There was some suggestion that under the appointments clause RR did not have the power to appoint Mueller or the others? That their appointment could be challenged on the basis?
I have to be careful here and not damage myself playing lawyer make-believe—my expertise focuses on different aspects of the law, use your seatbelt, signal when you turn, and pay your taxes on time, that stuff.
I’m no lawyer, Cboldt is one of the experts here on legal issues. My understanding is based on the information below.
§ 600.1 Grounds for appointing a Special Counsel.
The Attorney General, or in cases in which the Attorney General is recused, the Acting Attorney General, will appoint a Special Counsel when he or she determines that criminal investigation of a person or matter is warranted and -
(a) That investigation or prosecution of that person or matter by a United States Attorney’s Office or litigating Division of the Department of Justice would present a conflict of interest for the Department or other extraordinary circumstances; and
(b) That under the circumstances, it would be in the public interest to appoint an outside Special Counsel to assume responsibility for the matter.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/28/600.1
It seems to indicate that a criminal investigation is warranted. What was the suspected crime? Also, the investigation began as a counter-intelligence effort. So it seems that the appointment of Mueller didn’t have the basis needed, and now they are searching for the crimes after the fact. Although, I would wonder who at the Justice Department at the time would not have had a conflict of interest.
Anyone please feel free to correct me. My question is, if the appointment of Mueller could be challenged, why hasn’t it been?
Thank you!