Opinion

How To Stop A Wayward Special Counsel

Denizens of the anti-Trump confederacy see Special Counsel Robert Mueller as their best hope to accomplish what Mark Levin has aptly described as a “coup.”  The insurrection community has been persuaded by its organizers that Mueller can undo the election, and even avenge the terrible Trump, who cast them into a fiery lake of pain and despair.  If not by impeachment, then by successive hailstorms of harassment and headlines, with insoluble dark clouds of suspicion, the insurgents seek to enervate and cripple the president.

Let’s suppose Mueller, and the Deputy Attorney General who appointed him, Rod Rosenstein, are motivated by the same objectives as the febrile proponents of the self-described “resistance.”  Suppose they’re pursuing what the president has called “a total fabrication,” a stratagem to wreck his administration, and usurp the sovereignty of the people who elected him.

Is there a way to stop them?

I believe there is. But not with any remedy publicly advocated to date.

Demands for Mueller’s resignation, for example, will continue to fall on deaf ears.  To the extent the investigation is proceeding for improper purposes, not all the elocution of Cicero, not all the syllogisms of Socrates, in the absence of leverage, will ever persuade him to resign.

Of course, as Rep. Trent Franks (R. AZ) pointed out, applicable law requires him to resign. But again we’re assuming he subordinates the law to the cause of the insurgence and self-interest. A federal regulation without teeth, therefore, is inconsequential.

Similarly, continued calls for Rosenstein to rein in Mueller’s jurisdiction will be unavailing.  Under our assumptions, the Deputy AG will stubbornly stand by his appointment.  He won’t eliminate its brazenly anti-Trump bias, as he should for reasons I’ve explained in MayJune, and July.

In sum, stopping this wayward special counsel begins with our recognizing that pleas based on reason, facts, and the rule of law will have no impact, insofar as the investigation’s purpose is unrelated to reason, facts, or the rule of law.

The special counsel is rather like a guided missile pre-programmed to seek out and destroy target Trump. Now, with the impanelling of a grand jury, the first stage boosters have fallen away. The diabolical weapon is on its way to the oval office. It will continue on its current trajectory, unless it can be disrupted.

But disrupted how?

Influencing the missile’s course is possible, but only if the Attorney General has first granted the July 27 request of the House Judiciary Committee to appoint a second special counsel.

In that request, Republican members of the Committee’s describe actual evidence of crimes by the Obama administration.  It details fourteen distinct matters, including: unlawful spying, unmasking and leaking for political purposes; obstruction of justice; perjury; mishandling of classified information.  The suspects likely include Barak Obama, Bill and Hillary Clinton, Loretta Lynch, James Comey, and other prominent officials.

The second special counsel would promptly pursue the matters described, and, as warranted by evidence, indict and prosecute the defendants to the extent allowed by law.

As in many prosecutions, the second special counsel could enter into plea bargains to drop or modify charges against individual defendants if doing so better served the people and the interests of justice.  Prosecutors have tremendously broad discretion to drop or reduce charges or not pursue them at all.

Suppose the second special counsel were presented with a proposal to forego prosecution or reduce charges, in exchange for Mueller’s agreement to cease the absurd Russo-Trump investigation or confine it to reasonable parameters.

Under our hypothetical, Mueller would have an incentive to negotiate such terms.

The high-profile defendants of the second investigation, powerbrokers, figureheads, and organizers of the anti-Trump movement, belong to the big government establishment directly threatened by President Trump. They know he was serious when he promised in his inauguration speech to transfer power from their Washington coterie back to the people. One of them, Mueller’s comrade Comey, by his own leaks of an alleged FBI memo, and by Rosenstein’s quotation of his selective disclosures in the appointment order, was heavily involved in the programming of the weaponized special counsel.

Assuming Mueller also believes statist ideology and his own interests trump the rule of law, the course of his errant investigation is subject to the influence of these individuals.

Their power and public image is vital to the “resistance.”  If they could be spared the punishment they deserve, the anti-Trump movement would benefit.  Although the bargain would entail calling off Mueller’s outrageous incursions into Trump’s finances and family, it would also set these prime agitators free to orchestrate other subversive efforts on another day.

As for the second investigation, the prosecutor may determine justice and the broader national interest are best served by foregoing the bona fide prosecution of a handful of wrongdoers. The benefit in return would be to bring to an end the spurious inquest that frustrates the will of the electorate, and imperils the constitutional guarantee of representative self-governance.

If, contrary to reports, Mueller is operating without ulterior political objectives and is administering the law fairly, the second special counsel’s investigation likely won’t have leverage over the Russo-Trump matter.  But in that event, the people could have greater confidence in a just outcome. Prosecution of the second investigation would continue to consummationanswering the call, if warranted by evidence,to “lock them up.”