Don't undermine norms of governing oversight.

A number of people seem to be under the impression that investigating President Donald Trump is the most vital project undertaken by this nation since its founding. Perhaps. But their feelings shouldn't override the Constitution, because for all the principles allegedly being whittled away by this administration, its antagonists seem to be doing everything they can to keep pace.

For instance, while it might come as a surprise to many, the Justice Department is not an "independent" entity. Presumably, those who work for the DOJ have fealty to law and justice first, yes. But they are ultimately subordinates of the president of the United States, who was elected legally and has powers identical to those of former Presidents Barack Obama and George W. Bush.

In other words, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein doesn't work for CNN personalities or Vox explainer writers. He works for Trump.

And while it might also come as a surprise to some people, Congress — a separate, co-equal branch of government run, for the moment, by Republicans — is tasked with oversight of the executive branch, which includes the Justice Department. Now, you may deem Congress scandalously incompetent or hopelessly partisan, but it's within the purview of a congressional committee to ask the FBI for documents pertaining to an ongoing investigation. Congress isn't breaking the law or "extorting" anyone by asking for more transparency, as Rosenstein recently asserted.

Yet most Democrats (and never-Trumpers) have taken the exceptionally convenient position that not only should the president (well, this president) not have a say over the goings-on at the Justice Department, but Congress (well, this Congress) also has no right to demand oversight. Most of the media frame their work accordingly.

Last time we went through this charade, Democrats and their allies were claiming that releasing congressional findings on alleged FBI abuses would be a reckless attack on the nation's security. Whatever you make of the veracity of the claims in the Devin Nunes memo, this claim turned out to be untrue. We went through a similar circus with the release of the James Comey memos, which ended up giving Americans more context to the endless leaks that have consumed news coverage for the past year and a half.

The idea that partisans and journalists who've made a living using favorable leaks regarding the investigations into the Trump administration are suddenly concerned about the sanctity of a criminal investigation is ludicrous. Moreover, Congress, whether you like it or not, is also conducting an investigation. Let's see more, not less.

Which bring me to special counsel Robert Mueller. There has been a continued effort in Congress to pass a law insulating the special counsel, which would create a super prosecutor with wide-ranging autonomy that would allow him to investigate whatever he likes for as long as he likes. I'm not sure such a law would be constitutional, but it's certainly an attack on the separation of powers.

Let's face it: Most Democrats or Republicans have acted in partisan ways during the Russia collusion investigation because much of it is a partisan concern. The only thing left is to try to save the already-tattered process, because by creating the impression that wholly constitutional actions are abuses we are also creating precedents that undermine norms of governing oversight.

 

Harsanyi is a senior editor at The Federalist