,
15 tweets,
5 min read
Read on Twitter
1/ Prof @MichaelRapp offers several proposals to reform the special counsel. He observes that there are two different models for the special counsel. lawliberty.org/2019/06/07/ref…
2/ The current regulations follow the "Criminal Prosecution" model - the SC has to decide "whether to prosecute or not." A binary choice. If "no criminal prosecution was warranted, he would simply announce the fact, without any other explanation." That means no report. 
3/ Mueller, regrettably, did not follow this model. I am still not persuaded that the bar on presidential indictment prevent him from deciding whether the President should be prosecuted. See also @Lawyerbobbauer lawfareblog.com/reflections-ro…
4/ Rather, Mueller wrote his report for public consumption. Indeed, his letter to Barr (not a phone call) made express reference to "congressional and public questions." This letter was designed to see the light of day, and protect his confidential report lawfareblog.com/special-counse…
5/ Instead, Mueller followed the Accountability Model, where "the SC [acts] as an institution necessary to determine what actions were taken by high executive officials." Here, the SC "release[d] a report to the public that would indicate what actions he believes occurred."
6/ How should the process be modified? @MichaelRapp suggests that the DOJ should "cut back on the Criminal Prosecution Model and to reform the Accountability Model." I agree. The Criminal Prosecution model "should be greatly de-emphasized."
7/ Critically, untethering the special counsel from criminal prosecution would have an important consequence: the SC could promptly resolve the "original mater" that justified his appointment, rather than stringing that case along to investigate subsequent process crimes.
8/ For example, the SC concluded that Scooter Libby did not release information about Valerie Plame, but then engaged in a lengthy investigation concerning perjury.
9/ Likewise, Mueller quickly concluded that there was no criminal conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia, but then engaged in a two-year investigation about obstruction.
10/ The decision to withhold findings on Volume I--the reason why he was appointed--to line up his ducks for Volume II, was a disservice to the polity. The American people needed closure on Russia matter as soon as possible. Think of all the cannons that didn't need to be fired!
11/ Regrettably, the prosecutor's need to build the case for obstruction prevented a resolution on the threshold issue. Indeed, as the investigation dragged on, additional alleged-obstructive acts were performed.
12/ Had the Russia investigation promptly concluded, President Trump may never have needed to make certain statements to his WH Counsel, etc.
13/ If the SC was merely designed to report on events, without pursuing a prosecution, Mueller could have promptly resolved the Russia question, and at a later juncture, released a subsequent report about obstruction.
14/ @MichaelRapp also suggests that a sitting President should not be prosecuted at all, as a policy matter: "They are dangerous because a nationally elected President should not be displaced by a prosecution brought by even by a properly supervised prosecutor."
15/ These reforms are worth considering, and are consistent with some of my tentative proposals.
