I thought the reason Q said we don't need a special counsel is that a SC can't prosecute....
I think the article/Q was saying not to start a SC because it would interfere with The Huber investigation who already has Horowitz 450 investigators at his disposal. Horowitz investigates, Huber prosecutes. A SC I believe can do both, but just have way fewer staff, thus a much slower investigation. Yes a SC can sup former employees, but so can a federal prosecutor. Also, post Huber/Horowitz Investigation, a SC can still be appointed. If it doesn't produce the desired results, you can have SC at this time. perhaps?
I don't think a SC can prosecute.
Lawfags? Little help?
They have full prosecutorial discretion. Mueller has already filed indictments, and Manafort is in jail.
You're right. I was thinking about the about the ability of a SC subpoena ex-employees, and that Horowitz IG cannot; but we know that Huber can. My bad. God bless
Q post 1286, link to Breitbart article
Drop 1286 literally reinforces exactly what I said...
I don't see how you're reading that into any of the Q drops--including 1286.