Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Levin: Mueller’s appointment was unconstitutional [additional audio]
Conservative Review ^ | May 21, 2018 | Chris Pandolfo

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 ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Government
KEYWORDS: constitution; mueller; rosenstein; russiagate
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-35 next last
Here is Levin's sharing of law from his Facebook page:

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!

1 posted on 05/22/2018 5:31:07 AM PDT by huldah1776
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: huldah1776

This should be blasted everywhere today and tweeted by POTUS, end the Mueller reign of stupidity now.


2 posted on 05/22/2018 5:36:20 AM PDT by databoss
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: huldah1776

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,


3 posted on 05/22/2018 5:38:50 AM PDT by GrandJediMasterYoda (Vox populi, vox dei)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: huldah1776
There are plenty of things to complain about when it comes to Mueller, but the constitutional argument is a weak one.

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.

4 posted on 05/22/2018 5:39:36 AM PDT by Alberta's Child ("I saw a werewolf drinking a pina colada at Trader Vic's.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: huldah1776

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,


5 posted on 05/22/2018 5:49:29 AM PDT by GrandJediMasterYoda (Vox populi, vox dei)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: huldah1776

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.


6 posted on 05/22/2018 5:50:47 AM PDT by neverevergiveup
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child

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.


7 posted on 05/22/2018 5:53:00 AM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: GrandJediMasterYoda

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.


8 posted on 05/22/2018 5:53:06 AM PDT by Starboard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: huldah1776

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.


9 posted on 05/22/2018 5:55:07 AM PDT by joesbucks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt
I agree with you, but those are questions related to specific cases being prosecuted, not a broader question about the legitimacy of a DOJ appointment.

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.

10 posted on 05/22/2018 6:02:10 AM PDT by Alberta's Child ("I saw a werewolf drinking a pina colada at Trader Vic's.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: joesbucks

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.


11 posted on 05/22/2018 6:03:12 AM PDT by jjotto ("Ya could look it up!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: huldah1776

Just additional sad evidence that we’re well into the post-constitutional phase of the American experience.


12 posted on 05/22/2018 6:04:52 AM PDT by Menehune56 ("Let them hate so long as they fear" (Oderint Dum Metuant), Lucius Accius (170 BC - 86 BC))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: joesbucks

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.


13 posted on 05/22/2018 6:06:24 AM PDT by VRWCarea51 (The Original 1998 Version)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: huldah1776
Duh! We don't need Levin or anyone else to tell us what is obviously so. The central facts have been public for a long time, but all the talking heads and commentators on all sides keep skating past them to keep the lucrative (to them) "narrative" going. Everyone except Trump, his family, employees and those caught up in Mueller's garbage is making money off this BS.

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.

14 posted on 05/22/2018 6:06:57 AM PDT by Avalon Memories ( Proud Deplorable. Proud born-in-the-USA American Dreamer.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child

Yeah, “tremendous protection.” That’s why Mueller’s storm troopers could raid Trump’s personal lawyer with impunity. Spit!


15 posted on 05/22/2018 6:11:17 AM PDT by Avalon Memories ( Proud Deplorable. Proud born-in-the-USA American Dreamer.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Avalon Memories
Do you know all the facts related to that?

I didn't think so.

The vicarious victimization I see here is nauseating.

16 posted on 05/22/2018 6:19:33 AM PDT by Alberta's Child ("I saw a werewolf drinking a pina colada at Trader Vic's.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child

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?


17 posted on 05/22/2018 6:33:37 AM PDT by Avalon Memories ( Proud Deplorable. Proud born-in-the-USA American Dreamer.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: VRWCarea51

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.


18 posted on 05/22/2018 6:53:26 AM PDT by joesbucks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Avalon Memories
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.

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?

19 posted on 05/22/2018 6:57:14 AM PDT by Alberta's Child ("I saw a werewolf drinking a pina colada at Trader Vic's.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: huldah1776
I heard Levin's argument last night. He was right, but like the BC issue, those who can stop the clock and time up on the Hill don't care. The law and reality is whatever they want it to be so they are busy passing resolutions to protect Mueller from firing Trump. They could give a rat's _ss about logic, common sense, and the Constitution. They proved that by protecting the Usurper and deliberately subjecting the Country to the train wreck we are now living through. These people would have us believe they are our Country's finest. LOL. God help POTUS, Q, and the quest for truth, justice, and Country.
20 posted on 05/22/2018 7:02:43 AM PDT by iontheball
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-35 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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