Op Ed: Trump says Mueller’s appointment was unconstitutional. Is he right?

[libertybele]

Interesting ... especially since a newly appointed Supreme court justice is waiting in the wings.

Trump says Mueller’s appointment was unconstitutional. Is he right?

The president, who might not be fully acquainted with the pertinent Supreme Court case law, says the appointment of Robert S. Mueller III as special counsel was unconstitutional. The president’s opinion, because it is his, is prima facie evidence for the opposite conclusion. It is, however, not sufficient evidence. Consider the debate between two serious people who have immersed themselves in the history of the appointments clause, which says:

“[The president] shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law: but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.”

The debate turns on the distinction the Supreme Court has drawn between “inferior” and “principal” officers. If Mueller is among the latter, his appointment was invalid because he was neither nominated by the president — he was appointed by Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein — nor confirmed by the Senate...........

..........Two intelligent lawyers disagree about this momentous matter, concerning which the Supreme Court’s nine justices might eventually be dispositive. If Mueller’s appointment is challenged, and the case gets to the court, and five justices reason as Calabresi does, Mueller’s subpoenas, indictments and other acts will be null and void.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/trump-says-muellers-appointment-was-unconstitutional-is-he-right/2018/07/11/4b8d5a3e-845c-11e8-8553-a3ce89036c78_story.html?utm_term=.fe95e8d78363

[Bigun]

Unlawful for sure and therefore unconstitutional.

[Concerned]

As litigious as Donald Trump has been over time, if he really thought he had a legal case against the appointment of Mueller, I have no doubt that case would have been brought a year ago.

[edpc]

No, he is not right.  Judge Ellis has been openly critical of the Mueller probe.  Yet, in his decision to allow the Manafort trial to continue, he addresses the constitutionality of the special counsel.  He spends the last 6 or so pages explaining how it is constitutional, in his view, and that challenges to it on that basis are likely to fail. 

"The Special Counsel’s appointment was consistent with both constitutional requirements regarding appointment of officers and statutory requirements governing the authority to conduct criminal litigation on behalf of the United States, the Special Counsel had legal authority to investigate and to prosecute this matter and dismissal of the Superseding Indictment is not warranted," the Reagan appointee wrote.

Still, Ellis insisted, "that conclusion should not be read as approval of the practice of appointing Special Counsel to prosecute cases of alleged high-level misconduct."

Basically, he doesn't like the idea of the special counsel and believes there are better options for investigations.  However, the appointment does not violate the constitution.  A link to his full 31 page ruling can be found here.....


https://www.politico.com/story/2018/06/26/judge-rejects-challenge-676814

[libertybele]

As litigious as Donald Trump has been over time, if he really thought he had a legal case against the appointment of Mueller, I have no doubt that case would have been brought a year ago.

One thing I have observed about President Trump is he seems to have impeccable timing.  He has Gorsuch placed and will soon have Kavanaugh placed... he could very well make the consitutionality of Mueller's investigation an issue for the SCOTUS to decide.  OR ... he could after the midterms fire Rosenstein, Muller and hopefully even Sessions.

[Concerned]

One thing I have observed about President Trump is he seems to have impeccable timing.  He has Gorsuch placed and will soon have Kavanaugh placed... he could very well make the consitutionality of Mueller's investigation an issue for the SCOTUS to decide.  OR ... he could after the midterms fire Rosenstein, Muller and hopefully even Sessions.

As much as he absolutely hates, and is seemingly obsessed with, the Mueller investigation, I don't believe for a moment that he's somehow waiting for "impeccable timing" in order to get the justice system to rule that the appointment of Mueller is unconstitutional.  I think it's much more likely that he (and his attorneys) actually recognize that Mueller's appointment is indeed Constitutional.  I'm willing to put my money where my mouth is that Mueller's appointment will never be ruled as unconstitutional, but I doubt anyone is willing to take the other side of that bet.   

[libertybele]

As much as he absolutely hates, and is seemingly obsessed with, the Mueller investigation, I don't believe for a moment that he's somehow waiting for "impeccable timing" in order to get the justice system to rule that the appointment of Mueller is unconstitutional.  I think it's much more likely that he (and his attorneys) actually recognize that Mueller's appointment is indeed Constitutional.  I'm willing to put my money where my mouth is that Mueller's appointment will never be ruled as unconstitutional, but I doubt anyone is willing to take the other side of that bet.   

Ok...regardless of the constitutionality of the Mueller investigation the problem is that Rosenstein did not set any clear parameters and the investigation has gone beyond the scope of Russian collusion.  It has become a major witch hunt to bury Trump and his cronies and to protect Clinton and the past administration; including Rosenstein and Mueller himself!  So ... perhaps not unconstitutional but highly unethical, immoral and corrupt!

[edpc]

Ok...regardless of the constitutionality of the Mueller investigation the problem is that Rosenstein did not set any clear parameters and the investigation has gone beyond the scope of Russian collusion.

How?  Everyone indicted or cooperating under plea agreement is in the situation, due to Russian contacts.

[libertybele]

How?  Everyone indicted or cooperating under plea agreement is in the situation, due to Russian contacts.

Everyone??   So in essence you don't agree that this is nothing more than a witch hunt?  Those in question may have had contact with the Russians, but did they actually collude?  Seems to me they left out investigation the 'links' between Clinton, Russia, Uranium One, Mueller and Rosenstein. You mean to tell me that Clinton had absolutely no contact with Putin or Russia?  Come on.  How in the heck can you conduct a valid investigation when the investigation is ONLY focused on President Trump and not Russian collusion in general??  How in the heck can you conduct a valid investigation when those doing the investigation are guilty and corrupt??

Meanwhile Sessions recuses himself and has no problem with Rosenstein or Mueller!

This investigation is nothing more than allowing an investigation to be directed away from the Clinton/Bammy camp and focused on DJT and cronies.

[edpc]

Everyone??   So in essence you don't agree that this is nothing more than a witch hunt?  Those in question may have had contact with the Russians, but did they actually collude?  Seems to me they left out investigation the 'links' between Clinton, Russia, Uranium One, Mueller and Rosenstein. You mean to tell me that Clinton had absolutely no contact with Putin or Russia?  Come on.  How in the heck can you conduct a valid investigation when the investigation is ONLY focused on President Trump and not Russian collusion in general??  How in the heck can you conduct a valid investigation when those doing the investigation are guilty and corrupt??

Meanwhile Sessions recuses himself and has no problem with Rosenstein or Mueller!

This investigation is nothing more than allowing an investigation to be directed away from the Clinton/Bammy camp and focused on DJT and cronies.

Yes, everyone. Take a look at the people currently indicted and under plea agreement. Also, take a look at the letter outlining the scope and appointing Mueller. It has nothing to do with Clinton.  The fact there is no investigation into Hillary, Bill or the Foundation is due to Trump saying publicly he would not pursue one.

[libertybele]

Yes, everyone. Take a look at the people currently indicted and under plea agreement. Also, take a look at the letter outlining the scope and appointing Mueller. It has nothing to do with Clinton.  The fact there is no investigation into Hillary, Bill or the Foundation is due to Trump saying publicly he would not pursue one.

??? Seriously?  There is no investigation into Hillary because those doing the investigations ARE involved in her corruption!!  It has everything to do with Clinton.  This investigation is nothing more than a diversion; diverting focus from Clinton and onto Trump.  So Hillary, Bammy, Holder, Rosenstein, Mueller, Jarett, etc., are innocent, because Trump said he would not pursue an investigation?  Do you really believe that?  What about all those e-mails?

https://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/weekly-updates/weekly-update-jw-sues-over-mueller-abuse/

https://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-new-clinton-emails-reveal-classified-docs-clinton-foundation-connections/

[edpc]

??? Seriously?  There is no investigation into Hillary because those doing the investigations ARE involved in her corruption!!  It has everything to do with Clinton.  This investigation is nothing more than a diversion; diverting focus from Clinton and onto Trump.  So Hillary, Bammy, Holder, Rosenstein, Mueller, Jarett, etc., are innocent, because Trump said he would not pursue an investigation?  Do you really believe that?  What about all those e-mails?

https://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/weekly-updates/weekly-update-jw-sues-over-mueller-abuse/

https://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-new-clinton-emails-reveal-classified-docs-clinton-foundation-connections/

I didn’t say anything about their innocence. The fact of the matter is, they are not being investigated, because the person who is the ultimately in charge of the DOJ thinks they are good people, doesn’t want to harm them, and thought “lock her up” was good campaign material - nothing more.  We know this, because he’s publicly said so.

[libertybele]

I didn’t say anything about their innocence. The fact of the matter is, they are not being investigated, because the person who is the ultimately in charge of the DOJ thinks they are good people, doesn’t want to harm them, and thought “lock her up” was good campaign material - nothing more.  We know this, because he’s publicly said so.

That in part is my point.  They are NOT being investigated., because those doing the investigating WERE/ARE involved in the corruption.  Therefore, this investigation was orchestrated to take the focus off of their corruption.

Of course the DOJ thinks they are good people --- Rosenstein and Mueller who are eyebrow deep in corruption, are covering for them!!

Trump stating to lock her up and then saying he (personally) won't investigate her is irrelevant; that doesn't warrant the Deputy AG appointing one of his cronies to investigate Trump. 

What still baffles me is Trump appointed Rosenstein!  My understanding is that Trump's pal (?) Giuliani recommended that pick.   BTW, Sessions stated that Rosenstein could investigate himself.   (Watch video):


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1H-jArqFVFk

Trump appointing Sessions, Rosenstein and taking on Giuliani are his biggest mistakes!

[Concerned]

That in part is my point.  They are NOT being investigated., because those doing the investigating WERE/ARE involved in the corruption.  Therefore, this investigation was orchestrated to take the focus off of their corruption.

Of course the DOJ thinks they are good people --- Rosenstein and Mueller who are eyebrow deep in corruption, are covering for them!!

Trump stating to lock her up and then saying he (personally) won't investigate her is irrelevant; that doesn't warrant the Deputy AG appointing one of his cronies to investigate Trump. 

What still baffles me is Trump appointed Rosenstein!  My understanding is that Trump's pal (?) Giuliani recommended that pick.   BTW, Sessions stated that Rosenstein could investigate himself.   (Watch video):


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1H-jArqFVFk

Trump appointing Sessions, Rosenstein and taking on Giuliani are his biggest mistakes!

I agree they were big mistakes if Trump was really serious about "lock her up", but I've seen no evidence since the election that he was actually serious about that.  In fact, I've seen just the opposite (e.g., she's already "suffer enough" and she and Bill are "good people").  I think that most of his signature promises (e.g., "lock her up", Mexico paying for the wall, and "drain the swamp") weren't so much promises but rather meaningless campaign slogans that somehow his supporters bought hook, line, and sinker.