Conservatives discuss the limits of the Special Counsel

by 14 comments

Why do we have Special Counsels? What are the limits of their power? These are questions that Americans ask every day as they read the headlines about Special Counsel Robert Mueller.

Heritage legal expert, John Malcolm hosted an event at Heritage’s headquarters with former Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr and former prosecutor Andrew McCarthy. The panel explored the constitutional limits of such an investigation, and where a Special Counsel’s authority stops.

Heritage members have access to some of the greatest legal minds in the America allowing them to engage with experts about the pressing judicial and constitutional questions of the day. As we spread the message for limited and constitutional government, thank you for making these amazing events a reality.

How should we limit the Special Counsel?

Related Articles

John Malcolm Testifies to Congress on Mueller InvestigationJohn Malcolm Testifies to Congress on Mueller Investigation
Transcript: James Jay Carafano's SpeechTranscript: James Jay Carafano's Speech

Comments (14)

James Duncan - October 19, 2018

A crime must have been committed. Scope limited to the crime.

William Coates - October 19, 2018

It was created as a political tool. Repeal the statute creating the special counsel, make Congress either use impeachment or shut up. Of course, that would make Congress face up to its responsibilities, which they refuse to do.

Grant Trevithick - October 19, 2018

It makes sense to me to clearly define the scope of any investigation by a Special Prosecutor. They should not have the power to search outside that scope for any crime, merely to justify their existence. Instead, they should be charged with a single charge… “Did Russia’s efforts impact our election and if so, how?” Going after Manafort for a crime almost 20 years makes zero sense.

DAVID W PROFFITT - October 19, 2018

Special counsel should be done away with. It creates it’s own swamp.

Wanda P. - October 19, 2018

1 year limit. If nothing found or if not any substantial evidence, disband it. Must be focused. Not a witch hunt that keeps searching for unrelated and crazy tangents as an excuse to perpetuate itself.

E. Doering - October 20, 2018

There needs to be some proof a crime has been committed. The investigation must be limited to investigating that crime with the scope and time limit set at the beginning.

steve Long - October 20, 2018

Special councils are the political precursors of impeachment. They are toxic because they lack any point of ending baring the end of term of their target or their success in politically neutralizing the target. They are fund raising dog and pony shows for the both parties and they insulate Congress from its responsibilities. Often they waste millions of dollars. A President or target cannot end them with out being charged with obstructing justice. So once they are initiated they continue for a very long time at taxpayers expense.

Celia McCullough - October 20, 2018

Most considerations should be handled directly by Congress. Any Special Counsel should have a task very specifically assigned and be very limited in scope. The current fiasco is an extreme waste of federal funds.

James griffin - October 20, 2018

All Special Counsels should be REQUIRED to finish their investigation within 18 months and under a specific BUDGET or the investigation should be SHUT DOWN immediately. NO EXCEPTIONS. Congress would decide the BUDGET. DONE.

Sandy Thompson - October 20, 2018

Must be only for criminal activity. It should also have well defined time limits. No fishing expeditions!

Henry Vance - October 20, 2018

Special counsels should be required to make quarterly reports to the public.

Sheila Reott - October 20, 2018

full disclosure and stick to the original accusation. Anyone found to have lied or be responsible for false accusations against a president.,,,prison.
Limited time frame and limit on taxpayer money.
The money will be the thing to do it.

william kozma - October 20, 2018

There should be concrete evidence of a crime before appointing a counsel. This Russian farce is a Democrat sore loser witch hunt. Time limits should be set too. One year should be plenty of time.

Dan Baerthel - October 21, 2018

Fishing expeditions and the use of unrelated findings of criminal activities to use as bargaining chips to force capitulation need to be stopped. Complete transparency is necessary to manage the process and ensure proper direction and treatment of those being investigated.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism.

Opinions posted here are those of their authors and do not necessarily represent the views of The Heritage Foundation.