Frank Watson: Special Prosecutor

Mr. Mueller’s investigation into Russia’s attempt to influence the 2016 election is getting more and more press lately.

The prosecutor and his team are not actually tasked with finding out if the Russians tried to influence the election.

That is the purview of the FBI. The special prosecutor law limits special investigations to alleged misconduct of federal elected officials while in office.

Thus, Mr. Mueller’s team is investigating whether or not someone in our government worked with the Russians in an alleged attempt to influence our election.

If you are confused, you are not the only one.

Special prosecutors have a long history of ineffectiveness while wasting millions of dollars provided by American taxpayers.

The Mueller investigation continues the trend.

The first special prosecutor was appointed in 1875 to investigate government corruption in the Whiskey Ring Scandal.

The prosecutor went far afield in his attempt to implicate President Grant and was fired for his efforts.

A quiet investigation by the Treasury Department led to the conviction of several officials for tax fraud.

The special prosecutor, however, took all the credit.

Savvy politicians recognized the value of investigating an incumbent for wrongdoing, so other investigations followed in 1881, 1903 and 1905 for various scandals.

President Truman appointed a prosecutor to investigate the IRS in 1952.

This prosecutor also went far afield and was fired; another was appointed and fired.

Does anyone see a trend here? The first Watergate prosecutor was also fired, and his replacement was successful only in getting the Supreme Court to force Nixon to release the tapes of his private conversations.

Two newspaper reporters had already uncovered and published the facts.

Since Watergate, there has been only a few short periods when we have not had a special prosecutor. Scandals appear to be the norm. The Iran Contra prosecutor, during the Reagan administration, found that no laws had been broken but indicted 14 witnesses for failure to fully support the investigation. The investigation into President Clinton’s love life didn’t find anything that Monica didn’t proudly volunteer. The Whitewater investigation into the Clintons’ real estate investments was similarly ineffective in doing anything other than to smear the President.

With that history, what can we reasonably expect from the current investigation? As other prosecutors before him, we can expect Mr. Mueller to expand his investigation beyond his original charter.

The Trump family business dealings prior to 2016 cannot reasonably be part of any collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign.

They are, however, being included in the investigation.

I can’t see how the details of Mr. Trump’s love life can be applicable.

No one has accused him of sleeping with a Russian Agent – yet.

Note that the law limits the investigation to crimes “while in office”.

The Stormy affair, if true, was ten years before the election.

Lastly, it is not clear that any crime has been committed at all.

The President cannot be charged with collusion unless it can be proven that Russian hacking actually happened.

The FBI has been working on that for more than a year and still has no hard evidence that the whole mess is anything more than a rumor.

Mr. Mueller’s team, heavily staffed with anti-Trump zealots, will indict more witnesses for not supporting their investigation, and they will continue to use the power of their investigation to smear the President while wasting millions of dollars that could be better used elsewhere.

(Frank Watson is a retired Air Force Colonel and a long time resident of Eastern Washington. He has been a free lance columnist for over 18 years.)