Special Counsels, FBI Director Removal, & More from CRS
In order to appoint a special counsel to investigate potential criminal activity in the executive branch, the Congressional Research Service explained last week, the Attorney General (or his deputy) “must determine that a criminal investigation is warranted; that the normal process of investigation or prosecution would present a conflict of interest for DOJ or other extraordinary circumstances exist; and that public interest requires a special counsel to assume those responsibilities.”
See Special Counsels, Independent Counsels, and Special Prosecutors: Investigations of the Executive Branch by the Executive Branch, CRS Legal Sidebar, May 11, 2017.
Other new and updated reports from the Congressional Research Service include the following.
The Removal of FBI Director James Comey: Presidential Authority and the Senate’s Role in the Appointment of the FBI Director, CRS Legal Sidebar, May 10, 2017
FBI Director: Appointment and Tenure, May 10, 2017
Congress’s Contempt Power and the Enforcement of Congressional Subpoenas: Law, History, Practice, and Procedure, updated May 12, 2017
Cybersecurity: Legislation, Hearings, and Executive Branch Documents, updated May 12, 2017
The Growing Gap in Life Expectancy by Income: Recent Evidence and Implications for the Social Security Retirement Age, May 12, 2017
Navy Ford (CVN-78) Class Aircraft Carrier Program: Background and Issues for Congress, updated May 12, 2017
Navy Virginia (SSN-774) Class Attack Submarine Procurement: Background and Issues for Congress, updated May 12, 2017
Navy DDG-51 and DDG-1000 Destroyer Programs: Background and Issues for Congress, updated May 12, 2017
Energy and Water Development: FY2017 Appropriations for Nuclear Weapons Activities, updated May 10, 2017
This rule gives agencies significantly more authority over certain career policy roles. Whether that authority improves accountability or creates new risks depends almost entirely on how agencies interrupt and apply it.
Our environmental system was built for 1970s-era pollution control, but today it needs stable, integrated, multi-level governance that can make tradeoffs, share and use evidence, and deliver infrastructure while demonstrating that improved trust and participation are essential to future progress.
Durable and legitimate climate action requires a government capable of clearly weighting, explaining, and managing cost tradeoffs to the widest away of audiences, which in turn requires strong technocratic competency.
FAS is launching the Center for Regulatory Ingenuity (CRI) to build a new, transpartisan vision of government that works – that has the capacity to achieve ambitious goals while adeptly responding to people’s basic needs.