Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: Jack Black
Ah, technically speaking, you're right, of course. I failed to make the distinction. I can see Mueller reporting to RR, but Wray should have no obligation to ultimately report to RR over Sessions. Unless there is some chain of command thing that goes through the Assistant AG.

Bagster

Lesser Oracle

1,469 posted on 05/21/2018 4:43:03 PM PDT by bagster (The Bagster Alliance is insidous. The B clique is mighty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1460 | View Replies ]


To: bagster

Well ain’t this one a KICKER!

LATEST
EXPLOSIVE Levin: Mueller’s appointment was unconstitutional

https://www.conservativereview.com/news/levin-muellers-appointment-was-unconstitutional/

[It’s a podcast? audio, anyway. This is a link to Levin’s facebook post and it seems to me Levin learned how to write from St Paul—hey maybe they’re related!]

The appointment of Robert Mueller violates the Appointments Clause of the Constitution...
MARK LEVIN·MONDAY, MAY 21, 2018

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!

https://www.facebook.com/LevinTV/videos/2103527569933009/


1,513 posted on 05/21/2018 5:46:40 PM PDT by huldah1776 ( Vote Pro-life! Allow God to bless America before He avenges the death of the innocent.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1469 | View Replies ]

To: bagster

There is.


1,643 posted on 05/21/2018 7:52:50 PM PDT by Rusty0604
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1469 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson