Interesting article from the Atlantic. It reviews that vastly different approaches that Mueller and Comey used to investigate potential crimes by the executive branch. (Mueller's investigation of Trump, Comey's investigation of Hillary). The only common thread between them is that no one was satisfied by the investigation.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archiv...yptr=yahoo

I would add that Kenneth Starr represents a 3rd approach. Just like the other two, no one was satisfied with the outcome.

So what do we do? We are a nation of laws and we can't ignore lawbreaking by the President or the Cabinet. How should the executive branch be investigated?

(06-05-2019 09:30 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  Interesting article from the Atlantic. It reviews that vastly different approaches that Mueller and Comey used to investigate potential crimes by the executive branch. (Mueller's investigation of Trump, Comey's investigation of Hillary). The only common thread between them is that no one was satisfied by the investigation.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archiv...yptr=yahoo

I would add that Kenneth Starr represents a 3rd approach. Just like the other two, no one was satisfied with the outcome.

So what do we do? We are a nation of laws and we can't ignore lawbreaking by the President or the Cabinet. How should the executive branch be investigated?

Complicated questions, to be sure. I’m personally not sure of all the answers.

I do want to clarify, though, that Mueller was appointed by a DOJ appointee and was directly accountable to the Attorney General. That is why Mueller’s report was submitted to Barr and why it is within Barr’s discretion to release all, most, part, or none of Mueller’s report. Because of the intense political power of this case, of course, Barr really did “have to” release as much of it as possible, as quickly as possible.

With Kenneth Starr’s investigation, he was appointed by federal judges, and carried out his responsibilities under an entirely different statute. He was legally required to submit a report of some kind directly to Congress, and he did so.

So it’s really not an apples-to-apples comparison.

(06-05-2019 12:36 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(06-05-2019 09:30 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  Interesting article from the Atlantic. It reviews that vastly different approaches that Mueller and Comey used to investigate potential crimes by the executive branch. (Mueller's investigation of Trump, Comey's investigation of Hillary). The only common thread between them is that no one was satisfied by the investigation.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archiv...yptr=yahoo

I would add that Kenneth Starr represents a 3rd approach. Just like the other two, no one was satisfied with the outcome.

So what do we do? We are a nation of laws and we can't ignore lawbreaking by the President or the Cabinet. How should the executive branch be investigated?

Complicated questions, to be sure. I’m personally not sure of all the answers.

I do want to clarify, though, that Mueller was appointed by a DOJ appointee and was directly accountable to the Attorney General. That is why Mueller’s report was submitted to Barr and why it is within Barr’s discretion to release all, most, part, or none of Mueller’s report. Because of the intense political power of this case, of course, Barr really did “have to” release as much of it as possible, as quickly as possible.

With Kenneth Starr’s investigation, he was appointed by federal judges, and carried out his responsibilities under an entirely different statute. He was legally required to submit a report of some kind directly to Congress, and he did so.

So it’s really not an apples-to-apples comparison.

That's exactly the point! They were all 3 done in very different ways, and no one was satisfied with any of them.

Federal judges initiated the investigation of Bill Clinton. Starr had to submit a report to Congress.

The FBI Director instigated the investigation of Hillary Clinton at the request of the State Department's and the Intelligence Committee's Inspectors General. Nothing had to be publicly released, and all that was released was a botched press conference and a letter to Congress when more evidence became available.

The Attorney General appointed Mueller to investigate Donald Trump. The report was meant for the Attorney General alone, but most of it was released to the public.