With American citizens finally becoming more aware of the scope and gravity of the institutional corruption involved in and around the 2016 election, members of Congress are receiving increasing demands to appoint another Special Counsel.
As I opined in my OpenCdA post on January 12, 2018, entitled So It Never Happens Again …, merely appointing yet another Special Counsel to look into the allegations of apparent criminal wrongdoing associated with the 2016 national general election would be an incomplete approach.
I don’t dispute there are grounds for such a Special Counsel. However, I believe the job of rehabilitating corrupted and crippled agencies whose missions are critically important to the national security is too much for a Special Counsel.
Before you conclude I’m overstating the scope of work required for rehabilitation, consider this:
Credible evidence released by diligent House and Senate committees has provided solid reasons to believe that the following government bodies have some involvement either as alleged violators or as victims in the numerous and various statutory and administrative rule violations:
- Central Intelligence Agency (alleged violator)
- Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) (victim)
- Department of Justice (alleged violator)
- Federal Bureau of Investigation (alleged violator)
- Department of State (alleged violator)
- Federal Election Commission (victim)
- Former President Obama and his Executive Office of the President (alleged violator)
- Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (victim)
- Internal Revenue Service (alleged violator)
- National Security Agency (alleged violator)
- US Congress (victim)
Very arguably the most important objective of rehabilitation has to be to restore the public’s confidence in our federal agencies to perform their duties honestly and diligently. (Lest we forget, the honest and diligent employees of all the alleged violator agencies are ‘the public,’ too.) Thus far, the Mueller Special Counsel effort has produced little or nothing to accomplish that objective.
There is another objective that no Special Counsel will have the courage to touch: An open and frank discussion of the miserable failure of our First Amendment-protected news media to provide timely, accurate, and complete reporting of verified information (not opinion) to We, the People.
That discussion must include but not start with the performance of reporters or editors or news directors. It must start with media owners’ lack of understanding the importance of timely, accurate, complete news reporting. Then these owners must be questioned about their lack of commitment to that same reporting.
In part the failures of federal agencies have apparently been aided and abetted by the First Amendment-protected news media’s decisions to ignore or under-report those failures. The media owe We, the People, some answers for their seemingly aiding and abetting alleged crimes that have been committed against all the people of the United States.
If the public’s confidence in the integrity of some critical agencies and their employees is to be restored, we need a Presidential Commission with far more horsepower, moral courage, and integrity than we are likely to ever see from another Special Counsel like Robert Mueller.