Attorney General Merrick Garland probably doesn’t need to appoint a special attorney to investigate the discovery a small number of classified documents starting with President Biden’s term as vice president—but his decision will ultimately frustrate Republican efforts to weaponize congressional oversight hearings.
The Department of Justice special counsel regulations require the Attorney General to first determine that “criminal investigation of a person or matter is warranted” before appointing a special counsel— and such a decision seems unwarranted, at least from the facts that have been made public.
Garland also reminded the American public today that he has full confidence the DOJ will be able to investigate any matter independently and with integrity, but this is the second time in less than two months that Garland has only appoint a special counsel.
The truth surrounding Garland’s appointment of Jack Smith to investigate classified Trump documents found at Mar-a-Lago and his relationship to January 6 seems very different from the discovery. a handful of classified documents from President Biden’s former private office (and also at his home in Wilmington, Delaware) that the appointment of Robert Hur to investigate Biden seems unlikely to be justified – at least is from the outside looking in, if it weren’t for the benefit of what Garland might have learned from the preliminary investigation conducted by Trump. prosecutor in custody.
But Garland’s decision could also be influenced by his time as a top DOJ official during Attorney General Janet Reno’s tenure, when another law existed to appoint special counsels – known by law then as Independent Advisors – which expired in 1999.
Recall that Reno eventually appointed seven independent advisers to investigate various officials and cases during the Clinton administration, including the notorious one headed by Ken Starr that spurred the impeachment process. President Clinton.
Under the law that went into effect during Reno’s term, the Attorney General is tasked with a preliminary investigation to determine whether the appointment of an Independent Attorney is necessary. These investigations may be extensive. Preliminary investigation is conducted into the campaign finance law of Vice President Gore there was a possibility of violation requires an appointment with an Independent Attorney and takes thousands of hours.
No such preliminary investigation has been designated under current DOJ regulations, but Garland has appointed Trump’s current US Attorney – John Lausch – to conduct a preliminary investigation. and cited Lausch’s recommendation as the basis for his decision to appoint a special counsel to investigate the actions of a sitting President.
Ironically, the Clinton-era law was supported by President Clinton – and initially supported by Reno – because Clinton believed it would be “the foundation of trust between our Government and our citizens.” He refute the notion that the law was “a tool of partisan attack…and a waste of taxpayers’ money”—words that Clinton no doubt regretted later in her presidency.
AG Reno eventually withdrew its support for the legislation, testify before Congress that the law has been destroyed by being “plunged into the political process”.
Two consecutive decisions to appoint AG Garland special counsel must be considered in the context of his formative experience at the Clinton-era DOJ under Reno, who was the sole attorney general during the Clinton presidency. . Garland must have seen both the heady idealism underlying the old law, as well as how it would go astray when used by partisan figures like Ken Starr.
Then as now, Republican members of Congress have sought to attack the Democratic administration, calling the failure to prosecute issues such as Vice President Gore’s fundraising actions a “cover-up.” and called on Congress to investigate.
But the corps of Independent Lawyers during the Clinton era also served as a bulwark against partisan abuses of congressional oversight, because investigations shielded his work. prosecutors before Congress.
Certainly, Garland’s decision to appoint a special counsel to investigate the matter of Biden’s documents may be conjectured by those of us who are unaware of what the preliminary investigation reveals. . And many will rightly criticize the parallels this establishes between Trump’s actions and Biden’s actions. But what is indisputable is that by appointing a special counsel, Garland provided the best possible protection from partisan use of weaponization of Congressional investigations that the House of Representatives promised by the Republican Party.
The newly created Select Committee under the House Judiciary Committee will endeavor to “supervise”—read: interfere in—ongoing criminal investigations that are impeded by the existence of a criminal investigation. Ongoing investigation of Special Counsel as regulated by DOJ historical resistance to talk about active investigations.
Grand jury work – often part of almost any criminal investigation – will provide extra protection because it is governed by secrecy rules that prevent the government from talking about matters in advance. there.
Conversely, if Garland had simply exercised his powers and determined that no special counsel’s criminal investigation was warranted, the House Republican investigations would be devastating. greater leverage, as they will seek to investigate a closed matter.
Those House members will now be left with only such legitimate oversight questions, such as whether documents are properly classified and how up-to-date the National Security apparatus is in track the vast amount of classified information it generates. Important questions to be sure, but hardly appealing to a Republican House of Representatives more concerned with accusations than governance.
