Instead of creating new legislation imposing for-cause removal restrictions, Congress should create a mechanism for judicial review of how existing regulations are applied to protect special counsels.
Latest in Special Counsel
Witness testimony for today's Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on proposed legislation to protect special counsels from wrongful termination.
On the Role of Congress and the Courts in the Special Counsel Investigation: A Brief Reply to Rick Pildes
Giving the courts license to adjudicate Robert Mueller's removal would help excuse Congress from confronting its responsibility to exercise the impeachment power—and complicates that exercise.
Senate bills designed to protect special counsel Mueller from removal could do more harm than good.
Codifying the Justice Department’s existing regulations on special counsel does not amount to a return to the old Independent Counsel Act.
Senators have introduced two bills that would create additional protections against the removal of the special counsel.
Congress and the press should be on the lookout for efforts the president and his political allies might take to impede the investigation, short of attempting to fire Mueller.
How can the Acting Attorney General delegate a counterintelligence investigation, as opposed to a criminal investigation, to the Special Counsel?
Most commentators have assumed that the scope of Robert Mueller's investigation will be governed by the 1999 regulation authorizing the appointment of a “Special Counsel” that was enacted in the wake of the lapse of the independent-counsel statute. But the counterintelligence investigation that Rosenstein appears to have intended to delegate to the Special Counsel is inconsistent with the criminal focus of that regulation.