Special counsel appointed to investigate Russia-Trump ties: Three key questions

The presence of former FBI Director Robert Mueller III at the head of a semi-independent probe should provide structure and restore some measure of order to the investigation. Some questions ahead.

J. Scott Applewhite/AP/File
Former FBI Director Robert Mueller, who has now been appointed special counsel to investigate ties between Russia and the Trump campaign, listens as he testifies on Capitol Hill in Washington in 2012. Mueller took office as FBI director in 2001 expecting to dig into drug cases, white-collar misdeeds and violent crime. A week later was Sept. 11. Overnight, his mission changed and Mueller spent the next 12 years wrestling the agency into a battle-hardened terrorism-fighting force. (

The Justice Department’s appointment of a special counsel to investigate ties between President Trump’s campaign and Russian officials should provide structure and some measure of order for a Washington situation that was threatening to spin out of control.

Indeed, the presence of former FBI Director Robert Mueller III at the head of a semi-independent probe may provide the White House something of a respite. It provides a ready answer to further questions about Russia on developments both old and new. “Mr. Mueller is looking into that. We defer comment until his work is complete.”

Mueller’s reputation may provide some comfort for ordinary citizens worried about the nation’s direction. He’s highly respected for probity on both sides of the political aisle. His personal presence may guarantee fuller independence for a position that remains nominally subservient to the Justice Department hierarchy, and thus the president himself. It’s true President Trump could fire his special counsel if he really feels like it, but that would result in a political explosion far beyond what we’ve already experienced.

That said, the country is now in the unknown, and the Trump administration faces a wholly different political future. Some questions on the path ahead:

How long will this take? For Trump, the tradeoff is a respite now, versus a process that suddenly appears never-ending. It could take Mueller several months to establish a structure and study what the FBI has learned to this point. Then he really begins. If past special investigations are any guide, the investigation will be lengthy. It is now certain to be in the headlines at least through the 2018 midterms, and quite possibly into the 2020 presidential election, with uncertain consequences. It’s conceivable that Mueller remains at work after Trump has left office.

What’s his focus? The statement from Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein establishing Mueller’s inquiry clearly charges him with looking at links between Trump officials, past and present, and Russia. Beyond that, is he supposed to consider larger issues related to Russia’s meddling in the 2016 election? That’s possible, but unclear. Mr. Rosenstein also states that Mueller has authority to pursue matters that arise in the course of his work. This aspect of a special counsel – the ability to extend and modify targets as they see fit – can become a huge problem for its targets.

Who’s in trouble? President Trump has insisted that he is not under investigation, and that there is no evidence of collusion between his campaign and the Kremlin. That may be true now, but given that the investigation will proceed, anyone connected to the campaign, including its head, remains a target of interest. In addition, the known legal problems of former Trump national security adviser Michael Flynn and former campaign chief Paul Manafort appear to be serious. The job of a Justice Department special counsel, unlike that of a congressional committee, is to pursue people they believe broke the law, and prosecute them. That’s why the result of Mueller’s appointment could well be dramatic, however long it takes to appear.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.