Robert Mueller, the Special Counsel investigating Russian interference in our elections, plus whatever else he stumbles across that interests him, has just hired the 16th lawyer for his team of investigators. Can you even begin to imagine the cost of this team that will go on almost in perpetuity if Mueller wills that it to be so?
Special Counsels, in general, seem to have no limits to their authority. To my knowledge, Congress has not created a budget within which the Special Counsel must operate, for example. There is apparently no limit as to what may be investigated. If a Special Counsel decides he or she wishes to go in a completely different direction, who or what will intercede to either say “no” or at least to demand to see evidence that will support the new direction?
We know how politically driven everything is in Washington, D.C. When the Dems are in control, their Special Counsel appointments will likely look favorably upon Democrats. Would they intentionally ignore evidence that a Democrat was involved in something illegal? Probably not, but there is always that possibility. Lives are ruined over very petty things in our nation’s Capitol.
We also know that there are any number of people for whom the honor of having been investigated by a Special Counsel seems to have been overlooked. The name Hillary Clinton comes to mind. If there were to be a Special Counsel appointed for the purpose of looking into transgressions by that person, he or she would likely be busy for the balance of their working lifetime…except you can be sure the Dems would be in a state of high dudgeon were that ever to occur.
It seems this is something that could be abused quite easily with little or no recourse to cure the problems created. A politician would walk very gingerly around such debates lest he or she suddenly come under the scrutiny of the Special Prosecutor. There is seldom a person that is apolitical and there is almost no real possibility of finding Special Prosecutors and members of that person’s team who are apolitical. Anyone making such a claim probably ought not to be considered for such an appointment simply based on that prima facie evidence.
These appointments seem dangerous to me whether made by Republicans or Democrats. If there is no time limit established, that should be changed. There ought also be some requirements for Special Prosecutors to have to justify their continuing investigations yet who would constitute the decision-makers in such situations? Maybe a panel of judges who would not be involved in the future presentation of evidence.
This is just something that I believe is not necessarily a good thing.