Mueller Probe Set To Fail Under Article II

[Soggy in NOLA]

so funny that no one is talking about or even trying to defend the CRIMES the CRIMINALS in his admin committed....

What crimes have admin officials been committed of?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Perhaps more accurate to say that the Article II appointment clause requirements do not apply to a special counsel. The special counsel is not a "principle officer" of the United States.

Our cases have not set forth an exclusive criterion for distinguishing between principal and inferior officers for Appointments Clause purposes. Among the offices that we have found to be inferior are that of a district court clerk, Ex parte Hennen, 13 Pet. 225, 258 (1839), an election supervisor, Ex parte Siebold, 100 U. S. 371, 397-398 (1880), a vice consul charged temporarily with the duties of the consul, United States v. Eaton, 169 U. S. 331, 343 (1898), and a "United States commissioner" in district court proceedings, Go-Bart Importing Co. v. United States, 282 U. S. 344, 352— 354 (1931). Most recently, in Morrison v. Olson, 487 U. S. 654 (1988), we held that the independent counsel created by provisions of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978, 28 U. S. C. §§ 591-599, was an inferior officer. In reaching that conclusion, we relied on several factors: that the independent counsel was subject to removal by a higher officer (the Attorney General), that she performed only limited duties, that her jurisdiction was narrow, and that her tenure was limited. 487 U. S., at 671-672.

Edmond v. United States, 520 US 651 - Supreme Court 1997 - Google Scholar

FALSE! The Article II appointment clause requirements apply to anyone.

HA HA. So the special counsel is somehow not part of >> " all other Officers of the United States" ? Maybe you need to read the dictionary's definitiotn of the word "ALL" Article II clause says >> ".... 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,..."

Not difficult to understand. Very simple, actually. And what it means is that since Trump didn't pick Mueller (or Mueller's running dogs), the whole so-called investigation is a sham laughingstock, with zero legality.

FALSE! The Article II appointment clause requirements apply to only 'principle officers', and SC does not fall into that category. SCOTUS has ruled on that, and there are no Alt Right fake exceptions..

 

[theDoctorisIn]

The Supreme Court already decided this back in 1988, in Morrison v. Olsen. The Special Counsel is an "inferior" officer, and therefore does not need to be appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate.

The Appointments clause isn't going to save you.

You just contradicted yourself. The words "inferior officers" is part of Article II., and I posted them myself just a few posts back. They refer to what CONGRESS can do (not some Asst AG)

No, I didn't. Have you actually read the Appointments clause?

... and [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.

You understand that the (Acting) Attorney General is the "head" of a "department", right?

 

[JakeStarkey]

No, I didn't. Have you actually read the Appointments clause?

... and [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.

You understand that the (Acting) Attorney General is the "head" of a "department", right?

CORRECT! The silly Alt Rights think their opinions are facts that Trump the law.

 

[JakeStarkey]

so funny that no one is talking about or even trying to defend the CRIMES the CRIMINALS in his admin committed....

What crimes have admin officials been committed of?

 

[eagle1462010]

http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1897&context=fss_papers

They can only move to Impeach..............The FBI has openly said that.........the Dems don't own the house.........

So......all they can do is lay Seige to the WH in hopes he resigns...................

 

[Redfish]

SC is going nowhere. A blue wave is gathering for a mighty sweep in the fall. Trump's popularity continues to sit around 40 to 42%, the Dems have been winning from state seats to national elections steadily since fall, and so forth.

Keep looking backwards, alt righties, and you will trip onto your faces.

not a chance, jakey boy, not a chance in hell. Pelosi, Obama, Clinton, Reid, Schumer, Waters, Wasserman-Schultz, Bernie, Lynch, Obama, and the left wing media have destroyed the dem party. The party of Kennedy and Truman no longer exists, it is now the party of Marx and Mao.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1897&context=fss_papers

They can only move to Impeach..............The FBI has openly said that.........the Dems don't own the house.........

So......all they can do is lay Seige to the WH in hopes he resigns...................

You understand that's a student note, not a law - right?

Whether or not a sitting President can be prosecuted is an open legal question. It hasn't been answered yet, because no one has tried.

 

[eagle1462010]

http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1897&context=fss_papers

They can only move to Impeach..............The FBI has openly said that.........the Dems don't own the house.........

So......all they can do is lay Seige to the WH in hopes he resigns...................

You understand that's a student note, not a law - right?

Whether or not a sitting President can be prosecuted is an open legal question. It hasn't been answered yet, because no one has tried.

The FBI has basically said the same thing.............Or did you miss that............the Mueller investigation is only for a Impeachment proceeding..............They can take out players but charging the POTUS directly is unlikely.

Congress is the proper place for impeachment.......Senate the proper place for a trial.

If Trump is no longer President then he can be charged as normal.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1897&context=fss_papers

They can only move to Impeach..............The FBI has openly said that.........the Dems don't own the house.........

So......all they can do is lay Seige to the WH in hopes he resigns...................

You understand that's a student note, not a law - right?

Whether or not a sitting President can be prosecuted is an open legal question. It hasn't been answered yet, because no one has tried.

The FBI has basically said the same thing.............Or did you miss that............the Mueller investigation is only for a Impeachment proceeding..............They can take out players but charging the POTUS directly is unlikely.

Congress is the proper place for impeachment.......Senate the proper place for a trial.

If Trump is no longer President then he can be charged as normal.

I'm not saying that Mueller will try to indict Trump while he's President. In fact, I think it's incredibly unlikely that he will.

I'm just saying that there's no legal precedent, and no clear answer to the question.

 

[eagle1462010]

Ex FBI director Robert Mueller says Donald Trump 'cannot be indicted' amid Russian election interference probe

You Lose, Democrats: Mueller Told Trump Legal Team The President Cannot Be Indicted

The precedent that federal prosecutors cannot indict a sitting president is laid out in a 1999 Justice Department memo. Giuliani told Fox News that Mueller has no choice but to follow its guidance.

"This case is essentially over," Giuliani said. "They're just in denial."

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

The "Appointments Clause" provides that "principal officers" must be appointed by the President with the Senate's consent." But the Mueller team was given "special status" to several prosecutors on his team, by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein in their probe of former Trump campaign chief Paul Manafort, the entire investigation may be invalidated, thus "unconstitutional!"
The self-inflicted "catch-22" scenario by Rosenstein giving unlimited power to Mueller is exactly what the "Appointments Clause" under Article II of the Constitution was designed to prevent.
The Mueller attorneys presiding over the Manafort case before Federal Judge T.S. Ellis III, in Alexandria, VA., may have violated Article II of the Constitution because they not only represented the office of the special counsel, but also simultaneously considered "Special Assistant U.S. Attorneys." Therefore Mueller, (who's the direct supervisor) should be legally considered a "roving" U.S. Attorney.
Now here's where it gets dicey, under the Constitution only the President can nominate all "principal officers," including U.S. attorneys and cabinet members. However Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein appointed Mueller as special counsel. Moreover, Rosenstein is a "political appointee" and as such was never "confirmed" by the Senate, as anyone serving as a U.S. attorney by law must, thus the entire investigation may be invalid. The case can be made that Rosenstein usurped the authority of the President of the United States to nominate whoever he wants as a prosecutor. Mr. Mueller is serving unconstitutionally in violation of the Appointments Clause of the U.S. Constitution because of the way Rod Rosenstein appointed him. All attorneys involved could openly challenge whatever subpoenas the Mueller team throws out, to raise as a defense, the Appointments Clause in court.
This Mueller probe has been illegal since the start and is set to ultimately fail. This isn't a dodge by the Right, just another example of how desperate the Left is to try to hang this President any way they can to nullify his election.

That is nothing but propaganda bullshit!

Since nobody has bothered to look up the obvious and point to the glaring defects in Levin's, et al, claim I'll lay it out to show the ozing bull flop on toast in the OP's claim he retrieved from the RW echo chamber of the ever growing piles of bovine excrement.

Article II, § 2;
"He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he 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."

28 U.S. Code §§ 591-599;
Appoint of Special Counsel restored to the Attorney General or his designee post Watergate.

These two points in LAW put the appointment of a Special Prosecutor/Counsel directly in the hands of the head or acting head of the DOJ as determined by Congress AND set only conditional requirements of the advise and consent of the Senate is necessary per Article II, § 2, with a notable exception in this case being the appointment of the Special Counsel!

But you NJ's keep on hoping for a miracle to save your Orange Clown's Fat Ass!

 

[eagle1462010]

http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1897&context=fss_papers

They can only move to Impeach..............The FBI has openly said that.........the Dems don't own the house.........

So......all they can do is lay Seige to the WH in hopes he resigns...................

You understand that's a student note, not a law - right?

Whether or not a sitting President can be prosecuted is an open legal question. It hasn't been answered yet, because no one has tried.

The FBI has basically said the same thing.............Or did you miss that............the Mueller investigation is only for a Impeachment proceeding..............They can take out players but charging the POTUS directly is unlikely.

Congress is the proper place for impeachment.......Senate the proper place for a trial.

If Trump is no longer President then he can be charged as normal.

I'm not saying that Mueller will try to indict Trump while he's President. In fact, I think it's incredibly unlikely that he will.

I'm just saying that there's no legal precedent, and no clear answer to the question.

There is only one way this goes to Trial.............In the Senate.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1897&context=fss_papers

They can only move to Impeach..............The FBI has openly said that.........the Dems don't own the house.........

So......all they can do is lay Seige to the WH in hopes he resigns...................

You understand that's a student note, not a law - right?

Whether or not a sitting President can be prosecuted is an open legal question. It hasn't been answered yet, because no one has tried.

The FBI has basically said the same thing.............Or did you miss that............the Mueller investigation is only for a Impeachment proceeding..............They can take out players but charging the POTUS directly is unlikely.

Congress is the proper place for impeachment.......Senate the proper place for a trial.

If Trump is no longer President then he can be charged as normal.

I'm not saying that Mueller will try to indict Trump while he's President. In fact, I think it's incredibly unlikely that he will.

I'm just saying that there's no legal precedent, and no clear answer to the question.

There is only one way this goes to Trial.............In the Senate.

You're almost certainly correct.

I'm just saying, the law isn't as clear as you seem to think it is.

 

[eagle1462010]

http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1897&context=fss_papers

They can only move to Impeach..............The FBI has openly said that.........the Dems don't own the house.........

So......all they can do is lay Seige to the WH in hopes he resigns...................

You understand that's a student note, not a law - right?

Whether or not a sitting President can be prosecuted is an open legal question. It hasn't been answered yet, because no one has tried.

The FBI has basically said the same thing.............Or did you miss that............the Mueller investigation is only for a Impeachment proceeding..............They can take out players but charging the POTUS directly is unlikely.

Congress is the proper place for impeachment.......Senate the proper place for a trial.

If Trump is no longer President then he can be charged as normal.

I'm not saying that Mueller will try to indict Trump while he's President. In fact, I think it's incredibly unlikely that he will.

I'm just saying that there's no legal precedent, and no clear answer to the question.

There is only one way this goes to Trial.............In the Senate.

You're almost certainly correct.

I'm just saying, the law isn't as clear as you seem to think it is.

Which would require them to either make a motion to the Supreme Court.............or try to charge him and let them appeal to the Supreme Court for implied powers of the president.

This isn't going to happen...........Mueller has basically said so........So they can only gather for Impeachment........

Meaning.......unless Trump folds like Nixon............Nothing is really going to happen.

 

[Norman]

Meh... the probe failed from the beginning from being based on the most stupid miss-informative conspiracy propaganda ever created by men.

There is nothing to be salvaged. It's just a pure expression of butthurt by the fact that Donald J. Trump took down the messiah and pork provider of certain people.

 

[Care4all]

http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1897&context=fss_papers

They can only move to Impeach..............The FBI has openly said that.........the Dems don't own the house.........

So......all they can do is lay Seige to the WH in hopes he resigns...................

that really has not been settled yet.... it's simply opinion or rules set, and when challenged...the Supreme court will decide.

It's hard to say how it will come out, once said and done.

NO ONE is above the law....

even the President....or rather...especially the President, who took an oath to defend the constitution and laws derived from it.

As example, if a president shot and murdered in cold blood a person on 5th avenue....

will the justice department's hands be tied and really not charge him, if Congress critters in the majority are cult followers of the President and refuse to impeach him? I dunno? hard call....

 

[theDoctorisIn]

You understand that's a student note, not a law - right?

Whether or not a sitting President can be prosecuted is an open legal question. It hasn't been answered yet, because no one has tried.

The FBI has basically said the same thing.............Or did you miss that............the Mueller investigation is only for a Impeachment proceeding..............They can take out players but charging the POTUS directly is unlikely.

Congress is the proper place for impeachment.......Senate the proper place for a trial.

If Trump is no longer President then he can be charged as normal.

I'm not saying that Mueller will try to indict Trump while he's President. In fact, I think it's incredibly unlikely that he will.

I'm just saying that there's no legal precedent, and no clear answer to the question.

There is only one way this goes to Trial.............In the Senate.

You're almost certainly correct.

I'm just saying, the law isn't as clear as you seem to think it is.

Which would require them to either make a motion to the Supreme Court.............or try to charge him and let them appeal to the Supreme Court for implied powers of the president.

This isn't going to happen...........Mueller has basically said so........So they can only gather for Impeachment........

Meaning.......unless Trump folds like Nixon............Nothing is really going to happen.

To be clear - Mueller didn't say that, Giuliani claimed that Mueller said that.

As I said already, I still don't think there's much of a chance that Mueller will attempt to criminally indict a sitting President.

 

[eagle1462010]

http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1897&context=fss_papers

They can only move to Impeach..............The FBI has openly said that.........the Dems don't own the house.........

So......all they can do is lay Seige to the WH in hopes he resigns...................

that really has not been settled yet.... it's simply opinion or rules set, and when challenged...the Supreme court will decide.

It's hard to say how it will come out, once said and done.

NO ONE is above the law....

even the President....or rather...especially the President, who took an oath to defend the constitution and laws derived from it.

As example, if a president shot and murdered in cold blood a person on 5th avenue....

will the justice department's hands be tied and really not charge him, if Congress critters in the majority are cult followers of the President and refuse to impeach him? I dunno? hard call....

That is a what IF scenario.............does not mesh to the current situation.

Mueller's hands are pretty much tied.............Unless you have a Blue Tidal Wave next election ............this is nothing but a political show.

 

[eagle1462010]

The FBI has basically said the same thing.............Or did you miss that............the Mueller investigation is only for a Impeachment proceeding..............They can take out players but charging the POTUS directly is unlikely.

Congress is the proper place for impeachment.......Senate the proper place for a trial.

If Trump is no longer President then he can be charged as normal.

I'm not saying that Mueller will try to indict Trump while he's President. In fact, I think it's incredibly unlikely that he will.

I'm just saying that there's no legal precedent, and no clear answer to the question.

There is only one way this goes to Trial.............In the Senate.

You're almost certainly correct.

I'm just saying, the law isn't as clear as you seem to think it is.

Which would require them to either make a motion to the Supreme Court.............or try to charge him and let them appeal to the Supreme Court for implied powers of the president.

This isn't going to happen...........Mueller has basically said so........So they can only gather for Impeachment........

Meaning.......unless Trump folds like Nixon............Nothing is really going to happen.

To be clear - Mueller didn't say that, Giuliani claimed that Mueller said that.

As I said already, I still don't think there's much of a chance that Mueller will attempt to criminally indict a sitting President.

Giuliani stated that Mueller told them so......sent them that information. I haven't seen them say otherwise.