RUTHFULLY YOURS

The Trump presidency has been consumed by Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s efforts to uncover collusion between the Trump campaign and Moscow. Mr. Mueller reportedly has secured one or more indictments that he will announce Monday. Some Republicans now seek a new special counsel to investigate if the Clinton Campaign “colluded” with Russians to smear Candidate Trump, along with other aspects of the Clintons’ relationship with Russia and Russian nationals. But one special counsel already is one too many.

During the 1980s and ’90s, American politics was repeatedly distorted, and lives devastated, through the appointment of independent counsels under the post-Watergate Ethics in Government Act. These constitutionally anomalous prosecutors were given unlimited time and resources to investigate officials, including President Clinton, and scandals, such as Iran-Contra. Once appointed, almost all independent counsels built little Justice Departments of their own and set out to find something—anything—to prosecute. Hardly anyone lamented the expiration of this pernicious law in 1999.

But special counsels, appointed by the attorney general and in theory subject to Justice Department oversight, haven’t proved any better in practice. Mr. Mueller’s investigation has already morphed into an open-ended inquiry. It is examining issues—like Donald Trump’s private business transactions—that are far removed from the Russian question. It also has expanded its focus beyond the original question of collusion with the Russians to whether anyone involved in the Russia investigation has committed some related offense. That is evident from investigators’ efforts to interview White House aides who were not involved in the 2016 campaign, and from leaks suggesting that Mr. Trump’s firing of FBI Director James Comey might have “obstructed” justice.

That claim is frivolous, and it damages America’s constitutional fabric even to consider it. A president cannot obstruct justice through the exercise of his constitutional and discretionary authority over executive-branch officials like Mr. Comey. If a president can be held to account for “obstruction of justice” by ending an investigation or firing a prosecutor or law-enforcement official—an authority the constitution vests in him as chief executive—then one of the presidency’s most formidable powers is transferred from an elected, accountable official to unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats and judges.

Mr. Mueller’s investigation has been widely interpreted as partisan from the start. Mr. Trump’s opponents instantaneously started talking of impeachment—never mind that a special counsel, unlike an independent counsel, has no authority to release a report to Congress or the public. Mr. Trump’s supporters count the number of Democratic donors on the special-counsel staff. The Mueller investigation is fostering tremendous bitterness among Trump voters, who see it as an effort by Washington mandarins to nullify their votes.

Mr. Trump can end this madness by immediately issuing a blanket presidential pardon to anyone involved in supposed collusion with Russia or Russians during the 2016 presidential campaign, to anyone involved with Russian acquisition of an American uranium company during the Obama administration, and to anyone for any offense that has been investigated by Mr. Mueller’s office. Political weaponization of criminal law should give way to a politically accountable democratic process. Nefarious Russian activities, including possible interference in U.S. elections, can and should be investigated by Congress.

Partisan bitterness will not evaporate if lawmakers take up the investigation. But at least those conducting the inquiry will be legitimate and politically accountable. And the question of whether Russia intervened in the 2016 election, and of whether it made efforts to influence U.S. policy makers in previous administrations, is first and foremost one of policy and national security, not criminal law.

The president himself would be covered by the blanket pardon we recommend, but the pardon power does not extend to impeachment. If Congress finds evidence that he was somehow involved in collusion with Russia, the House can determine whether to begin impeachment proceedings. Congress also is better equipped, as part of its oversight role, to determine whether and how the FBI, Justice Department and intelligence agencies might have been involved in the whole affair, including possible misuse of surveillance and mishandling of criminal investigations. CONTINUE AT SITE

Republicans have made impressive use of the Congressional Review Act, overturning 14 last-minute Obama rules. They might be able to do more now that a government agency has confirmed that Congress can also use the law to repeal diktats the Obama Administration slipped in under the regulatory radar.

One example is the 2013 “guidance” that federal financial regulators issued on leveraged lending. This was another example of Obama officials ducking formal rule-making by claiming they were merely issuing “voluntary” suggestions. The banking industry knew better and chose to cut back on leveraged loans, denying a vital source of capital for indebted companies that lack access to public capital markets, and pushing such activity to nonbank lenders that are even less regulated and make riskier bets.

In light of this migration and uncertainty, Pennsylvania Senator Pat Toomey recently asked the Government Accountability Office to judge whether the guidance counts as a “rule” under the Congressional Review Act. The GAO has now confirmed that it does.

The opening words of the 1996 CRA read: “Before a rule can take effect,” a federal agency must submit a report to Congress. But regulators never did on the leveraged lending guidance. No one has tested the legal limits of the CRA language, but in theory it means the lending guidance is null and void until the Trump Administration submits a report.

As Mr. Toomey notes, even a more limited reading of the law gives Republicans the ability to strike down the lending guidance. The CRA says the clock for Congress’s review of a rule doesn’t begin until a report is submitted. Congress then has 60 legislative days to override with simple majorities in both chambers. Mr. Toomey says the Senate parliamentarian has found that the GAO ruling counts as the official report, and so the clock is now ticking.

Republicans would do well to override the lending guidance on policy grounds. After the financial crisis, regulators subjected banks to new capital and liquidity requirements. They then layered on new restrictions on banking activities, such as leveraged lending. The combination has needlessly driven up costs and curtailed lending.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2017/10/27/its_time_for_trump_to_kill_the_regulatory_swamp_monsters_135384.html President Trump has successfully taken a chainsaw to some of the most onerous, economy-crushing regulations we have seen in modern times, which have disproportionally hurt consumers and small businesses. However, there are still very punitive Obama-era regulations that career bureaucrats at various federal agencies are using to undermine President Trump’s anti-regulation agenda and further […]

http://www.nationalreview.com/node/453205/print Have you noticed that we are no longer talking merely about “the Trump Dossier”? Ever since the Washington Post’s startling revelation this week that the dossier was commissioned and paid for by the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee, there’s been a subtle tweak in the coverage. Now, reports allude to the research […]

The Clinton team is ramping up its old war room tricks to deal with what is emerging as its own real Russian collusion scandal. One example is its handling of an embarrassing report by the Washington Post that Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign and the Democratic National Committee (DNC), through a lawyer representing both parties, helped bankroll the largely discredited Fusion GPS dossier compiled by a former British intelligence officer, Christopher Steele, on alleged Trump-Russian connections. The dossier was reportedly based at least in part on information he collected from Russian officials. After first denying any involvement of the Clinton campaign in funding the GPS dossier project until such denial was no longer tenable, the campaign team tried to spin its involvement as somehow being a patriotic act. When the New York Times’s Maggie Haberman, who has not been shy in writing critical stories about Donald Trump, tweeted, “Folks involved in funding this lied about it, and with sanctimony, for a year,” Hillary supporters denounced her with ad hominem attacks.

Hillary’s former press secretary, Brian Fallon, exclaimed to CNN’s Don Lemon, “It would be malpractice in my view for the campaign to not to want to turn over every rock and learn everything it could about Donald Trump.”

Really? Then why try to hide the campaign’s involvement for so long? Perhaps one explanation is that the Russian lawyer who had offered Donald Trump Jr. damaging information about Hillary Clinton was also involved with the Clinton campaign-funded Fusion GPS. In other words, a Russian lawyer connected with the firm paid in part by Hillary Clinton’s campaign to come up with dirt on Donald Trump could well have been setting a trap for his son in order to expose him to charges of Russian collusion and worse. Through intermediaries, she may have set out to lure Donald Trump Jr. into attending a meeting with her, using the bait of opposition research about Hillary that never materialized.

The real collusion story is Hillary Clinton’s own willingness to benefit Russia for financial gain despite the risk of compromising national security. During Hillary Clinton’s tenure as former President Obama’s Secretary of State, the FBI had compiled substantial evidence of money laundering, bribery and other criminal activities by Russians reportedly involved with the Uranium One deal, which Hillary subsequently signed off on even though it placed about 20 percent of the U.S. uranium reserves under Russian control.

“Before the Obama administration approved a controversial deal in 2010 giving Moscow control of a large swath of American uranium, the FBI had gathered substantial evidence that Russian nuclear industry officials were engaged in bribery, kickbacks, extortion and money laundering designed to grow Vladimir Putin’s atomic energy business inside the United States, according to government documents and interviews,” the Hill reported.

Hillary Clinton approved the deal along with other members of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, comprised of the leaders of fourteen U.S. government agencies involved in national security and commerce. The only such Obama administration leader reported to have gained financially in connection with the approval of the Uranium One deal was Hillary Clinton. Her family foundation received one hundred forty-five million dollars of donations from investors who benefited from the transfer of Uranium One to Russian control. Bill Clinton received a huge $500,000 speaking fee from a Kremlin-tied Russian bank that promoted the Russian company Rosatom, which had the dual distinction of being the subject of the FBI criminal investigation and of being the firm subsequently approved to assume control over Uranium One.

Congress was kept in the dark regarding the FBI investigation. Prosecution of the case put together by the FBI was placed on hold until years later. The FBI informant who was so instrumental in the case has been kept under wraps until now.