OTOH, who wrote the law requiring that a lawyer from the executive branch prosecute cases that the legislature wants prosecuted? The legislature has a few lawyers of its own. Some of those lawyers were even involved in fighting the FBI investigation of a certain Louisiana congressman. Using those lawyers makes the most sense to me. And Congress can potentially re-write the law so that it can use those lawyers.

The type of public transparency that might be forthcoming with executive branch officials testifying to Congress would hurt the country, be antithetical to democracy, and embolden the terrorists.

Congress is nothing more than a mouthpiece for Al Quaeda. Any information provided to them will wind up in the hands of the enemy.

The administration did offer a deal in the USA flap, a compromise, offering to have some of its officials testify off the record. It wasn’t good enough.

I say none of that to excuse the behavior, but just to highlight that I think both sides have learned their lesson about making deals.

The comparison to special prosecutors isn’t entirely apt, as those are always appointed (or, at least, typically appointed) in the context of a specific politically-charged issue.

although ultimately the logical conclusion of the administration’s position here is that the only real c&b power that the Congress has is impeachment, as they can do that by themselves

Congress could always go with the power of the purse and defund the Justice Department. Or how about defunding any White House lawyer that made this excessive argument?

As for making the Justice Department more independent I think the simplest answer is making that part of the criteria voters use when choosing a candidate. Making Justice more independent, whatever that means, brings up a fear of an entire agency behaving like special prosecutors. They could become a quasi-branch of the government (with no Dick Cheney defending it).