You have a very interesting perspective there and I doubt that it would be possible for me to convince you otherwise. I will only point out that it usually helps strengthen an argument by rooting at least a significant part of it in reality rather than in an alternative universe opposite in its properties from that of our own. But if that's what you believe...
I'm loving the projection you're suffering. I feel exactly the same way about you.
That said, I am certain that you know that Congress has much the same power of a special prosecutor (often now called an independent council) - subpoena power, the power to summon testimony under oath, the ability to hold a witness in contempt of Congress, etc.- more power in many ways ways than special prosecutors appointed by the Attorney General (and thus subject to potential influence by the executive branch).
That's completely wrong. Lois Lerner and Eric Holder were held in contempt of Congress. What good did that do? The Obama administration has repeatedly withheld documents by claiming executive privilege, and then it takes 3 years in the courts to prove that their claims of privilege are bogus. And then they still don't release documents, or only release some of them or redacted versions, or only allow Congressional investigators to read them and take notes but not actually have copies.
Yet with ALL the Congressional investigations and repeated intense efforts by the Republicans, so very little dirt has been found.
They've found tons of dirt. But Congressional Democrats just deny it or explain it away, and the media then treats the issue as a partisan one. Did you know that the Department of Justice and Eric Holder flat out lied to Congress about the ATF gunwalking program. For 11 months? And then when it was finally (and miraculously) proved beyond a reasonable doubt that they had lied, they apologized, said it was inadvertent, and then suffered no consequences? You probably don't even know about this because the media just sort of ignored it. They would never have done so if it were a Republican administration which had been caught in an egregious lie.
To the point that right-wings diehards are suggesting a conspiracy between Obama and his Republican opponents to protect Obama! One might even wonder why the Republican congress has been so reluctant to request appointment of a special prosecutor if they were convinced that this was the correct method to obtain THE TRUTH. Perhaps they had some other motive?
They have requested special prosecutors. Multiple times. It has to be done by the DOJ though, which is under the control of the President. If the President, or his DOJ, is acting in bad faith, as the current one is, then one simply won't be appointed. Don't you think that a special prosecutor was called for in the case of the ATF scandal? The ATF is a division of the DOJ after all. How can they possibly be trusted to investigate themselves? The same thing with the IRS scandal. If that scandal went to the top, how could the executive branch possibly be trusted to investigate it honestly?
There have been only 3 Federal special prosecutors appointed in the USA since 1978. It appears to be very rarely used.
That's completely wrong. You're probably confused because there was an
Office of Independent Counsel law in operation from 1978 to 1999, and the special prosecutors were called Independent Counsels. There have been many, many independent investigations operating with the power of the DOJ but outside the influence of the DOJ.
Again it is hard not to read this type of argument as "Well, since I believe the Obama administration has been guilty of multiple scandals, any investigation that fails to prove this must by my definition have been flawed." Rather than the logical conclusion- there wasn't much dirt there after all.
The Obama administration has been ridiculously corrupt. Any one of half a dozen different scandals would have completely dominated a Republican administration. Just look at the Valerie Plame outing investigation, or the district attorneys firings under Bush. Both led to severe consequences for people in the administration, and they severely hurt the administration's credibility and dominated the news cycles for years. Both were very minor kerfuffles compared to the ATF gunwalking scandal or the IRS scandal. I'd put the Valerie Plame scandal on a lower level than the leaks from the Obama administration concerning details of the Osama bin Laden hit or the Stuxnet virus (both of which barely merited a discussion in the media). The district attorneys firings pale in comparison to the rampant reverse racism in the DOJ Office of Civil Rights under Obama and the whole Title IX crap to strip due process rights from college students accused of sexual harassment, let alone the gunwalking scandal.
Just as an aside- I gather that you now agree that Nixon did not in fact cooperate with the committees and individuals investigating him, and yet still had his crimes revealed and driven from office?
He was forced to cooperate on certain things by a bipartisan investigation. The key word there is bipartisan. Even then, however, if he had gone to the lengths that Obama or Hillary have gone to withhold or destroy evidence, then Nixon would have gotten off scot-free, and right now Watergate would be remembered as a nothingburger.
critical thinkers among the right wingers here? Where's the perspective?