But couldn't that be done while still investigating everyone on Trump's personal enemies list?

To some extent, I think so. On the other hand, continuing an invasive, public investigation while finding no evidence of any wrongdoing seems like it should be a violation of rights. I'm not enough of a law scholar to cite chapter and verse, but it feels wrong.

My guess is that if you dig down into various law enforcement investigation manuals, there is a duty to stop investigating when there is no evidence of a crime. At a minimum, it is a waste of law enforcement resources, but it can also become intrusive to those being investigated and cooperating with the investigation.


PS - Once again, I quoted the wrong oath. "Preserve, protect and defend" is unique to the President (and Veep). Most others are "support and defend". Same general idea, though, so I'll stand by my commentary even if I got the exact wording of the oath wrong.

--Peter