ON MAY 17th Robert Mueller (pictured), a respected former director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, was appointed as special counsel by the Department of Justice to run the FBI’s investigation into whether Russia attempted to influence America’s presidential election in November, and whether it did so in co-ordination with members of Donald Trump’s campaign team. Four separate Senate and House committees are already investigating the same matter. But thanks to the FBI’s ample resources, Mr Mueller’s will be the main probe: he is empowered to press charges if he sees fit. Should the congressional committees be disbanded?

On the face of it, that might make sense: Mr Mueller is now the gatekeeper to much of the information gathered by the FBI. In the two weeks since his appointment, congressional leaders have started to realise that he will decide whether they get access to critical documents and witnesses. They are trying to persuade Mr Mueller to allow a public testimony and the release of documents from James Comey, who was abruptly sacked as boss of the FBI by Mr Trump on May 9th. Mr Comey has agreed to testify before the Senate intelligence committee, which oversees America’s spy agencies, but the committee must co-ordinate his appearance with Mr Mueller, who is still reviewing the committee’s request to see the memos. Congressional leaders do not want their probes shut down; they regard their oversight as critical to ensuring the process is transparent and public. The findings of any probe are unlikely to be accepted by the public if all of the hearings are conducted in closed sessions and all work done behind closed doors, argues Adam Schiff, the top Democrat on the Houseintelligence committee. Jason Chaffetz, a Republican who is chair of the House oversight and government reform committee, points out that conducting investigations is the constitutional prerogative of Congress.

Other bodies are getting involved as well: the Federal Election Commission, which is already looking into a complaint against Mr Trump and the Russian government, filed in December by two watchdogs, is also considering whether to investigate allegations that Russian agents paid for Facebook ads that spread damaging stories about Hillary Clinton. And the business dealings of Michael Flynn, who was forced out of his job as Mr Trump’s national security adviser because of his undisclosed contacts with Russia, are also under scrutiny. A grand jury in Alexandria, Virginia, reportedly recently issued subpoenas for records related to Flynn Intel Group, Mr Flynn’s company. He is also being investigated for foreign payments he received, by the Pentagon’s top watchdog.

The multitude of probes is confusing and might at times be counterproductive. But they may help to ensure nothing is missed. It is no bad thing to have Mr Mueller taking the lead. If anyone can convince a divided America that impartial probes are still possible, it may be Mr Mueller, who is held as a model of probity and was appointed by George W. Bush. And despite the flaws typical of Congressional probes—they tend to be shaped by partisan loyalties, and members of Congress are prone to posturing for the cameras—there is real value in Americans seeing the executive branch of government made to answer their elected representatives. In an era of alarmingly low trust in government, whatever these committees manage to uncover, they will have played an important role in restoring Americans’ confidence that their country adheres to the rule of law.