Manafort decision

[Belsnickel]

(08-21-2018, 07:31 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I suppose it's a case of going where the evidence leads; however, I think he is referring to the impetus of the probe in relationship to the charges.

I personally have no issues with discovering something else when looking for another thing; but I thought may liberals weren't really a fan of this. Of course I could be off track. 

I knew what you were referencing with this post, but my memories of the Clinton years aren't great because I was in grade school and not paying attention to any of it. Today, I got a little more insight into what's going on with the special counsel situation. I know some people will sneer at this as it's from the NY Times, but this is The Daily podcast and they did a discussion today about how the independent counsel was used, how it shifted to the special counsel rules, and how the special counsel is intended to be different.

It was interesting to hear about how after Nixon, there was a recognition that an investigator not beholden to the POTUS was necessary. So the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 was passed and ended up creating the Office of Independent Counsel (what it was eventually renamed to 9 years later). What followed was essentially a fourth branch of government that had zero oversight. Because of this, in 1999, OIC became OSC with new rules. This episode discusses this transition and the rules Mueller is working under. As the first SC to investigate a sitting POTUS under these new rules, this is really the first test of these rules that has more oversight from the DoJ, but also has certain mechanisms in place in case there is an effort by the Executive to hinder the investigation and its outcomes.

It was definitely an interesting listen and I learned a lot about how this all works, especially as someone who hasn't been paying attention to politics long enough to have any idea what the OIC was really like.