IMO, The special counsel law was overhauled in 1999, it is not the same as Nixon time.

[CK_John]

Deputy Atty. Gen. Rod Rosenstein could be ordered to fire Robert S. Mueller III by Trump.

It would bring out the "They can't do that" after they did that crowd but...IMO, Trump would still win an impeachment vote in the House.

The Congress will still praise Mueller but...IMO,They will not give him the staff or budget to do a good job.

We need to start hitting on Pence for his lying I believe he will fold before Trump.

[Foamfollower]

1. WRONG, it is now almost EXACTLY as it was during Watergate.

I suggest you read some modern history.

[CK_John]

3. Almost is like the difference between Play-Doh and a Rubik's Cube..

[Foamfollower]

4. OFFS! HAVE YOU NEVER HEARD OF THE SATURDAY NIGHT MASSACRE?????????

The Special Prosecutor law was put in place as a RESPONSE to Watergate and the firing of Archibald Cox!

Read some fucking history, I lived it.

[CK_John]

5. I was born before the attack on Pearl Harbor.

[jberryhill]

6. What you meant to say was this

The law is not the same as the one that was enacted JUST AFTER Nixon was impeached.

In other words, the way things are now, are pretty much the same as when Nixon was in office.

After Nixon, it was recognized that in cases of executive malfeasance, it would be better to have an independent prosecutor who could not be fired by the president.

The last prosecutor under THAT law was Ken Starr. It included a sunset provision requiring periodic renewal, and was not renewed after Clinton's term of office.

[dumbcat]

11. Uh ....

"The law is not the same as the one that was enacted JUST AFTER Nixon was impeached".

Nixon wasn't impeached.

[jberryhill]

12. lol... right, after he resigned

In any event, the Ethics in Government act, which established that office, was passed in 1978 and expired in 1999.

[Foamfollower]

7. Perhaps some memory exercises are in order.

The Special Prosecutor law, which is no longer in effect, was put into effect as a response to the firing of Archibald Cox, the Special Counsel investigating Watergate. Nixon ordered AG Elliot Richardson to fire Cox. He refused resigned, so Nixon ordered Assistant AG William Ruckelshaus to fire Cox. Ruckelshaus refused and resigned, too. Then the DOJ fell to Solicitor General Robert Bork whom Nixon ordered to fire Cox. Bork complied.

The rest is in the history books, too.

[jberryhill]

13. It was put into effect in 1978

Yes, it was a response to that sequence of events.

No, it was not the law when Nixon was president.

Nor was it the law soon after Nixon was president.

It became the law in 1978, survived the Morrison v. Olson decision upholding its constitutionality, and expired in 1999.

[KingCharlemagne]

8. I lived it too. I think you and the OP are conflating two different statutes. Archibald

Cox and his successor, Leon Jaworski, were Special Prosecutors, reporting within the Justice Department (and therefore the Executive Branch). After Nixon's resignation, Congress passed legislation creating the so-called "Independent Prosecutor" who reported to Congress (the Legislative Branch). It was Independent Counsel(s) Lawrence Walsh who investigated Reagan for Iran-Contra and Kenneth Starr who investigated Bill Clinton for Whitewater.

After Clinton's presidency ended, Congress allowed the "Independent Counsel" statute to expire by not renewing it. So the situation has indeed reverted to something akin to the Nixon presidency before the Saturday Night Massacre. The Justice Department (in the Executive Branch) now appoints a "Special Prosecutor" and there is no such creature as an "Independent Prosecutor."

[True Dough]

2. PBS had an informative article about special prosecutor/special counsel last week

According to legal experts, the next best option for Democrats seeking an outside probe is for the Department of Justice to appoint a “special counsel” — an investigator with less freedom than a “special prosecutor,” and whose investigation could be curtailed or stopped altogether at any time by the Trump administration.

The titles are often used interchangeably, even by members of Congress. But their differences are real and go beyond semantics, a point that has been largely overlooked in the clamor over Trump’s unexpected decision Tuesday to remove Comey from his post as the FBI director.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/special-prosecutor-democrats-want-no-longer-exists/


What perplexes me is why in 1999 the role of special prosecutor expired, only allowing for special counsel?

[former9thward]

9. When the law expired neither party wanted it renewed.

The Special prosecutors' investigations went on without end. Attorney General Reno appointed a special prosecutor to investigate Whitewater in Jan, 1994. The investigation did not end until 2003. And that is just one example of many. It was felt these investigations needed authority over them to keep them on track and come to a conclusion within a reasonable time. So the law allowing for special prosecutors was allowed to expire.

[True Dough]

10. Interesting. Thanks!

I wish they had curtailed special prosecutors' powers in certain ways without eliminating the role.