Deputy attorney general Rod Rosenstein made one of the worst decisions of the Trump administration when he named Robert Mueller “special counsel” to oversee the investigation of collusion between Donald Trump and Russia in the 2016 election.
I’m not exaggerating. Rosenstein should have known better than to inflict a special counsel on Trump, his presidency, and the entire country. Perhaps he did but just lacked the strength to resist the enormous pressure to rid himself of the collusion case and hand it to an “independent” counsel.
The key word here is “pressure.” Rosenstein isn’t the only one who has come under intense pressure. So has Mueller. He’s expected to find palpable wrongdoing by Trump. If he doesn’t he’ll be pilloried by Democrats, the left, anti-Trump Republicans, the media, and, worst of all, history.
So Mueller’s quest goes on. It seems endless. Mueller is under pressure not to give up, even if he keeps coming up empty-handed, as appears to be happening again and again. This has led him to wander far from his assigned purpose—to Stormy Daniels, Michael Cohen, and a dozen Russian hackers who will never be interrogated, much less extradited. Mueller looks lost.
But there are bigger problems on his plate. That’s what happens when a special counsel is hired to deal with nationally famous cases, especially those involving sitting presidents. Recall what the top guns used to be called: special prosecutors. That was a more honest name we should still use. It makes clear what the Mueller squad’s assignment really is—either drive Trump out of office, or pave the road to impeachment.
Of course, as with all special prosecutors, there’s a lot going on that’s not immediately obvious. But this is. The special prosecutor system is anti-democratic. The Founders would be appalled. Thomas Jefferson would go back to France in protest, and Tom Paine would join him.
What shocked partisan Democrats was Trump’s election in the first place. Democrats began talking up impeachment before Trump had even been sworn in. At the time, evidence was lacking, and the notion of Trump-Russia collusion was merely a partisan fantasy. It still appears to be just that.
Yet impatient Democrats and Trump enemies are itching for a second shot at the president, though roughly 63 million Americans voted for Trump, and 304 electors ratified his victory in the Electoral College. Impeachment efforts are sure to be revved up should Democrats win the House in the midterm election.
Trump may be unique in the hatred he generates among left-of-center Americans. And instant impeachment will in all likelihood never be sought again. But I’m not too sure. Perhaps a precedent is being set: If at first you don’t succeed (the election), try again as soon as you can to oust the presidential candidate who won (special counsel needed here). Don’t dawdle.
Scooter Libby, the victim of an earlier special prosecutor’s machinations, says impeachment wouldn’t be necessary if the investigator put together evidence so powerful it forces the president to resign. Only two people are required: the prosecutor and a witness.
Or maybe the prosecutor alone is sufficient to pull this off. “The deck is stacked,” Libby says. The crux of many prosecutorial decisions is who’s lying and who isn’t. That decision rests solely with the prosecutor. It certainly did in Libby’s case. Special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald indicted him for perjury in a case so attenuated it defies description. Libby was pardoned by President Trump in April.
The consequences of a special counsel’s probe—that is, what’s going on in the real world—are another important unknown. It’s no secret Democrats have a better than even chance of capturing the House in November as Mueller’s investigation stumbles along. If they do prevail, impeachment almost certainly follows.
What we don’t know is how Trump will react. My guess is he’ll fight back furiously. After all, he prides himself on his skill at counterpunching. And Democrats are not good at taking a punch. They’d rather whine. Trump tweets his anger at Democrats and Mueller frequently, but we don’t know how his decision-making will be affected. All the world would like to know.
There are big fish to consider. The North Koreans, for instance. Trump got off to a fast start in his effort to ingratiate himself with the North Korean dictator Kim Jong-un, but things have slowed. Banning nukes won’t happen any time soon. The North Koreans are sensitive to the power equation. Do they sense with Mueller refusing to let up that Trump is in decline and no longer needs to be appeased? I suspect so. And what about the Iranians? Has their calculation of Trump’s prowess changed? We can’t know.
When Libby was under investigation, the prosecutor informed him the real target was Vice President Dick Cheney, not him. Libby was Cheney’s deputy. “The prosecutor wanted me to make something up about Cheney,” Libby says. He refused. And wound up being prosecuted for his courage.
That moment was a critical one in the Iraq war. It came during George W. Bush’s second term, when the war was going poorly. Cheney was a champion of the “surge” to counter Islamic insurgents. The other top national security officials were opposed. Had Libby testified against Cheney, the veep would have been tossed aside, the surge abandoned, and the outcome in Iraq hard to imagine. With Cheney saved, Iraq was too.
Only in the top reaches of the Bush administration was this known. But imagine if the war had been lost thanks to negotiations in a prosecutor’s office. America’s role in the world would be different today and not better.
What’s Rosenstein’s role now? He’s given Mueller a free hand. This hasn’t helped anyone. America is slipping into a civil war, the nonviolent variety. Mueller can’t stop it, but he can make it worse. It’s up to Rosenstein to make sure that doesn’t happen.
