See, you bringing up Watergate makes my point. There was no need for a special prosecutor then. We have a unitary executive. Article II is pretty clear on the point. He was free to fire Archibald Cox. The issue was then taken care of by Congress threatening impeachment and Nixon resigning. There was no need for a special prosecutor.
Whitewater was about criminal fraud. You can say it was purely political, but a lot of people did not see it that way. Regardless, it should not have had a special prosecutor. It was up to Congress to investigate if it felt that strongly, not some office with no Constitutional validity.
As for your concerns about Russia, Congress can impeach, the voters can elect a different Congress to do so in the midterms. If Trump runs for re-election the voters can vote for his opponent. The next administration can renew any investigations of criminal wrongdoing. None of it requires a special counsel, because none of it is going anywhere. Breaking the structure of the system is a bigger, longer term problem than is the allegation against one elected and term limited politician.
See, you bringing up Watergate makes my point. There was no need for a special prosecutor then. We have a unitary executive. Article II is pretty clear on the point. He was free to fire Archibald Cox. The issue was then taken care of by Congress threatening impeachment and Nixon resigning. There was no need for a special prosecutor.
It was the evidence that was collected by the special prosecutor that brought everything about. You seem to be leaving that our of your little history lesson. Why is that?
Because the point is that Congress should do its job, or not. Deep throat's leaks in a parking garage in Rosslyn had nothing to do with a special prosecutor. The solution was for the executive and the legislative branches to go to institutional warfare if they believed it was called for. The harm done to the executive function (and frankly, the legislative branch, too) continue to hobble the functioning of the system to this day.
[–] Thisismyvoatusername 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
See, you bringing up Watergate makes my point. There was no need for a special prosecutor then. We have a unitary executive. Article II is pretty clear on the point. He was free to fire Archibald Cox. The issue was then taken care of by Congress threatening impeachment and Nixon resigning. There was no need for a special prosecutor.
Whitewater was about criminal fraud. You can say it was purely political, but a lot of people did not see it that way. Regardless, it should not have had a special prosecutor. It was up to Congress to investigate if it felt that strongly, not some office with no Constitutional validity.
As for your concerns about Russia, Congress can impeach, the voters can elect a different Congress to do so in the midterms. If Trump runs for re-election the voters can vote for his opponent. The next administration can renew any investigations of criminal wrongdoing. None of it requires a special counsel, because none of it is going anywhere. Breaking the structure of the system is a bigger, longer term problem than is the allegation against one elected and term limited politician.
[–] p0ssumsAlt ago
It was the evidence that was collected by the special prosecutor that brought everything about. You seem to be leaving that our of your little history lesson. Why is that?
[–] Thisismyvoatusername ago
Because the point is that Congress should do its job, or not. Deep throat's leaks in a parking garage in Rosslyn had nothing to do with a special prosecutor. The solution was for the executive and the legislative branches to go to institutional warfare if they believed it was called for. The harm done to the executive function (and frankly, the legislative branch, too) continue to hobble the functioning of the system to this day.