Special Counsel Appointed: Today's News for May 18th

CNN:

Special counsel appointed in Russia probe

The Justice Department on Wednesday appointed former FBI Director Robert Mueller as special counsel to oversee the federal investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election, including potential collusion between President Donald Trump's campaign associates and Russian officials.

Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein appointed Mueller to the position in a letter obtained by CNN. Attorney General Jeff Sessions previously recused himself from any involvement in the Russia investigation due to his role as a prominent campaign adviser and surrogate.

As special counsel, Mueller is "authorized to prosecute federal crimes arising from the investigation of these matters," according to the Justice Department order Rosenstein signed.

Mueller's appointment aims to quell the wave of criticism that Trump and his administration have faced since Trump fired FBI Director James Comey last week in the middle of the FBI's intensifying investigation into contacts between Trump campaign associates and Russian officials.

In a statement, Trump said an investigation will confirm that "there was no collusion" between his campaign and Russia. 

This story was covered across the political spectrum with surprisingly little bias, although there isn't much that can be said to paint this positively or negatively.

In related news analysis from Fox News attorney Gregg Jarrett...

Fox News:

Comey's revenge is a gun without powder

Three months ago, the then-FBI Director met with President Trump.  Following their private conversation, Comey did what he always does –he wrote a memorandum to himself memorializing the conversation.  Good lawyers do that routinely.

Now, only after Comey was fired, the memo magically surfaces in an inflammatory New York Times report which alleges that Mr. Trump asked Comey to end the Michael Flynn investigation.  

Those who don’t know the first thing about the law immediately began hurling words like “obstruction of justice”, “high crimes and misdemeanors” and “impeachment“.   Typically, these people don’t know what they don’t know.

Here is what we do know.

Under the law, Comey is required to immediately inform the Department of Justice of any attempt to obstruct justice by any person, even the President of the United States.  Failure to do so would result in criminal charges against Comey.  (18 USC 4 and 28 USC 1361)  He would also, upon sufficient proof, lose his license to practice law.

So, if Comey believed Trump attempted to obstruct justice, did he comply with the law by reporting it to the DOJ?  If not, it calls into question whether the events occurred as the Times reported it.

Obstruction requires what’s called “specific intent” to interfere with a criminal case.  If Comey concluded, however, that Trump’s language was vague, ambiguous or elliptical, then he has no duty under the law to report it because it does not rise to the level of specific intent.  Thus, no crime.    

In other words, if Comey says that Trump was trying to obstruct justice, then Comey himself is liable to be prosecuted for being complicit in a conspiracy to obstruct justice. It is a Catch-22 for Comey, so don't be surprised if he downplays any obstruction charges against Trump. On the other hand, if Comey is given immunity from prosecution, expect him to sing from obstruction hymnal.

Speaking of Catch-22's...

Fox News:

Flynn reportedly told Trump team he was under investigation before inauguration

Weeks before President Trump's inauguration, Michael Flynn told the transition team he was under federal investigation for working as a paid lobbyist for Turkey during the campaign, the New York Times reported late Wednesday.

The disclosure by Flynn on Jan. 4 was first made to then-Trump transition team lawyer Donald F. McGahn II, who is now the White House counsel, two people familiar with the case told the newspaper.

Flynn's conversation with the transition team came a month after the Justice Department notified Flynn he was under investigation, according to the Times.  

Most politicians would have spinelessly disconnected themselves from Flynn. This is clearly a case where Trump could have used a bit more political savvy.

But it is an intriguing Catch-22 for anyone in politics: How does a politician remain loyal to someone who is politically toxic to them? There is no easy answer.