"He can bring charges. See clause (c) of Order No. 3915-2017."
Does it change Mueller's abilities (possibilities) if he is a "Special Counsel", as opposed to a "Special Prosecutor"?
I have been following your posts for a while, and *know* that you are well-versed in what you speak...
In technical vernacular, "Special Counsel," "Special Prosecutor," and "Independent Prosecutor" are different, with the differences being subtle or huge, depending on how the person in the job approaches the job.
All of them have the power to indict and prosecute criminal actions.
The grant of power to Mueller (and all past grants for that matter) is written, and invokes particular regulations. Not laws, but department regulations. The combination of the grant and the regulations describe the scope of investigation and authority. Laws passed by Congress give the DoJ the authority to make regulations. For the most part those laws give the DoJ broad discretion on investigatory and prosecutorial functions.
The normal system is that the investigator is NOT the prosecutor. Too much power in one place. Likewise, the prosecutor is not the investigator, same reason. All these "special" appointment combine investigation and prosecution under one hat. That makes the position one that is inherently amenable to abuse.
Independent prosecutor law had a feature where Congress could appoint one. This has some constitutional issues because Congress is a legislative body, not an enforcement body.
In common vernacular, people use the titles more or less interchangeably, which is okay for talking purposes. There is a need to differentiate when discussing variations on who has the power to create a "special inquisitor," and variations on their scope of authority, and variations on who has "how much" oversight. I think all of the laws include financial oversight via reporting, just to give an idea of the level of detail involved.
Thanks for the kind compliment.