Spicer: Special prosecutor? For what?

Spread the love

Loading

Ed Morrissey:

“For what?” is the proper response to calls for special prosecutors in most instances. In this case, though, Sean Spicer might have more literal grounds for asking the question. When ABC’s Jon Karl asks about appointing an independent investigator into rumors of connections and coordination between the Trump campaign and Russian intelligence, Spicer reminds everyone that the FBI has been probing this for months already, under two different administrations, and have found bupkis so far:

“A special prosecutor for what? We have now for six months seen story after story about unnamed sources saying the same thing over and over again and nothing’s come of it,” Spicer said. “At what point, you have to ask  yourself ‘what are you investigating?’”

“If there’s nothing further to investigate, what are you asking people to investigate?” Spicer continued. “At some point you have to ask, what are you looking for?…How many people have to say there’s nothing there before you realize there’s nothing there?”

The sudden media interest in a special prosecutor for potential executive-branch misdeeds seems rather curious, to say the least. Over the last two-plus years, we had a former Secretary of State running for the presidency shown to have operated a secret e-mail system that confounded the Federal Records Act and contradicted the State Department numerous FOIA lawsuits — and mishandled hundreds of pieces of highly classified information to boot. We didn’t get too many inquiries to the White House about special prosecutors in that case, at least not until the Attorney General took a private meeting with the spouse of the perpetrator, and even then the idea didn’t generate as much interest as we see now.

Special prosecutors are last resorts, even if arguably that’s where we were at when Loretta Lynch refused to recuse herself fully after her tarmac tête-à-tête with Bill Clinton in June of last year. That case had clear reasons to believe a crime had been committed, based on the release of the e-mails and the misrepresentations to Congress and various courts about the status of Hillary Clinton’s e-mail. So far, there’s no reason to believe that the Trump campaign violated the law, even if one could establish that they were less than careful about their contacts during the campaign.

Rand Paul told Salem radio host Mike Gallagher that everyone needs to calm themselves on the question. These demands are a show of “hysteria” based on nothing, at least so far, Paul says:

“I’d probably take a step back and you know, talk about what we’re actually investigating here,” Paul said on “The Mike Gallagher Show” Monday.

“I wouldn’t really want a special investigator if all we’re hearing is gossip in the media and nobody’s presented any proof that there have been connections or that any law has been broken, for that matter,” he added.

“So I think before people jump to sort of the hysteria of a special prosecutor, why don’t we have somebody present evidence of some sort of wrongdoing before we go forward?” …

“That’s why I’ve been arguing that we shouldn’t politicize this thing, Republican or Democrat. We don’t need a political discussion of this. Law enforcement ought to look at what happened.”

The FBI investigation is still under way, so it’s not over until James Comey sings, so to speak. At this point, though, almost five months after the election, there seems to be very little of substance emerging from this leak-filled administration on potential wrongdoing.

Read more

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of

3 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

The Demac-RATS are out of power and trying to steal this nation for their own corupt party of feinds,scoundrels and cads

Those on the left(greg) are not intelligent enough to know when it is appropriate and not.

The left, is, as usual, starting with a goal and trying to work their way backwards to a means. (Yes, I used “left” and “work” in the same sentence. So sue me!)
The goal? Impeachment.
The means? Whatever they can imagine, imply, or manufacture.