The power of Muller's Independent Special Council - An unelected position has most power in gov

With Trump claiming that this is a witch hunt (yet to be proven), it is clear that this unelected position is one of the most powerful, if not most powerful position in the country. It seems very odd that a person who holds so much power can just be appointed, which is what totalitarian regimes do. There have been the same complaints just about every time a special council has been convened. I'm wondering what other people think of this, if it is the best way to deal with these situations, or if there might be a better way to handle cases such as this.

Other extremely powerful positions, (unelected as well) are director's of the CIA, FBI, NSA (NRO maybe) and other government agencies. I guess this falls to the power of the president to appoint/fire people in these positions, but if there is a council investigating the Pres,it really makes it difficult for the Pres to do as he wants with regards to those positions b/c it can seem as if he is interfering even if that is not his intention at all.

It is clear that Muller has overstepped the scope of his investigation, IMO, just as previous special councils have in the past. It makes it VERY difficult for an admin to do what they were elected to do and it does seem more like a political tool/weapon in this case.

Anyone have any ideas on a better way to handle these situations instead of a SC? Has there been any discussion on the networks about this and have there been any others saying the same thing and or offering alternatives?

Anyone have any ideas on a better way to handle these situations instead of a SC?

It would help if people didn’t make up bullcrap to investigate in the first place. Also, you are right that the investigations make it difficult to move forward with what an administration was elected to do. That was why Democrats made these bogus claims in the first place...to impede an elected President.

a reply to: DigginFoTroof

Back in the old days, 1978-1999, we had a thing called the U.S. Office of Independent Counsel, tasked with investigating government officials. It's found in Title VI of Ethics in Government Act of 1978.

a reply to: DigginFoTroof

The same people who call ObamaCare a success, will label Mueller's indictment of 31 people on charges un-related to Russia Collusion, as a successful endeavor. (It wasn't)

a reply to: DigginFoTroof

The crimes that have been committed at the highest
levels by the last administration appointees make Nixon
look like an amateur.

It was an unlawful attempt to overthrow The United States of America.
Think about that for a moment.
Think about that for the rest of your life.
Think about what they were planning to replace it with.
Or did they even think to plan that far ahead?
S&F
The open ended Mueller effort was created to distract
and cover. Mueller himself is compromised.

a reply to: pthena

So what happened in 1999?
What happened to
The U.S. Office of Independent Counsel,
Title VI of Ethics in Government Act of 1978?

I could search, but I would rather hear it
from the horses mouth.

a reply to: DigginFoTroof

Usually a special counsel is appointed to investigate a crime, not a person. And they should stay within their mandate.

a reply to: Metallicus

I think it should be a new rule, that investigations that prove fruitless, should be passed on to the accuser. In other words, the ones that lead such a witch hunt should reap the consequences of what they are accusing.

The leaders of false accusations should be burned at the stake, in the public square.

Let's start with Hilary and that hag that accused Kavanaugh of touching her covered boob.

a reply to: SourGrapes

Well they treated the SC Ken Starr like a dog for pursuing White water and the Arkanicide investigation. All we got was "right wing conspiracy". I call BS we had people lying dead from double bullet wounds to the back of their head and NO BLOOD in one case being called "suicide". Yea Arkanicide is a new type of suicide that would come from being too close to the Clinton's and knowing of their perversions.

ETA

The question we should ask is did Starr choose to let it all go so he could live or to save some family member? The facts are, ruthless people do evil things and the smoke the comes from the fire in Clinton land is smothering more than smoldering.

I think you're confused. I think you meant to type: Supreme Court Justices - An unelected position has most power in gov.

Of course no one cares if the Supreme Court is loaded with Justices that are on their side.

a reply to: Metallicus


Democrats had nothing to do with it. The top cops were worried by what they were seeing. . You'd help your cause if you didnt start with a lie and then try to build a case out of it.

a reply to: carewemust

It wasnt to you because i t didnt prove your boy is innocent. And they are not done yet but I guess y'all need to be told that for the eighty eighth time too.

a reply to: ltdan08

And why do you think it was any different this time?

I think the truth is that if mueller was appointed to go after trump then it would be unconstitutional. I think they get away with it by saying that mueller is going after the trump campaign.

a reply to: Justoneman

Never happened. Just another stupid conspiracy theory with no basis in truth.

originally posted by: DigginFoTroof


Other extremely powerful positions, (unelected as well) are director's of the CIA, FBI, NSA (NRO maybe) and other government agencies. I guess this falls to the power of the president to appoint/fire people in these positions, but if there is a council investigating the Pres,it really makes it difficult for the Pres to do as he wants with regards to those positions b/c it can seem as if he is interfering even if that is not his intention at all.

Depends on the position. Most (not all) political appointees are appointed to terms that expire upon the election of a new President. Obviously, the new President could opt to keep some on, but it rare;y happens.

a reply to: Wildmanimal

I would rather hear it from the horses mouth

What's the meaning of the phrase 'Straight from the horse's mouth'?

From the highest authority.

What's the origin of the phrase 'Straight from the horse's mouth'?

In horse racing circles tips on which horse is a likely winner circulate amongst punters. The most trusted authorities are considered to be those in closest touch with the recent form of the horse, that is, stable lads, trainers etc. The notional 'from the horse's mouth' is supposed to indicate one step better than even that inner circle, that is, the horse itself.

www.phrases.org.uk...

It took me a while, but I found an interview with Samuel Dash, the former chief counsel to the Senate Watergate Committee, considered the "father of the independent counsel law."

Describe for me the constitutional place, if you will, of the independent counsel. The founding fathers provided for an executive branch, headed by the president, and for a legislative branch and for a judicial branch, but I haven't seen any mention in the Constitution of something called a special prosecutor or an independent counsel. So where does it fit in?

Well, it fits into our concept of checks and balances. And Madison, for instance, one of the founders for the Constitution and our Bill of Rights said something very interesting that has lasted through time. He said, "If men were angels, we wouldn't need government or checks and balances, but we're not angels." And he really supported certain discrete types of institutions that are born from time to time to carry out the concept of keeping government honest. The concept of an independent counsel, specially recommended by the Attorney General and appointed by a court, became necessary in the history of our country when it became clear that a president like Richard Nixon, being investigated by a special prosecutor, had the power to fire that special prosecutor, not on any cause or merit, but because that special prosecutor was getting close to home in proving the president's guilt.

And it occurred to us in Congress - I was chief counsel of the Senate Watergate Committee - that there is something wrong with that system, that we could never continue... to give the power to fire the prosecutor to the president, particularly when he is being investigated.

And we came up with this auxiliary procedure that Madison spoke about, a specially appointed independent counsel, recommended by the Attorney General and appointed by the court. The issue of constitutionality, as to whether that could fit within our Constitution, came up before the Supreme Court in the Morrison case. There, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of this statute on the ground that it didn't take away from the executive branch the essential power of prosecution, since it gave to the Attorney General two important powers: the power to determine that there is need for such an independent counsel, and ultimately the power to fire the independent counsel for cause. Therefore, this was a perfectly valid constitutional officer.
www.pbs.org...

This interview was part of a PBS Frontline report written in May 1998. The independent counsel statute expired on June 30, 1999.
A Brief History of the Independent Counsel Law

a reply to: usernameconspiracy

Very Well Done.
Thank You.
Your efforts to history and clarity
give credence and merit to the
flow of respectability here at ATS.