Why won't Dana Boente appoint a special prosecutor?

[Juliusseizure]

Now that we have more than circumstantial evidence of collusion (Schiff), the FBI opened a criminal investigation last July, and Representive Mike Quigley (intelligence committee member) said on Chris Matthews today there was probable cause to believe collusion took place, the question remains....

What is preventing acting deputy attorney general Boente from appointing a special prosecutor? I have no idea.

Here are the 3 requirements he needs to meet:

1. The attorney general (or acting attorney general) must determine that "criminal investigation of a person or matter is warranted," and

Ya think?

2. That investigation or prosecution by a local US attorney's office or division of the Justice Department "would present a conflict of interest for the department or other extraordinary circumstances,"

- there are just Trump appointees left. Most everyone else is fired.

3. That "it would be in the public interest to appoint an outside special counsel to assume responsibility for the matter."

Yes.

It just seems bizarre. Its like democrats just aren't interested or have caved somehow.

[pat_k]

1. he may be a career civil servant considered 'non-partisan"..

... but he signed off on DTs unconstitutional travel ban after DT fired Yates for refusing.

It's sort of like the "Saturday night massacre," when Elliot Richardson, and then Wm Ruckelshaus resigned because they refused to carryout Nixon's order to fire Archibald Cox. Ultimately, Robert Bork did the dirty deed, showing his true colors.

Well, when Boente signed that executive order, I think he showed his true colors too.

[Juliusseizure]

2. Article suggests risks

So I did a google search and based on this article I think I know why dems are not actively pursuing it yet.

The article says a special prosecutor works in secret and may not find evidence sufficient to prosecute for a crime.

Dems don't want to take chances and want their initial investigation open to the public, so the public is aware of any damning information, and to try to make sure in advance a special prosecutor will have evidence to convict.

That's how I read it.

https://www.google.com.mx/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/03/03/the-flawed-record-of-special-prosecutors-who-create-as-much-controversy-as-they-resolve/

[pat_k]

3. Makes sense

[alwaysinflux]

4. Obama removed Boente ...

"Seven days before he left office, President Obama changed the order of succession without explanation to remove Boente from the list. Obama's order had listed U.S. attorneys in the District of Columbia, the Northern District of Illinois and the Central District of California."

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/02/10/trump-executive-order-obama-justice-department-succession/97752898/

Maybe he knew Boente wouldn't act in the best interest of our country. One of a Trumps first EOs was to restore Boente in the order of succession - and here we are.

[Juliusseizure]

5. Agree that's suspect

Obama never explained that move but I trust it was very well informed.

For what it's worth, in a separate group page I'm in, a lawyer who worked in the justice department called him a straight shooter and non-partisan.

What's most revealing is that dems have applied no pressure on him yet. Based on the article and interviews I've with Senator Warren, etc. they're reluctant to have one appointed right now. Keep in mind Patrick Fitzgerald could only find evidence to prosecute Scooter Libby when it was Cheney who they wanted.