Pixel Tracker

Saturday, November 17 , 2018, 8:53 pm | Fog/Mist 58º

 
 
 
 

Joe Conason: Why Trump (and Gingrich) Should Stop Whining About Robert Mueller

When Newt Gingrich humiliates himself by smearing Special Counsel Robert Mueller, it is all too easy to dismiss the former speaker.

As a disgraced politician who left office under an ethical cloud, following a decade spent debasing American discourse, Gingrich has no standing to criticize Mueller, a decorated Vietnam veteran who enjoys broad bipartisan esteem after a lifetime devoted to public service.

But others have seized on the Gingrich theme, complaining of Mueller's supposed bias against Trump, for which the sole evidence appears to be a few donations to Democratic campaigns by lawyers on the special counsel staff.

Apparently, the only way to guarantee "fairness" is to appoint a hardcore Republican to every position.

Such deep concern over the partisan affiliation of a special counsel or an independent counsel is something new for the Republicans.

None of them voiced any qualms when, under the old Independent Counsel Act, a panel of three Republican judges consistently appointed Republican prosecutors to investigate a Democratic administration, as they did several times when Bill Clinton was president.

Blatantly biased against Clinton, that judicial panel — headed by an intemperate, outspoken and extremely right-wing jurist named David Sentelle — was caught rigging the appointment of Kenneth Starr to replace the first Whitewater independent counsel, Robert Fiske.

Although Fiske, too, was a Republican, he was an experienced prosecutor and a straight arrow who was disposing of the Whitewater charges against the Clintons too swiftly and dispassionately to serve his party's purposes.

Frustrated Republicans on Capitol Hill and in the media demanded his removal.

As Fiske's successor, Starr had no prosecutorial experience but his partisan credentials were certainly in order: a former Republican judicial appointee and solicitor general, active in the Virginia GOP and the Federalist Society, adviser to right-wing nonprofits and counsel to the tobacco industry and many other Republican-oriented corporations.

He was perfect, if perfection meant an independent counsel who would squander tens of millions of dollars, prosecute irrelevant defendants and instigate a wholly unrelated probe of Clinton's sex life, all in order to bring down the Democratic president.

Starr himself had no idea how to conduct an investigation. But he immediately hired a thoroughly ideological Republican staff that did — including deputy independent counsel Hick Ewing, a former U.S. Attorney in Memphis renowned for his right-wing fundamentalist zeal; and deputy independent counsel Jackie Bennett, a former federal prosecutor in south Texas, where he pursued cases against Democratic officeholders with mixed success and came to be known as "the Thug."

Starr's operation reflected the political orientation of nearly all of the independent counsel investigations under Clinton. And when Starr left, his replacement was Robert Ray, who actually ran for the Republican U.S. Senate nomination in New Jersey in 2002, only months after he filed the Office of Independent Counsel's final report on Whitewater.

With few exceptions, every independent counsel or special counsel since the Reagan era has been a Republican, whether the investigation involved a Democratic or Republican administration. If a Democratic judicial panel had appointed a series of Democratic prosecutors, the Republicans would still be screaming two decades later.

Trump should consider himself lucky to escape the outrageously biased appointment process used to torment Clinton and his appointees under the Independent Counsel Act, which expired in 1999. And he ought to stop whining about the special counsel, a Republican chosen by his own deputy attorney general.

If Trump had any self-respect, he would acknowledge that Robert Mueller is one of the most admired figures in law enforcement and public service of the past 50 years, among Democrats and Republicans alike. Isn't that why Trump considered reappointing Mueller as FBI director?

Gingrich hailed Mueller's appointment, before realizing that was no longer the Trump party line. And Trump defense flack Mark Corallo, a former Justice Department official, told Politico, "You'll never hear me say a bad thing about Bob Mueller."

Democratic leaders have echoed those same sentiments many times over, for good reason: It would be difficult to find a figure in law enforcement with a better reputation for fairness, integrity, and professionalism.

Every effort to discredit Mueller, from Fox News Channel to quasi-fascist social media, only underscores the right's desperation and fear — and sharpens the growing suspicion of Trump's guilt.

His friends would better serve the White House with silence.

Joe Conason is editor in chief of NationalMemo.com. Click here to contact him, follow him on Twitter: @JoeConason, or click here to read previous columns. The opinions expressed are his own.

Support Noozhawk Today

You are an important ally in our mission to deliver clear, objective, high-quality professional news reporting for Santa Barbara, Goleta and the rest of Santa Barbara County. Join the Hawks Club today to help keep Noozhawk soaring.

We offer four membership levels: $5 a month, $10 a month, $25 a month or $1 a week. Payments can be made using a credit card, Apple Pay or Google Pay, or click here for information on recurring credit-card payments and a mailing address for checks.

Thank you for your vital support.

Become a Noozhawk Supporter

First name
Last name
Email
Select your monthly membership
Or choose an annual membership
×

Payment Information

Membership Subscription

You are enrolling in . Thank you for joining the Hawks Club.

Payment Method

Pay by Credit Card:

Mastercard, Visa, American Express, Discover
One click only, please!

Pay with Apple Pay or Google Pay:

Noozhawk partners with Stripe to provide secure invoicing and payments processing.
You may cancel your membership at any time by sending an email to .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address).

  • Ask
  • Vote
  • Investigate
  • Answer

Noozhawk Asks: What’s Your Question?

Welcome to Noozhawk Asks, a new feature in which you ask the questions, you help decide what Noozhawk investigates, and you work with us to find the answers.

Here’s how it works: You share your questions with us in the nearby box. In some cases, we may work with you to find the answers. In others, we may ask you to vote on your top choices to help us narrow the scope. And we’ll be regularly asking you for your feedback on a specific issue or topic.

We also expect to work together with the reader who asked the winning questions to find the answer together. Noozhawk’s objective is to come at questions from a place of curiosity and openness, and we believe a transparent collaboration is the key to achieve it.

The results of our investigation will be published here in this Noozhawk Asks section. Once or twice a month, we plan to do a review of what was asked and answered.

Thanks for asking!

Click Here to Get Started >

Reader Comments

Noozhawk is no longer accepting reader comments on our articles. Click here for the announcement. Readers are instead invited to submit letters to the editor by emailing them to [email protected]. Please provide your full name and community, as well as contact information for verification purposes only.