The Argument for Disbanding the Special Counsel

I'm not going to pretend it would be politically palpable for Trump to fire Mueller, but what I am going to do, is see if anyone has a solid rebuttal to what I view as a fairly solid argument that it should be disbanded.

What brought me to this topic is the media's obsession that Trump will fire the special counsel in the coming weeks. Of course they're priming outrage, trying to make sure you know how to feel about it. But for those here at ATS who aren't under the spell of the MSM/CIA, you may have a different view on all of this.

I won't waste any time, let's dive right into the main argument against the special counsel and that is the appointment of it. In no way was there justification for the special counsel to be appointed (as far as I can find), at least according to DoJ regulations:

§ 600.1 Grounds for appointing a Special Counsel.

The Attorney General, or in cases in which the Attorney General is recused, the Acting Attorney General, will appoint a Special Counsel when he or she determines that criminal investigation of a person or matter is warranted and -

(a) That investigation or prosecution of that person or matter by a United States Attorney's Office or litigating Division of the Department of Justice would present a conflict of interest for the Department or other extraordinary circumstances; and

(b) That under the circumstances, it would be in the public interest to appoint an outside Special Counsel to assume responsibility for the matter.

Here's a link for the reg: www.law.cornell.edu...

At the time, there was no criminal investigation into the president (according to comey) and Rosenstein's letter doesn't reference any criminal investigation. Here is Rosenstein's letter which establishes the special counsel:

The Special Counsel is authorized to conduct the investigation confirmed by then-FBI Director James A. Comey in testimony
before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence
on March 20, 2017, including:
(i) any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump; and
(ii) any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation; and
(iii) any other matters within the scope of 28 C.F.R. § 600.4(a).

And here is 600.4(a), referenced by Rosenstein.

§ 600.4 Jurisdiction.

(a)Original jurisdiction. 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; and to conduct appeals arising out of the matter being investigated and/or prosecuted.

Ok, so according the 600.1 a special investigation can only be appointed when there are grounds for a criminal investigation. There were no grounds for such an investigation. The reasoning Rosenstein gives is links between Russia and the Trump campaign. Are links criminal? Is collusion criminal? No. Therefore, the entire premise of the special counsel appointment is null and void. Lest you think I'm short sellling the testimony of comey on the investigation, here are his remarks from the march 20th testimony that Rosenstein used as justification:

“I have been authorized by the Department of Justice to confirm that the FBI, as part of our counterintelligence mission, is investigating the Russian government's efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election and that includes investigating the nature of any links between individuals associated with the Trump campaign and the Russian government and whether there was any coordination between the campaign and Russia's efforts. As with any counterintelligence investigation, this will also include an assessment of whether any crimes were committed.”

There you have it, plain as day, it wasn't a criminal investigation, it was a counter intelligence investigation. So how exactly does Rosenstein use this testimony to justify a special counsel, which can only be appointed when there is a criminal investigation to be done? There is no "specific, factual statement" of what's to be investigated, given by the Rosenstein letter.

But let's move on to the second part of the requirement. Not only does there need to be a criminal element to be investigated, but there also needs to be a conflict of interest for the department AND it must be in the public interest to appoint a special counsel. Where is the conflict of interest? Now, before you run off and say "if trump appointed Comey's replacement that would be a conflict of interest!" realize the Barack Obama appointed Comey on June 21, 2013, merely six weeks after the IRS targeting scandal was revealed. The point isn't "he did it, so it's ok" rather that investigations are ongoing at any point when a director is replaced. So merely firing or replacing the head of the FBI doesn't present a conflict of interest. So what constitutes a conflict of interest? Let's see the DoJ regulation on what constitutes a conflict of interest:

(a) Unless authorized under paragraph (b) of this section, no employee shall participate in a criminal investigation or prosecution if he has a personal or political relationship with:

(1) Any person or organization substantially involved in the conduct that is the subject of the investigation or prosecution; or

(2) Any person or organization which he knows has a specific and substantial interest that would be directly affected by the outcome of the investigation or prosecution.

(c) For the purposes of this section:

(1)Political relationship means a close identification with an elected official, a candidate (whether or not successful) for elective, public office, a political party, or a campaign organization, arising from service as a principal adviser thereto or a principal official thereof; and

(2)Personal relationship means a close and substantial connection of the type normally viewed as likely to induce partiality. An employee is presumed to have a personal relationship with his father, mother, brother, sister, child and spouse. Whether relationships (including friendships) of an employee to other persons or organizations are “personal” must be judged on an individual basis with due regard given to the subjective opinion of the employee.

This definition proves that a Trump appointee would not (by simply being a Trump appointee) be conflicted.

So neither of the requirements for a special counsel to be appointed were met when Rosenstein appointed Mueller. If there is to be a special counsel, the order needs to be revised with specific parameters detailing what crime they believe has been committed.

Here's the main question that needs to be answered:
WHAT JUSTIFICATION MEETS THE CRITERIA FOR A SPECIAL COUNSEL TO BE APPOINTED?

It's easy to lose sight of it, but the crime was the alleged hacking of the DNC servers.
It's been used as the basis of the witch hunt to move on to simply trying to find a crime to fit the man, but the original purpose was legal I believe.
I would have thought they would at least investigate the 'hack' to prove it happened and who did it before moving on, but it's become clear that was never the real intent of the SC

Mueller and his team have so much baggage that they should step down. Simply being a decades long friend of a key witness, who has personal animus towards Trump, should be enough to replace Mueller.

a reply to: UKTruth

But I don't think anyone has alleged that trump had anything to do with that (the server hacking).

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: UKTruth

But I don't think anyone has alleged that Trump had anything to do with that (the server hacking).

True - but there was a crime alleged that initiated the SC.

a reply to: UKTruth

But that's not the crime that they've been tasked with investigating. As it stands, they haven't been tasked with investigating a crime.

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: UKTruth

But that's not the crime that they've been tasked with investigating. As it stands, they haven't been tasked with investigating a crime.

Were they not tasked with investigating Russia attempts to influence the election, of which the alleged crime was the hack on the DNC?

a reply to: UKTruth

According to comey that was not a criminal investigation.