[Jim W N]

Your clarity isn’t the problem here. It is your support of Mueller and his role.

1) First you say the Mueller thing doesn’t implicate the Constitution. You should know better than that, but that tells me you probably don’t understand how the Constitution is the only authority for the feds to do anything.

2) Then you’ve got a problem finding where the Constitution authorizes a special prosecutor appointed by the President, where the Constitution expressly states that Congress has the SOLE power to impeach.

3) The lack of reasonable suspicion or probable cause, and the presence of conflict of interest - that all comes later but become moot becsue you can’t overcome those first two things.

[Alberta's Child]

There is no independent counsel statute in place anymore, so the President never appoints a "special prosecutor" in any case. The responsibilities for investigating Federal matters fall entirely under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Justice Department -- and that's it.

In this case, the "special counsel" is nothing more than a surrogate for the U.S. Justice Dept. who functions in place of the highest ranking officials in the DOJ in cases where those officials believe they have a conflict of interest. AG Jeff Sessions is responsible for overseeing all of the department's investigative work, and that's it. That's perfectly legitimate under the U.S. Constitution even though the term "U.S. Justice Department" isn't seen anywhere in the constitution.

Robert Mueller isn't some character who has walked in off the street and into a role that was fabricated out of thin air. He was appointed to function as a Federal prosecutor in a matter where both the AG and the Deputy AG have indicated that they had a conflict of interest. Whether they really had a conflict of interest may be subject to debate, but that's their call to make. And up to this point, Mueller's team hasn't prosecuted a single criminal charge that is outside the purview of a Federal prosecutor working to prosecute violations of Federal laws.

You cited the exact reference to his mandate that I had in mind when I said he isn't investigating President Trump. It says he's investigating members of Trump's campaign team, right? Why is that such a problem for you? If someone in Trump's campaign (Mike Flynn, for example) had committed a Federal crime while working in the Trump campaign in 2016, should he be immune from prosecution just because his boss won the election? How is that supposed to work? Of course the Federal law enforcement apparatus should be used to enforce any violations of the law by people who are not subject to the constitutional provisions of impeachment as executive branch members.

You should know better than that, but that tells me you probably don’t understand how the Constitution is the only authority for the feds to do anything.

Then you’ve got a problem finding where the Constitution authorizes a special prosecutor appointed by the President, where the Constitution expressly states that Congress has the SOLE power to impeach.

None of this has anything to do with the matter at hand. Get back to me when Mueller indicts President Trump and tries to prosecute him.