Originally Posted by
time4fun
Yeah, actually it doesn't.
First- Nixon tried that exact argument decades ago, and it was flatly rejected by SCOTUS. Secondly, it's considered to be an inherent power of the AG. You don't even need the Special Counsel statute for it to happen- it was put in place to help protect the independence of the Special Counsel.
So let's play this out:
1) First Trump told you that his campaign team never met with Russia- but it turns out they had met with Russia dozens of times
2) Then Trump told you that Russia didn't interfere in our elections- but it turns out that they definitely did, AND he knew about it because both the FBI AND Russia told him about it
3) Then he told you that the Democrats colluded with Russia, but it turns out that there's literally no evidence of that\
4) Then he told you that he fired James Comey because he was mean to Clinton, but it turns out that that wasn't true
5) Then he told you that Obama personally ordered a wiretap of Trump Tower, but it turns out that never happened
6) Then he told you that the entire investigation was started solely on the basis of the dossier, but it turns out that wasn't true
7) Then he told you that the FISA warrant application was intentionally lying about evidence, but it turns out the application was clear about its evidence
8) Then he told you that the Russia investigation is all about Democrats being angry, but it turns out that all Federal investigations into Trump's campaign are being run by Republicans
9) Then he told you that the FBI illegally planted a spy in his campaign, but it turns out that's not at all what happened
10) Then he told you that he didn't ever try to fire Mueller, but it turns out he tried twice
11) And now he tells you that the Special Prosecutor is unconstitutional, and you're just jumping right up to believe him again.
It's really pathetic.