Posted on 05/22/2018 5:31:07 AM PDT by huldah1776
Kicking off the week on the radio Monday, LevinTV host Mark Levin raised a crucial point about the appointment of special counsel Robert Mueller that no one is currently discussing — it was unconstitutional.
“The appointment of Robert Mueller violates the United States Constitution,” Levin said. “And every subpoena, indictment, and plea agreement should be null and void.”
(Excerpt) Read more at conservativereview.com ...
By Mark Levin May 21, 2018
https://www.facebook.com/notes/mark-levin/the-appointment-of-robert-mueller-violates-the-appointments-clause-of-the-consti/10155190307480946/
The appointment of Robert Mueller violates the Appointments Clause of the Constitution. Mueller is not an inferior appointee, but a principal appointee as understood under our constitutional. His powers are more akin to an United States attorney, not an assistant United States attorney. Moreover, his boss, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, treats him as a principal officer -- that is, Mueller is mostly free to conduct his investigation with few limits or restraints. The parameters of his appointment were extraordinarily broad in the first instance, and have only expanded since then. Indeed, Mueller is more powerful than most United States attorneys, all of whom were nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate as principal officers. Furthermore, Rosenstein mostly rubber stamps Mueller's decisions and is not involved in the regular management and oversight of Mueller to any significant extent, underscoring Mueller's role not as an inferior officer but a principal officer. As such, Mueller's appointment violates the Appointments Clause. Mueller would've had to be nominated for Senate confirmation like any other principal officer in the Executive Branch. Rosenstein did not have the constitutional power to appoint a principal officer on his own anymore than the President himself does. To do otherwise is to defy the procedure established by the Framers for making such consequential executive appointments. It follows, then, that every subpoena, indictment, and plea agreement involving the Mueller investigation is null and void. Every defendant, suspect, witness, etc., in this matter should challenge the Mueller appointment as a violation of the Appointments Clause.
H/T to Northwestern Law School Professor Steven Calabresi, who raised many of these points, and more, with me and a few other friends and colleagues over the weekend, in a well-researched opinion he shared with us. He deserves great credit. I agree completely with his analysis. Please do not miss my radio show this evening or LevinTV, where I will more thoroughly address this. Don't miss either!
This should be blasted everywhere today and tweeted by POTUS, end the Mueller reign of stupidity now.
It’s a violation because there is no crime. What legal statute may have been violated here? Collusion with the Russians? To do what exactly? Force people to vote for Trump? Please enlighten us to which law this pertains to. This is investigating someone for colluding with the Chinese to saw California into the sea,
The U.S. Department of Justice didn't even exist until 1870, so the definition of a "principal appointee" vs. an "inferior appointee" would have to be governed by the U.S. statutes under which the DOJ was created and expanded over time.
Interestingly, the Deputy Attorney General post (established in 1950) and Associate Attorney General post (established in 1977) were established by executive orders or by directives of the U.S. Attorney General's office, not by statute. So it would seem clear that the statutes governing the U.S. Dept. of Justice give some kind of discretion to the executive branch and its DOJ in these matters.
It’s a violation because there is no crime. What legal statute may have been violated here? Collusion with the Russians? To do what exactly? Force people to vote for Trump? Please enlighten us to which law this pertains to. This is investigating someone for colluding with the Chinese to saw California into the sea,
Unfortunately, the left and the Deep State don’t care about the Constitution. To them, it’s a nuisance they have to put up with - which is why they have supported an activist judiciary.
See too, Morrison v. Olsen
Not that DOJ can’t, in the ordinary conduct of business, perpetrate harassment, bad faith prosecution, and so on. It can and does. The fact that it farmed out the dirty work isn’t the issue. The fact that the work is dirty, is the issue.
What legal statute may have been violated here?
***************
This is an investigation in search of a crime. Even worse, there is no real scope to limit it.
So where was this thesis during Robert Fiske and Ken Starr? Not saying it’s wrong. But we fight for special counsels and their powers when we’re out of power and fight against them when we are.
This is why I've been saying for months that the best way to deal with Mueller is right inside the courtroom where he is prosecuting a case. The people in the best position to deal with him are criminal defendants who have tremendous protection under our laws.
Fiske and Starr were authorized by Congress, but the independent counsel law expired in 1999, so today is much different.
But Levin is really stretching here, as there is long practice of the DOJ appointing ‘task forces’ that include outside attorneys to broadly investigate certain legal areas.
Just additional sad evidence that we’re well into the post-constitutional phase of the American experience.
Ken Starr’s investigation was started because there was evidence of a crime.
The massive fraud in the White Water financing scam.
When the Lewinski mess arose Janet Reno dumped in on the SC at the time for White Water, Ken Starr.
The central facts are: Comey openly leaked classified information to get a special counsel. Rosenstein WROTE A DAMNED MEMO, for heaven's sake, recommending that Comey be fired. Then, when the president acted on that recommendation, Rosenstein promptly appointed Mueller. That's as dirty as it gets.
Yeah, “tremendous protection.” That’s why Mueller’s storm troopers could raid Trump’s personal lawyer with impunity. Spit!
I didn't think so.
The vicarious victimization I see here is nauseating.
I know the key facts. Mueller was appointed thanks to a pure, unadulterated setup, plain and simple. Any “facts” that flow from this central truth are immaterial. You can continue to semi-stealthily take their side, but that does not make you right or an authority on any of this. As for your nasty “vicarious victimization” slam, projection much?
However the President was never charged in a crime related to White Water. And if a crime was committed, it was probably the first lady, not the President. Evidence Bill committed a crime related to White Water was at best flimsy and at worst no worse than Trump’s situation.
You conveniently overlook a critical series of FACTS here.
Sessions and Rosenstein had documented the reasons for Comey to be fired, and then -- for reasons I'll still never understand -- President Trump decided to do an interview with a sh!tbag news outlet like NBC and tell Lester Holt that he was going to fire Comey anyway over the "Russian collusion" nonsense. NBC was all too happy to help Trump undermine himself and make himself look like he had something to hide.
The made it look like Rosenstein and Trump colluded to fire Comey for nefarious reasons and then have Rosenstein lie about it in his formal memo. At this point Rosenstein had no choice but to get someone else involved, since he clearly had a potential conflict of interest in the case.
Why would President Trump do a stupid interview for a news outlet (NBC) that he'd spent the prior 18 months denigrating as a source of biased/phony news?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.