Thread by @DirkSchwenk

With great respect to thoughtful people that are calling for the appointment of a special counsel, here are some reasons NOT appointing one is a good idea. A thread.

Before I get to that, however, much of the discussion comes down to this: do you trust Merrick Garland and main justice to seriously address the seditionists?

If the answer is "no" I don't trust MG and the DOJ - and you are right - then a special counsel is a better idea than leaving the investigation in MG's hands. If the answer is "yes", I trust MG, then a SC counsel creates unecessary risk.

The difficulty we all face is we don't know whether MG and main justice can be trusted. A lawful AG (and FBIDIR) can't announce investigations unless/until charges are unsealed. Without some kind of announcement or assurance, we are left in the dark.

And the dark - aka the DOJ and FBI doing things the right way - looks (from the outside) exactly like the DOJ/FBI NOT investigating the planners, funders and generals of the sedition. It's a terrible conundrum for all of us that care about the US and the rule of law.

The one thing that a Special Counsel really would do is provide an announcement by the AG that a SC was appointed, and provide a hint about the scope of the investigation. That would be a relief. But as we have seen, also potentially mirage. justice.gov/opa/pr/appoint…

And so ... reasons not to appoint a Special Counsel (which concededly require trust of Merrick Garland):

First, Special Counsel is a creature of DOJ Regulation (not law by Congress), so it is a delegation of Merrick Garland's authority. It basically creates a new/different US Attorney.

Unlike a regular DOJ USA, however, it's powers only lie within the scope of what the AG delegates. And SC actions are subjected to limited review by the AG

As we have seen (in unpunished but sickening detail), the "scope" and limited review aspects of SC can be used by evils to devastating effect - so a SC is not a cure if MG is evil.

https://twitter.com/DirkSchwenk/status/1397201884046405640?s=20

Second, appointment of a special counsel would be an admission by the AG that either there was a conflict of interest in the department or that there were other extraordinary circumstances.

This is not the case of the DOJ trying to investigate either the AG or POTUS - which would be obvious conflicts. And admitting the slightest hint of a conflict would be very bad for the US and the DOJ.

It could certainly be argued that these are "extraordinary circumstances" - they are. But not necessarily extraordinary circumstances that make it a good idea to publicly create a separate office.

All of us that lived through the Mueller years remember the degree of public scrutiny put on Mueller's office. Reports of who was working on the weekend. Rs in Congress going crazy to expose any weakness. usatoday.com/story/news/pol…

It now seems pretty clear that Rosenstein and others were working with Congressional Republicans to leak damaging facts about those on the Mueller team. Appointment of Mueller as a SC made him and them a HUGE target, and that attack was extremely effective.

It is noteworthy that Jeffrey Clark - ex DOJ - is a Jan 6 target - but that doesn't create a conflict that requires SC. That investigation is better (assuming MG is not evil) in MG's hands so he can get the necessary info to Committee and prosecutors. npr.org/2021/10/13/104…

I HOPE what MG is doing is what I hoped Mueller was doing when Barr took over, only better. Mueller farmed out individual investigations to different US Attorneys, in what I believe was an effort to keep them away from Barr.

I hope what Garland is doing is giving discrete chunks to competent USAs around the country so that no one is overwhelmed, no individual is a Big Target for corruption or attack, and the myriad crimes of the seditionists are seriously investigated and pursued.

And I hope what Garland is doing is providing the leadership and resources that all of those investigations require. That is not a job that a Special Counsel can do - Garland can't give over jurisdiction of a wide-ranging conspiracy involving thousands. Only the AG can do that.

And so, I believe we are left with the hope that the AG is doing the right things, even though we can't know if that is true. We elected Biden to appoint the right person as AG, and we are just going to have to ride that out.

We won't know whether Garland is doing the right things unless/until there are charges unsealed. Until then, we have to get ready for the 2022 election and we have to support (AND ENCOURAGE) the Jan 6 Commission.

We should also support and encourage two vastly important items that can occur in the sunlight: passing Build Back Better items and getting Congress to do an honest assessment of Facebook's anti-democratic acts against the US (and it's never ending perjury).

All the above said with respect to those that call for SC - I get it - I'm as frustrated and impatient as anyone.

Dirk out.