The other, and perhaps primary reason for appointing a special counsel, is to shield witnesses from testifying before the House Oversight Committee. With an "ongoing investigation" they can claim - politically, forever - that they can't be compelled to testify before the House. This will force the House to initiate an "impeachment inquiry" which trumps whatever the DOJ is doing. Of course the DOJ will appeal this and I believe only the SCOTUS can settle such a matter.
While I agree with you on the special counsel, it is at least unseemly for a SC justice to do things which he would not be permitted to do if he was a judge in a lower federal court. Nor should his wife be involved in matters which could come before the court.
There is a lot of smoke as to the propriety of what are being called "gifts," and a lot of gray area. From what I've gathered, he either didn't break rules that were in place at the time, or didn't intentionally do so, and he consulted with other justices on the matter. The rules have changed along the way, as well.
I won't say for sure, and reserve final judgment, but at this point I'm leaning toward these assertions being constructs rather than exposes.
The other, and perhaps primary reason for appointing a special counsel, is to shield witnesses from testifying before the House Oversight Committee. With an "ongoing investigation" they can claim - politically, forever - that they can't be compelled to testify before the House. This will force the House to initiate an "impeachment inquiry" which trumps whatever the DOJ is doing. Of course the DOJ will appeal this and I believe only the SCOTUS can settle such a matter.
Meanwhile, more statutes of limitations will run out.
While I agree with you on the special counsel, it is at least unseemly for a SC justice to do things which he would not be permitted to do if he was a judge in a lower federal court. Nor should his wife be involved in matters which could come before the court.
There is a lot of smoke as to the propriety of what are being called "gifts," and a lot of gray area. From what I've gathered, he either didn't break rules that were in place at the time, or didn't intentionally do so, and he consulted with other justices on the matter. The rules have changed along the way, as well.
I won't say for sure, and reserve final judgment, but at this point I'm leaning toward these assertions being constructs rather than exposes.