The general idea of a special prosecutor can best be explained by looking at President Nixon and Watergate. There were well-founded reasons to believe that criminal wrongdoing had occurred during and after the Watergate break-in. It also appeared that the Attorney General, John Mitchell, might be involved in it. Normally, it would be up to the Attorney General's office to investigate Nixon and his team, but with Mitchell evidently involved... that would be a profound conflict of interest.
So, the parties involved agreed to appoint a special prosecutor, a lawyer appointed to investigate, and potentially prosecute.
In the case of Robert Mueller and President Trump, however, no allegations of a crime had been made at the time Mueller was appointed. There was talk that the President had "colluded" with the Russians, but "collusion" is not a crime; conspiracy is a crime, but there has been no allegation of conspiracy. So, the appointment was a political fraud to begin with.
There is no provision in the Constitution for a special prosecutor to investigate a president. That duty Constitutionally belongs to the House of Representatives, which has the power to investigate and to issue Articles of Impeachment if warranted. It should not have been allowed in Nixon's case; that case unfortunately set a bad precedent.
Mueller reports to no one. His investigations have far exceeded his appointed authority and he is not investigating a crime; he's a political hack looking for some crime, any crime, to charge President Trump with. So he, and his position, have become nothing more than a political tool designed to hamper a president... a prospect far outside the realm or intent of the Constitution.
We're to blame for allowing this charade to go on and on and on.
No comments:
Post a Comment