Now that President Trump has fired FBI Director James Comey, and is soon to name a replacement, Democrats are calling for a special prosecutor to investigate Russian meddling in the 2016 election. And we all know what that really means: Taking down Trump.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer is also vowing that Democrats might withhold their votes on the nomination of a new director until a special prosecutor is named. They seem to think a deal can be struck.
“To have that special prosecutor, people would breathe a sigh of relief because then there would be a real independent person overlooking the FBI director,” Senator Schumer told CNN Sunday morning.
Note the zeal of Democrats seeking to investigate Trump, yet there has been no call for an investigation of Hillary Clinton’s email scandal or her cesspool of a foundation, which, incidentally, had well documented ties to Russia, particularly the uranium deal that netted personal wealth for Bill and Hillary, while their foundation reaped millions. Nothing to see here, say Democrats.
But should we ever consider a special prosecutor, given what has happened in the past? Would it really be a “real independent person overlooking” this volatile issue?
As Jonathan S. Tobin recently wrote in National Review, we should “say no” to a special prosecutor for “history shows they overreach.”
Special prosecutors are rarely interested in giving the public the information that their efforts were supposed to produce. That’s why the Obama administration steadfastly refused to appoint a single such prosecutor during their eight years in office…. Obama knew that setting a prosecutor with unlimited power loose on his government would ultimately create, fairly or unfairly, some Democratic casualties, and he wanted no part of it.
What the country needs is answers about Trump and Russia, not a probe that will last for years and probably never do much to resolve the public’s questions about the 2016 election. The Democrats are dreaming of a new Jaworski who will force Trump from office, but we’d be more likely to get mere indictments of midlevel Trump officials on technicalities that had nothing to do with Russia.
No matter how scrupulous the efforts of the FBI and Congress to investigate Russia’s misdeeds, we all know that nothing short of Trump’s head on a metaphorical spike will satisfy Trump’s critics. If a bipartisan effort to deal with this issue is necessary, let it be a commission like the one that deal with 9/11. A special prosecutor would encourage Democratic fantasies but do nothing to get to the bottom of an issue that might not involve the wrongdoing that Trump’s critics already take as self-evident fact.
Another reason we should reject a special or independent prosecutor is because it is the duty of Congress to investigate executive wrongdoing, not to pass such an important job off to others. Remember it was Sam Ervin’s Senate Watergate Committee that really got to the bottom of what Nixon had done.
But other than the possibility of a deal with Trump, why would Democrats oppose a new FBI director, given the well established fact that they wanted Comey’s head on a platter just months ago? Do they fear a new, more aggressive, less political, director would bring charges against Hillary?
Given these facts perhaps Trump should go on the offensive. Since there seems to be zero collusion between the President and Russia (and we can only assume there is none), and that Democrats cannot name a single person involved in the “scandal,” perhaps Trump should meet with Schumer and Pelosi and strike one of his infamous deals – he will name a special prosecutor to investigate Russian meddling in our presidential election in exchange for a special prosecutor with full powers to explore every facet of Hillary Clinton, her emails, and her “foundation.”
Then sit back and watch them squirm.