats are dreaming of.

The Democrats should be given what they want – a special prosecutor with a very limited jurisdiction. But besides the Russian-Trump probe, the AG should also appoint two more.

The first one to look into the Obama Administration’s spying of Donald Trump’s presidential campaign, the unmasking of private citizens caught up in its surveillance, and the leaks to the press.

The second one should once again look over the Clinton email scandal and the Clinton Foundation. Then finally, with actual indictments, we can see who actually is corrupt and whose legacy will suffer, Obama, Clinton or Trump.