Special Prosecutor

***********

Jimmy Carter is a good moral exemplar. But he was not a good President. Benjamin Franklin was a notorious womanizer, but an outstanding diplomat. Hamilton and Burr appear to have been sexual maniacs. As do JFK and LBJ.

George Washington was an avid dancer, a great President, and he had high standards, but did he always meet them? Perhaps, if Legend holds. See https://allthingsliberty.com/2016/03/the-alleged-amorous-affairs-of-washington/:

"Sally was a huge tease and fully aware of the power she had over men – especially Washington. They had exchanged flirtatious letters filled with clear sexual innuendos, as was popular to do during that time. But she was a married woman and Washington was aware enough to know that acting on the attraction would only end in disaster."

*************

Evidently, Mueller wants to help Dems score political points for faulting Trump for not imposing sanctions on Russia for meddling in our politics. As if many nations would not then have cover to impose their own sanctions against the U.S. for its own vast meddling. As if Dems, had Hillary been elected, would ever have imposed such sanctions. As if real politic with Russia should put such sanctions before every other consideration. As if "collusion" as the Dems would have it were any sort of prosecutable crime.

This is all such gigantic bs. Moreover, it is probably detrimental to foreign policy and the well-being of the nation and every other representative republic. It is yap dogs nipping at Trump while he tries to salvage the nation. Yap dogs, fighting Confederate monuments and old rumors, while the world is being endangered by a spreading of nukes that was vastly facilitated by the Clintons and Obama. There is no virtue or intelligence in this. It is the product of short-sighted, entitlement-minded, whiny-wussie, gender-confused, morally un-compassed, incompetent-codependent, gang-banging, Dem Stoolies for Oligarchic Collectivists.

If the Dem Party were ever the party of any moral giants, it positively no longer is. It is the party of whiny-wussies, who want to tolerate everyone and everything that is perverse, depraved, anti-family, anti-child, and anti-American, but who have no tolerance for anyone who wants to salvage a decent representative republic.

***********

Maybe Carter Page was an agent first for himself, second for the Deep State, third for the FBI, fourth for the Russians. Regardless, it appears he had been part of the counterintelligence effort for some time. So what did appointing Mueller do to enhance that counterintelligence effort? I can see how it helped further weaponize the FBI/DOJ on behalf of the Deep State and anti-Trumpers. But if no crime by Trump is actually described or being investigated, then what does the appointment of Mueller accomplish that the DOJ/FBI could not have done as part of its counterintelligence efforts? There being no prosecutable crime by Trump, and thus no probable cause to believe there was any crime by Trump, why did Congress, except as minions for the Deep State, find a need to weaponize a special investigator?

*****************


From A.T.:

Re: "First, anyone, regardless of where one is employed in the government, who respects, follows, supports, and upholds the Constitution for the united States of America, would not sit back in silence, watching, while a group of individuals undermines the constitutional electoral process."

That's just it. No one who wants to have porous borders for cheap labor and votes, knowing the effect is to make the republic more kabuki than it already is, can be said to want to respect, follow, support, or uphold the Constitution. That would include the Chamber of Commerce, George Soros, Barack Obama, the Clintons, and nearly all their supporters. The nation is heavily infested with ignoranti and corrupti who simply do not give a D about the Constitution. the representative republic, or the values enshrined by the Founders. Moreover, PC and infestation have rendered it extremely hazardous to many students and employees to buck that corruption and ignorance. I would not be surprised if the example and success of DJT may help suddenly reverse a lot of that.


*********

Interesting snippets from Wiki:

With the expiration of the independent counsel authority in 1999, the Department of Justice under Attorney General Janet Reno promulgated regulations for the future appointment of special counsels. As of 2017, these regulations remain in effect as 28 CFR section 600.[6] While the regulations place limits on the authority of the attorney general, for example to fire the special counsel once appointed, they are internal Department of Justice regulations without an underlying statutory basis. It is thus unclear whether the limits these regulations place on the attorney general would prove binding in practice.
....
The jurisdiction of a Special Counsel shall be established by the Attorney General. The Special Counsel will be provided with a specific factual statement of the matter to be investigated. The jurisdiction of a Special Counsel shall also include the authority to investigate and prosecute federal crimes committed in the course of, and with intent to interfere with, the Special Counsel's investigation, such as perjury, obstruction of justice, destruction of evidence, and intimidation of witnesses (but intimidation by the Special Prosecutor is ok?); and to conduct appeals arising out of the matter being investigated and/or prosecuted.
....
Generally, the special prosecutor him or herself decides when an investigation will terminate, with or without formal charges being pursued. The special prosecutor typically issues a final report on their investigation at this time. The current special prosecutor regulations specify that[6] "At the conclusion of the Special Counsel's work, he or she shall provide the Attorney General with a confidential report explaining the prosecution or declination decisions reached by the Special Counsel."
....
The appointment of a special prosecutor raises inherent separation of powers questions under the U.S. Constitution. Since the special prosecutor is a member of the executive branch, it has been argued that the special prosecutor is ultimately answerable to the president, and can therefore be fired by them. Richard Nixon, for example, argued that he could not be compelled by a subpoena issued by his own subordinate.
The constitutionality of the independent counsel law was affirmed by a 7–1 decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Morrison v. Olson.
....
Justice Scalia, the lone dissenter, said that the law should be struck down because criminal prosecution is an exercise of "purely executive power" and the law deprived the president of "exclusive control" of that power.  In his opinion, Scalia also predicted how the law might be abused in practice, writing, "I fear the Court has permanently encumbered the Republic with an institution that will do it great harm."
....
BOTTOME LINE:  The legal basis cited under Morrison is gone.  The only basis now is Department regulations.  The territory seems like a no-man's-land, or a circus sideshow, where everyone is pushed by purposes and diversions of others and of his own.  Where everyone wants to make a name, where any prosecutable crime is beside the point, where oligarchs become free to use loudmouth politics and the Deep State to undercut the will of elected representatives of the people, and where spy agencies are used to set witnesses up for process crime charges.  A Punch and Judy Show, where owners jockey for political positions and where real people are hurt, the will of the people is stymied, the legal profession is further sullied (if that is possible), and the republic is waylaid.
The power given to the Grand Inquiring Special Investigating Snoopdog is as hot as the ring of power guarded by the Hobbits.  It corrupts everything it touches.