So there are a series of assumptions that must be made and several key questions that must be asked, particularly in light of the revelations over the last several days that have been released over former FBI agent Peter Strzok are;  (1) What did Robert Mueller know about Peter Strzok’s political bias, (2) When did he know it, and (3) On whose recommendations and conditions did Mueller hire Strzok to investigate the allegation that the Donald Trump campaign colluded with contacts in Russia to strategically influence and steal the 2016 election?

Did Mueller know of Strzok’s political bias and his role in the Clinton Email scandal investigation before hiring Strzok? Did Mueller simply get caught stacking his investigators with anti-Trump personnel when the Justice Department’s inspector general exposed Strzok’s bias? It should be remembered that for the most part, all of the senior lawyers on Mueller’s legal team are staunch Democrats and Clinton and Obama financial supports.

Likewise, there are numerous other questions to include; was Mueller aware of the sweetheart deals that Agent Strzok participated in that granted blanket immunity, destroyed critical evidence, and failed to pursue significant charges against Ms. Clinton aides relating to the FBI investigation of Hillary Clinton’s four-years of continuous national security violations using private nonsecure email devices for government business, including the illegal sending and receiving of the highest level of national security information?

Did Special Counsel Mueller appreciate that the FBI, under former FBI Director James Comey and with the assistance of Mr. Strzok, obstructed justice on a massive scale by destroying key evidence (the electronic devices confiscated from Ms. Clinton’s aides) which bore directly on the evidence of guilt of Ms. Clinton and her aides during Secretary Clinton’s four-years as Secretary of State?

Was Mueller aware of the likelihood that Mr. Strzok was responsible for leaking key information to the press regarding the investigation of alleged collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia? Further, did Director Comey influence Mueller’s use of Mr. Strzok? And did both men know of, and/or were they aware of Mr. Strzok’s actions and intentions?

Given the primary mission of Special Counsel Mueller’s investigation is to search for any evidence that Russia influenced the 2016 presidential election, why hasn’t Mueller pursued the mountain of plain evidence that, in return for substantial funds from Russia laundered to and through the Clinton Foundation that were used to fund Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign. Isn’t it both interesting and coincidental that Russia obtained 20% of the U.S. uranium reserves and production, some of whose product was subsequently illegally exported from the U.S.?

Given the evidence of “collusion” between the Clintons and Russia to provide funds for Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign is vastly greater than the partisan claims of the Trump campaign accusations of collusion with Russia to influence the 2016 election, why hasn’t Mueller pursued the strong evidence of Clinton-Russia collusion?

Mr. Mueller’s “investigation”, perhaps now has been tainted by his use of politically-biased “investigators” and his refusal to explore clear evidence the Clinton’s colluded with Russia to fund Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign, should be directed by the Department of Justice and/or Congress to wrap up their pursuit of claims of the Trump campaign collusion with Russia, certainly claims that do not even rise to the level of specious. Mueller should shut done the investigation and stop trying to create the crime to fit the charge, let alone the narrative, and issue a final report by the end of this year. Similarly, the same goes for the effort to bring about a corruption of justice charge in order for the Democrats and anti-Trumpers in Congress to bring up and to try justify orders of Impeachment.

Simultaneously, a new Special Counsel should be tasked to pursue the actual legitimate case based on; (1) the evidence of Russian collusion with the Clintons, (2) while Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State, (3) the Clintons’ sale of favors to foreign entities in exchange for massive donations to the Clinton Foundation/Clinton Global Initiative, and (4) the clear, deliberate, reckless, and egregious violations of national security by Hillary Clinton and her aides during the four-years Ms. Clinton was Secretary of State where she used her own private, nonsecure email devices for both official U.S. Government and private business, in clear violation of U.S. federal law, including national security laws and directives, to include violations of the Espionage Act.

Finally, a temporary task force of independent investigators should be formed for the purpose of finding, exposing, and removing all high level officials and staff employees within all branches of the U.S. Government who were and are continuing to pursue an independent political agenda contrary to the will of the American people, in an effort to take down a legitimately elected sitting President as validated by U.S. federal election results, and certified in accordance with U.S. Federal Election law at the local, state and national level. Special emphasis should be put on rooting out and prosecuting those who have leaked information in clear violation of federal law.

Finally, looking at the key charges in question, several top Washington, DC lawyers, both Republican and Democrat — Joe DiGenova, Jonathan Turkey, and Alan Dershowitz are in general agreement that to be brought up of Corruption of Justice charges — at a minimum, the President must, in addition to a crime, have shown and demonstrated corruptible intent. However, particularly in the case of Donald Trump he cannot be charged merely for exercising his Constitutional prerogative and the authority granted him by the Constitution. President Trump’s actions are remotely close … in fact, the President’s “Trump Card” to essentially stop a sizable portion or a critical aspect of the Special Counsel’s investigation, albeit a charade would be to pardon General Mike Flynn.  There is reason he won’t, and if necessary would have done it perhaps long ago because there is no need to, President Trump as the president has the law and the Constitution on his side. Further, it is more than obvious that the only reason for such a charge, as a number of prominent Democrats have made the claim, is to, and would be to satisfy the requirements for Articles of Impeachment hearings. Their problem is there is and has not been any crime(s), so with that, it has been Special Counsel Mueller’s mission to “create the crime” and to manufacture, shape, mold, and manipulate the lack of evidence to appear first as if there is evidence, and secondly to imply or make it look like there was a crime.

Now in the light of the latest revelations, there are new indications that put the mirror back on Mueller’s efforts to manipulate the case. Many political and Constitutional pundits are once again analyzing the new information and calling for the shut down and termination of the Special Counsel office. We’ll of course see what transpires … but be aware, in the last 24-hours; much of what is occurring provides the validity and veracity, and evidence of both the double standard and the other crimes ignored by the anti-Trump accusers. With the mirror reflecting back on the Democrats, the political-left and mainstream media, the demands have raised once again raised into question to investigate or to continue to investigate; Hillary’s Emails, the Surveillance, Unmasking, and Leaking, Uranium One, the facilitation of the fake Trump Dossier, etc. We will see.

So with that in mind and in addition to the questions raised, perhaps there is one more option, the likelihood of shuttering the current Special Counsel of Robert Mueller. So how might this work. First can it be done and who has the authority. As President Trump looks at ways to perhaps get rid of the Special Counsel, the intricate rules designed to ensure the independence of such probes may be about to face their first real test. The rules were put in place nearly 20-plus years ago to cope with what the Justice Department called the “extraordinary circumstances” of an investigation into possible crimes or corruption which could involve the president — the one official in whom the Constitution vests ‘the executive power,’ the power and authority granted to the President under the Constitution as Chief Executive.

Given the obvious sensitivity, the regulations sought to insulate special counsels by providing that they “may be disciplined or removed only by the personal action of the attorney general” and only for specified reasons, such as misconduct or conflict of interest or civil crimes. In the current inquiry by Special Counsel Mueller, President Trump, who is both the chief executive and a potential target, has repeatedly signaled he wants it to end. And if the President is really determined and is willing to take the political heat, a number of legal experts say that the carefully crafted rules designed to protect the independent or special counsel may not be enough to restrain him, the President.

While Robert Mueller’s team has prosecuted high-stakes cases, including Obstruction of Justice, the bottom line is that President Trump has the raw power to fire Mueller and he certainly could do it if necessary, if it is believed that Mueller’s investigation is getting to close to the President. President Ronald Reagan did so when the special counsel indicted Reagan’s Secretary of Defense Casper Weinberger during the Iran-Contra investigation and hearings. The American people are entitled to a functioning federal government, free of political bias and corrupt officials who serve the interests of a political party rather than our nation. More so than in any other investigation, they should not be burdened with a political witch hunt intent solely on and designed to ultimately take down a duly elected President, because the losing side does not like the outcome of the November election. If, as we have seen in the last several days, as it pertains to the games going on in the FBI, the Justice Department, and with the Special Counsel’s antics, it might be necessary to weight the options Constitutional allotted to the President to do so.  At the same time perhaps a new special counsel, or counsels — plural, will be needed and necessary to investigate the corruption at hand — at many levels … Hillary’s Emails, the Surveillance of U.S citizens and government officials, the Unmasking, and Leaking, Uranium One, the facilitation of fake Dossier, etc. This is certainly just the beginning of much more to come.

Jim Waurishuk is a retired USAF Colonel, serving nearly 30-years as a career senior intelligence and political-military affairs officer and special mission intelligence officer with expertise in strategic intelligence, international strategic studies and policy, and asymmetric warfare. He served combat and combat-support tours in Grenada, Panama, Iraq, and Afghanistan, as well as on numerous special operations and special mission intelligence contingencies in Central America, Eastern Europe, the Middle East, Central Asia and Africa. He served as a special mission intelligence officer assigned to multiple Joint Special Operations units, and with the CIA’s Asymmetric Warfare Task Force, as well as in international and foreign advisory positions. He served as Deputy Director for Intelligence for U.S. Central Command (USCENTCOM) during the peak years of the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, and the Global War on Terrorism. He is a former White House National Security Council staffer and a former Distinguished Senior Fellow with the Atlantic Council, Washington, D.C. He served as a senior advisor to the Commander U.S. Special Operations Command (USSOCOM) and is Vice President of the Special Ops-OPSEC -- which provides strategic and operational security analysis and assessments to governmental and private entities, as well as media organizations on national security issues, policy, and processes. He currently provides advisory and consulting services on national security, international strategic policy, and strategy assessments for the U.S. and foreign private sector and governments entities, media groups and outlets, and to political groups, forums, and political candidates. He is an author and writer providing regular commentary and opinion to national and local TV, radio networks, and for both print and online publications, as well as speaking engagements to business, political, civic and private groups on national security matters – focusing on international strategic policy and engagement, and strategic intelligence, and subject matter expertise on special mission intelligence and operations, counter-terrorism, and asymmetric warfare and conflict.