I think you are biased to that conclusion, which is your right of course. I don't know who the "they" is, as you make that assertion, but don't need to know or understand.
It's fine that we disagree by the way. My goal isn't to persuade you to abandon your point of view, it is only to express and justify mine. You have done the same thing, and I thank you for that.
Thank you for you comments as well. To be specific, “they” would be the DoJ, to include Sessions input. One special counsel with free reign to ferret through the President and his associates is more than enough, when there doesn’t seem to be any underlying crime.
Special counsels should only be appointed when there is already evidence of a crime, of which there still is none. To have a second one appointed, when there is still no evidence of a crime, would double the outrage of one being appointed at all, and clearly indicate the intentions to unfairly persecute the President.