A lot of people are under the impression that the current special counsel led by Robert Mueller, is going to issue a report to the Congress, as Ken Starr did during his investigation into the Lewinsky affair.
First, it must be outlined that though both Mueller and Starr are special prosecutors, they are under different regulations and obligations. Starr was running out of the Office of the Independent Counsel (OIC), which was an office devoted to investigating the executive branch on behalf of the Congress. The OIC had the authority to make recommendations as to what were impeachable offenses by a president or other DOJ officials, and report directly to Congress upon their findings.
This same counsel also was overseen by a DC court of appeals judges, whom could overrule any dismissal by the acting AG. This was done in order to prevent unchecked 'Saturday Night Masscares' by a president or his men, but in Clinton's case it led to a fishing expedition, as the panel of judges were Reagan appointed neoconservatives like Dave Sentelle (who also overturned the convictions of North and Poindexter), which condoned Starr expanding his probe far beyond it's mandate.
FYI: Meet the judge who gives Ken Starr everything he wants. | Local News | montereycountyweekly.com
Had Reno dismissed Starr, it would have been overruled, as the judges adored Starr.
Robert Mueller is under no such regulations. He is under the Special Counsel (OSC) regulations, which are an office at the DOJ. It is not his job to determine what is an impeachable offense, or deem actions by the president to be criminal like Starr did. Instead the report is likely to be a criticism of the ethics of the WH, with references to certain actions being improper, unethical, impeding, etc. It's doubtful we'll see any of the presidents actions deemed 'obstruction of justice', or see Mueller make any recommendations.
It will be up to the Congress to interpret Mueller's findings, and under Republican leadership it's doubtful that the presidents ally's will take issue with any of his actions -- lets be real right now.
First, it must be outlined that though both Mueller and Starr are special prosecutors, they are under different regulations and obligations. Starr was running out of the Office of the Independent Counsel (OIC), which was an office devoted to investigating the executive branch on behalf of the Congress. The OIC had the authority to make recommendations as to what were impeachable offenses by a president or other DOJ officials, and report directly to Congress upon their findings.
This same counsel also was overseen by a DC court of appeals judges, whom could overrule any dismissal by the acting AG. This was done in order to prevent unchecked 'Saturday Night Masscares' by a president or his men, but in Clinton's case it led to a fishing expedition, as the panel of judges were Reagan appointed neoconservatives like Dave Sentelle (who also overturned the convictions of North and Poindexter), which condoned Starr expanding his probe far beyond it's mandate.
FYI: Meet the judge who gives Ken Starr everything he wants. | Local News | montereycountyweekly.com
Had Reno dismissed Starr, it would have been overruled, as the judges adored Starr.
Robert Mueller is under no such regulations. He is under the Special Counsel (OSC) regulations, which are an office at the DOJ. It is not his job to determine what is an impeachable offense, or deem actions by the president to be criminal like Starr did. Instead the report is likely to be a criticism of the ethics of the WH, with references to certain actions being improper, unethical, impeding, etc. It's doubtful we'll see any of the presidents actions deemed 'obstruction of justice', or see Mueller make any recommendations.
It will be up to the Congress to interpret Mueller's findings, and under Republican leadership it's doubtful that the presidents ally's will take issue with any of his actions -- lets be real right now.