Boston Herald

Partisansh­ip a danger with special counsels

- By RICH LOWRY Rich Lowry is editor of National Review. Talk back at letterstoe­ditor@bostonhera­ld.com.

Donald Trump shouldn’t fire Robert Mueller, but Mueller should be the last special counsel.

The Mueller probe just took a Ken Starr turn with its lurch, via the Southern District of New York, into the Stormy Daniels affair.

After the Starr investigat­ion in the 1990s, there was a consensus that we weren’t doing that again, certainly not through the independen­t counsel statute, which lapsed. The law put investigat­ions on a hair trigger and carved out independen­t counsels, executive branch officials, from control of the chief executive in a constituti­onally impermissi­ble way. Endless politicall­y fraught investigat­ions ensued that often exhibited a zeal disproport­ionate to the alleged crime.

It’s too early to render a verdict on Mueller’s work, but he certainly appears to have become a kind of freefloati­ng legal ombudsman.

In response to Trump’s blustery attacks on Mueller, a bipartisan group of lawmakers is calling for legal protection­s against Mueller’s removal that would be an ill-advised step back toward the independen­t counsel statute. Instead, we should be thinking of whether this is the best way to hold presidents accountabl­e in the future. As a practical matter, it’s hard to imagine any administra­tion ever permitting such an investigat­ion to get unloosed again.

Even if Trump is fully vindicated, the probe has exacted a significan­t price, and much of the left considers the Mueller probe a resistance march with subpoena power.

In his famous dissent in the Supreme Court case of Morrison v. Olson upholding the independen­t counsel law in 1988, Antonin Scalia wrote, “Nothing is so politicall­y effective as the ability to charge that one’s opponent and his associates are not merely wrongheade­d, naive, ineffectiv­e, but, in all probabilit­y, ‘crooks.’ And nothing so effectivel­y gives an appearance of validity to such charges as a Justice Department investigat­ion and, even better, prosecutio­n.”

This is why each side celebrates when it can get such an investigat­ion going — and they know it will ramify in unpredicta­ble, harmful ways.

Scalia quoted FDR’s attorney general, Robert Jackson, who warned against prosecutor­s picking a person to investigat­e rather than a crime, lest it become a matter of “searching the law books, or putting investigat­ors to work, to pin some offense on him.”

Now, obviously, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, a Trump appointee, didn’t intend to create such a dynamic (although his initial mandate to Mueller was much too broad). And Trump brought this all on himself with his ham-fisted firing of FBI Director James Comey.

But the trajectory would be maddening for any president. He’s gone from Comey telling him he wasn’t suspected of wrongdoing to his personal lawyer being raided. He’s gone from his deputy attorney general blessing a counterint­elligence investigat­ion into Russian meddling to blessing FBI agents seizing material related to hush payments to a porn star.

Now it very well may be that every step on that path by Mueller was justified legally, the same as Ken Starr’s trajectory from Whitewater to Monica Lewinsky. But the gravitatio­nal pull of such investigat­ions is toward expansion.

By the end, the Starr investigat­ion was a pure partisan fight for power. The same will be true of the Mueller probe, if it isn’t already. This puts the lie to the idea that such investigat­ions can ever be truly above politics.

It’s possible to imagine a different scenario over the past year. Congress could have created an independen­t commission to investigat­e Russia. Career prosecutor­s could have handled the Paul Manafort investigat­ion. The Southern District could have, on its own, taken up the Daniels matter. And if Congress didn’t act or the Trump Justice Department quashed legitimate investigat­ions, Democrats could have used it to build their case for the midterms — and for wielding the subpoena and impeachmen­t power.

This effort wouldn’t have been as centralize­d and fearsome as Mueller’s operation, but it would have been more politicall­y accountabl­e and open.

All this is moot now, of course, but both sides should eventually consider whether they want another Robert Mueller.

 ??  ?? PROBE: The investigat­ion of special counsel Robert Mueller is expanding.
PROBE: The investigat­ion of special counsel Robert Mueller is expanding.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States