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.
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.
Just additional sad evidence that we’re well into the post-constitutional phase of the American experience.
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.
“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”
Well according to U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson,
“The appointment of the Special Counsel was squarely within the Acting Attorney General’s authority and consistent with the Department’s Special Counsel regulations,” the motion argued. “And the Special Counsel is properly operating within the scope of his authority, including with respect to Manafort’s ongoing criminal prosecution.”
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/federal-judge-dismisses-paul-manaforts-civil-case-against-robert-mueller
According to Berman, the authority of the Attorney General Sessions through Rosenstein can be assigned to Mueller ?
One thing is obvious, Jeff Sessions should resign.