Appointing Special Counsels for the Democrats

Over at Powerline, John Hinderaker has a couple of posts about the Mueller investigation.  He is concerned that the investigation is illegally leaking information regularly and that the investigation is expanding its scope without securing the requisite authority.  He raises good questions.

He wonders whether there should be a special counsel appointed to investigate the leaking.  And while he is at it, he discusses three other special counsels that the Trump Administration should appoint.  These special counsels should (1) “look into Uranium One” and “the FBI’s apparent complicity in the cover-up of Uranium One,” (2) “collusion between the Clinton campaign and Russians” and (3) “whether the Clinton campaign and the DNC violated campaign finance laws or other statutes through their “money laundering” agreement.”

In an earlier post, I wonder why the Trump Administration does not appoint other special counsels:

It is interesting, however, that the Trump Administration has not appointed any special counsels.  It could still appoint a special counsel to investigate Hillary Clinton — both the emails and the Clinton Foundation.  Similarly, it could appoint one for the Democrats’ connections with Russia.  It might be able to appoint one for the unmaskings.  Yet, the Administration does not choose to do so.  One can speculate on the reasons, but it is somewhat puzzling.

While these cases would not involve investigations of Republicans, they would involve investigations of Democratic opponents of the Trump Administration.  Thus, the Trump Administration could argue that the public would not trust it to decide on the prosecution of its opponents.  Therefore, a special counsel would be needed.

This use of special counsels would employ them as weapons.  One “switches on” the special counsel, one’s opponents are investigated, and one does not have to take responsibility for the actions.

While it might be difficult to appoint all of these special counsels, certainly it would make sense to appoint some of them.  At first glance, it might seem inexplicable that the Trump Administration does not do so.  So why doesn’t the Trump Administration appoint some?

Probably the most likely explanation is that the executive branch and prosecutors do not like special counsels. The power of special counsels directly substracts from the power of the remainder of the executive branch and prosecutors.  While that interest group might explain why the Trump Administration does not appoint them, it does not make the failure to appoint a sensible policy from the perspective of the President and his party.  So what if the executive branch loses some authority if it promotes the goals of the President and his party?

A stronger argument is that if the executive appoints special counsels in these situations, it may feel politically pressured to appoint special counsels for itself in other situations where it does not want to do so.  That makes some sense.  It is harder to argue that some future potential scandal in the Trump Administration should not warrant a special counsel if so many other special counsels have been appointed.

But still I am doubtful that this justifies the Trump Administration in not appointing such special counsels.  As the Mueller appointment makes clear, the Trump Administration may be forced to appoint a special counsel anyway.  And by appointing these various special counsels against the Democrats, this may change the political climate so that such special counsels are seen to be more problematic.

Reader Discussion

Law & Liberty welcomes civil and lively discussion of its articles. Abusive comments will not be tolerated. We reserve the right to delete comments - or ban users - without notification or explanation.

on November 07, 2017 at 10:50:19 am

I now understand why The Trumpster has expressed frustration with AG Sessions, reportedly saying that "If I knew he would recuse himself, I would not have hired him."

Now we see that Sessions will recuse himself from Uranium One and other Hill-Bill-ary mischief.

Sadly, the end result is further disillusionment in the public mind with the operation of the Justice system. Are only ceertain types to be brought before the bar?

read full comment
Image of gabe
on November 07, 2017 at 12:20:31 pm

Whenever you hear the term "Special" used attached to regular terms like prosecutor, counsel, investigator, committee etc. understand that somebody or some group or institution has failed and is failing to do the job assigned to them by the Constitution or law. "Special" is a fancy way of saying "Epic Fail"

read full comment
Image of Derek Simmons
Derek Simmons
on November 08, 2017 at 12:54:34 pm

Trump’s failure to seek an investigation of Hillary Clinton and her e-mails is especially curious given that, throughout his campaign, Trump repeatedly promised to do just that.

True, perhaps Trump wants to refrain from appointing a special counsel to investigate Clinton because later he might want to avoid appointing a counsel to investigate his own administration—and we all know scrupulously Trump avoids the appearance of impropriety. Inexplicably, I find this argument less than compelling….

read full comment
Image of nobody.really

Law & Liberty welcomes civil and lively discussion of its articles. Abusive comments will not be tolerated. We reserve the right to delete comments - or ban users - without notification or explanation.