Why would automatic special counsels be bad?

Post Reply New Topic

I believe this is the first time in U.S. history when a special counsel was enacted simultaneously with the beginning of a presidency. While my understanding is that the Mueller probe was given virtually unlimited parameters leaving "no stone un-turned" and seeking information many years prior to the 2016 election.

Question: As a general course of action, what would be wrong with automatically enacting a special counsel to coincide with any future president's presidency and if information was found that would result in law makers and the general public at large believing the president was not fit to serve, then impeach or take measures to remove said president from office? Every president in the future would be investigated by a special counsel while in office. Why not?

"That would be crazy." "That's just stupid." "Get real." "No one would be fit to be president because everyone has "skeletons in their closet"." "Then no one would WANT to be president." "But, but, Trump did bad stuff. You're saying enact a special counsel automatically if a new president isn't suspected of any wrongdoing? That's dumb." blah, blah blah.

Think of it this way:

You're an employer (the American people). You interview someone to work for you and hire them (elect one person as president over another). They assure you they are qualified and that they are honest and fit to work for you. You don't have time to fully vet them and you rely on a large amount of trust. The position they will hold requires, among other things that they were not criminally charged or engaged in criminal activity in the past. Through investigation you're able to do after they start working for you (special counsel) you find out they WERE engaged in criminal activity in the past or were convicted of a crime a long time ago. Knowing that information, you choose to fire them after they've been working for you for a period of time.

I'd like to hear reasons from people as to why an automatic special counsel would be a bad thing.

If there isn't evidence of wrongdoing, then hiring a lawyer to investigate every aspect of the President's life in case it turns up any serious wrongdoing would be very expensive, and would divert resources away from elsewhere. You could argue that it's justified in the case of the President, but it would seem wholly unnecessary. Much better to be reactive and appoint them when there is evidence of wrongdoing, as in the Muller case.

I think you have a valid point. The financial aspect. I wonder though, if it were up to the American public to be able to decide if an automatic counsel coinciding with every presidency to root out any dishonest, nefarious or criminal individual holding the highest office in the land, regardless of a particular president's political affiliation wouldn't be considered by many to be money well spent.

I for one thing it would be money well spent. Far more reasonable and logical than a myriad of over-spending and frivolous spending by the federal government.

I think this, especially if the Mueller Counsel ends of "casting a net" far wider that "collusion" with Russia and comes up with some issue unrelated to the original reason the counsel was enacted in the first place. That to me would prove the worth of an automatic special counsel for all future presidents.