CDZ Special Councel Appointment

[Ame®icano]

Was Mueller appointment by Rosenstein constitutional?

According to Article 2, Section 2 of the Constitution that refers to the presidential powers:

"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."

Here is the issue with Mueller appointment. All principal Officers are to be nominated and appointed by the President, and confirmed by the Senate. Principal Officers are to appoint inferior Officers and Senate confirmation is not required. Since Mueller is not nominated by the President, and confirmed by the Senate, he is not principal Officer. Mueller being appointed by Rosenstein makes him inferior Officer, and no inferior Officer can have powers and mandate broad as such, that Mueller has. Even US Attorneys, who are principal Officers, nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate don't have powers that Mueller has.

Having said that, if Mueller have such broad powers to even investigate the President, that would make him principal Officer, which he's not since he's not nominated by President and confirmed by the Senate, meaning, Mueller is overreaching his mandate. Second, Rosenstein, as pronicpal Officer have no powers to appoint the principal Officer (which by the given mandate Mueller is acting as he is), therefore he did something that only President and Senate can do, so the Mueller appointment is clearly unconstitutional.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Was Mueller appointment by Rosenstein constitutional?

According to Article 2, Section 2 of the Constitution that refers to the presidential powers:

"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."

Here is the issue with Mueller appointment. All principal Officers are to be nominated and appointed by the President, and confirmed by the Senate. Principal Officers are to appoint inferior Officers and Senate confirmation is not required. Since Mueller is not nominated by the President, and confirmed by the Senate, he is not principal Officer. Mueller being appointed by Rosenstein makes him inferior Officer, and no inferior Officer can have powers and mandate broad as such, that Mueller has. Even US Attorneys, who are principal Officers, nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate don't have powers that Mueller has.

Having said that, if Mueller have such broad powers to even investigate the President, that would make him principal Officer, which he's not since he's not nominated by President and confirmed by the Senate, meaning, Mueller is overreaching his mandate. Second, Rosenstein, as pronicpal Officer have no powers to appoint the principal Officer (which by the given mandate Mueller is acting as he is), therefore he did something that only President and Senate can do, so the Mueller appointment is clearly unconstitutional.

You know, that's an intelligent question.

The Supreme Court answered it back in 1988, in Morrison v. Olsen.

(a) Appellant is an "inferior" officer for purposes of the Clause, which -- after providing for the appointment of certain federal officials ("principal" officers) by the President with the Senate's advice and consent -- states that "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." Although appellant may not be "subordinate" to the Attorney General (and the President) insofar as, under the Act, she possesses a degree of independent discretion to exercise the powers delegated to her, the fact that the Act authorizes her removal by the Attorney General indicates that she is to some degree "inferior" in rank and authority. Moreover, appellant is empowered by the Act to perform only certain, limited duties, restricted primarily to investigation and, if appropriate, prosecution for certain federal crimes. In addition, appellant's office is limited in jurisdiction to that which has been granted by the Special Division pursuant to a request by the Attorney General. Also, appellant's office is "temporary" in the sense that an independent counsel is appointed essentially to accomplish a single task, and when that task is over, the office is terminated, either by counsel herself or by action of the Special Division. Pp. 487 U. S. 670-673.

Morrison v. Olson, 487 U.S. 654 (1988)

 

[Ame®icano]

Was Mueller appointment by Rosenstein constitutional?

According to Article 2, Section 2 of the Constitution that refers to the presidential powers:

"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."

Here is the issue with Mueller appointment. All principal Officers are to be nominated and appointed by the President, and confirmed by the Senate. Principal Officers are to appoint inferior Officers and Senate confirmation is not required. Since Mueller is not nominated by the President, and confirmed by the Senate, he is not principal Officer. Mueller being appointed by Rosenstein makes him inferior Officer, and no inferior Officer can have powers and mandate broad as such, that Mueller has. Even US Attorneys, who are principal Officers, nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate don't have powers that Mueller has.

Having said that, if Mueller have such broad powers to even investigate the President, that would make him principal Officer, which he's not since he's not nominated by President and confirmed by the Senate, meaning, Mueller is overreaching his mandate. Second, Rosenstein, as pronicpal Officer have no powers to appoint the principal Officer (which by the given mandate Mueller is acting as he is), therefore he did something that only President and Senate can do, so the Mueller appointment is clearly unconstitutional.

You know, that's an intelligent question.

The Supreme Court answered it back in 1988, in Morrison v. Olsen.

(a) Appellant is an "inferior" officer for purposes of the Clause, which -- after providing for the appointment of certain federal officials ("principal" officers) by the President with the Senate's advice and consent -- states that "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." Although appellant may not be "subordinate" to the Attorney General (and the President) insofar as, under the Act, she possesses a degree of independent discretion to exercise the powers delegated to her, the fact that the Act authorizes her removal by the Attorney General indicates that she is to some degree "inferior" in rank and authority. Moreover, appellant is empowered by the Act to perform only certain, limited duties, restricted primarily to investigation and, if appropriate, prosecution for certain federal crimes. In addition, appellant's office is limited in jurisdiction to that which has been granted by the Special Division pursuant to a request by the Attorney General. Also, appellant's office is "temporary" in the sense that an independent counsel is appointed essentially to accomplish a single task, and when that task is over, the office is terminated, either by counsel herself or by action of the Special Division. Pp. 487 U. S. 670-673.

Morrison v. Olson, 487 U.S. 654 (1988)

In case of Mueller, the deputy AG usurped the power of the President and power of the Senate by making the appointment that violate the appointment clause of the Constitution.

I'm far from being lawyer, but by looking at, and comapring the Morrison v. Olson, and Mueller appointment, what "single task" was assigned to Mueller in case of "Russia collusion", Flynn charges, Papadopoulos charges, foreign citizens and companies charges, and others? Also I think that in Morrison v. Olson, is the case where special counsel was performing limited duties within limited jurisdiction, while Mueller jurisdiction seems to be unlimited (unconstitutional), it was given by the deputy AG (unconstitutional) and too broad (unconstitutional) and it's even broader now than initially was (unconstitutional).

Here is the first question, did Rosenstein had authority to give inferior Officer Mueller such powers? Second, is Mueller exercising powers that are beyond the powers that inferior Officer can have?

Aside of what I think about whole "investigation", I am talking just about Article 2 of the Constitution, I think that every defendant charged by the Mueller so far can raise the issue with constitutionality of his appointment in federal court and beat him on that technicality weather or not they're guilty of anything else.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Was Mueller appointment by Rosenstein constitutional?

According to Article 2, Section 2 of the Constitution that refers to the presidential powers:

"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."

Here is the issue with Mueller appointment. All principal Officers are to be nominated and appointed by the President, and confirmed by the Senate. Principal Officers are to appoint inferior Officers and Senate confirmation is not required. Since Mueller is not nominated by the President, and confirmed by the Senate, he is not principal Officer. Mueller being appointed by Rosenstein makes him inferior Officer, and no inferior Officer can have powers and mandate broad as such, that Mueller has. Even US Attorneys, who are principal Officers, nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate don't have powers that Mueller has.

Having said that, if Mueller have such broad powers to even investigate the President, that would make him principal Officer, which he's not since he's not nominated by President and confirmed by the Senate, meaning, Mueller is overreaching his mandate. Second, Rosenstein, as pronicpal Officer have no powers to appoint the principal Officer (which by the given mandate Mueller is acting as he is), therefore he did something that only President and Senate can do, so the Mueller appointment is clearly unconstitutional.

You know, that's an intelligent question.

The Supreme Court answered it back in 1988, in Morrison v. Olsen.

(a) Appellant is an "inferior" officer for purposes of the Clause, which -- after providing for the appointment of certain federal officials ("principal" officers) by the President with the Senate's advice and consent -- states that "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." Although appellant may not be "subordinate" to the Attorney General (and the President) insofar as, under the Act, she possesses a degree of independent discretion to exercise the powers delegated to her, the fact that the Act authorizes her removal by the Attorney General indicates that she is to some degree "inferior" in rank and authority. Moreover, appellant is empowered by the Act to perform only certain, limited duties, restricted primarily to investigation and, if appropriate, prosecution for certain federal crimes. In addition, appellant's office is limited in jurisdiction to that which has been granted by the Special Division pursuant to a request by the Attorney General. Also, appellant's office is "temporary" in the sense that an independent counsel is appointed essentially to accomplish a single task, and when that task is over, the office is terminated, either by counsel herself or by action of the Special Division. Pp. 487 U. S. 670-673.

Morrison v. Olson, 487 U.S. 654 (1988)

In case of Mueller, the deputy AG usurped the power of the President and power of the Senate by making the appointment that violate the appointment clause of the Constitution.

I'm far from being lawyer, but by looking at, and comapring the Morrison v. Olson, and Mueller appointment, what "single task" was assigned to Mueller in case of "Russia collusion", Flynn charges, Papadopoulos charges, foreign citizens and companies charges, and others? Also I think that in Morrison v. Olson, is the case where special counsel was performing limited duties within limited jurisdiction, while Mueller jurisdiction seems to be unlimited (unconstitutional), it was given by the deputy AG (unconstitutional) and too broad (unconstitutional) and it's even broader now than initially was (unconstitutional).

Here is the first question, did Rosenstein had authority to give inferior Officer Mueller such powers? Second, is Mueller exercising powers that are beyond the powers that inferior Officer can have?

Aside of what I think about whole "investigation", I am talking just about Article 2 of the Constitution, I think that every defendant charged by the Mueller so far can raise the issue with constitutionality of his appointment in federal court and beat him on that technicality weather or not they're guilty of anything else.

If you read the whole decision - and it can be difficult to read and fully process - you'll find answers to most of those questions.

As for your last point - Manafort already tried to have the charges dismissed by challenging Mueller's jurisdiction. The judge threw the motion out.

 

[Ame®icano]

Was Mueller appointment by Rosenstein constitutional?

According to Article 2, Section 2 of the Constitution that refers to the presidential powers:

"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."

Here is the issue with Mueller appointment. All principal Officers are to be nominated and appointed by the President, and confirmed by the Senate. Principal Officers are to appoint inferior Officers and Senate confirmation is not required. Since Mueller is not nominated by the President, and confirmed by the Senate, he is not principal Officer. Mueller being appointed by Rosenstein makes him inferior Officer, and no inferior Officer can have powers and mandate broad as such, that Mueller has. Even US Attorneys, who are principal Officers, nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate don't have powers that Mueller has.

Having said that, if Mueller have such broad powers to even investigate the President, that would make him principal Officer, which he's not since he's not nominated by President and confirmed by the Senate, meaning, Mueller is overreaching his mandate. Second, Rosenstein, as pronicpal Officer have no powers to appoint the principal Officer (which by the given mandate Mueller is acting as he is), therefore he did something that only President and Senate can do, so the Mueller appointment is clearly unconstitutional.

You know, that's an intelligent question.

The Supreme Court answered it back in 1988, in Morrison v. Olsen.

(a) Appellant is an "inferior" officer for purposes of the Clause, which -- after providing for the appointment of certain federal officials ("principal" officers) by the President with the Senate's advice and consent -- states that "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." Although appellant may not be "subordinate" to the Attorney General (and the President) insofar as, under the Act, she possesses a degree of independent discretion to exercise the powers delegated to her, the fact that the Act authorizes her removal by the Attorney General indicates that she is to some degree "inferior" in rank and authority. Moreover, appellant is empowered by the Act to perform only certain, limited duties, restricted primarily to investigation and, if appropriate, prosecution for certain federal crimes. In addition, appellant's office is limited in jurisdiction to that which has been granted by the Special Division pursuant to a request by the Attorney General. Also, appellant's office is "temporary" in the sense that an independent counsel is appointed essentially to accomplish a single task, and when that task is over, the office is terminated, either by counsel herself or by action of the Special Division. Pp. 487 U. S. 670-673.

Morrison v. Olson, 487 U.S. 654 (1988)

In case of Mueller, the deputy AG usurped the power of the President and power of the Senate by making the appointment that violate the appointment clause of the Constitution.

I'm far from being lawyer, but by looking at, and comapring the Morrison v. Olson, and Mueller appointment, what "single task" was assigned to Mueller in case of "Russia collusion", Flynn charges, Papadopoulos charges, foreign citizens and companies charges, and others? Also I think that in Morrison v. Olson, is the case where special counsel was performing limited duties within limited jurisdiction, while Mueller jurisdiction seems to be unlimited (unconstitutional), it was given by the deputy AG (unconstitutional) and too broad (unconstitutional) and it's even broader now than initially was (unconstitutional).

Here is the first question, did Rosenstein had authority to give inferior Officer Mueller such powers? Second, is Mueller exercising powers that are beyond the powers that inferior Officer can have?

Aside of what I think about whole "investigation", I am talking just about Article 2 of the Constitution, I think that every defendant charged by the Mueller so far can raise the issue with constitutionality of his appointment in federal court and beat him on that technicality weather or not they're guilty of anything else.

If you read the whole decision - and it can be difficult to read and fully process - you'll find answers to most of those questions.

As for your last point - Manafort already tried to have the charges dismissed by challenging Mueller's jurisdiction. The judge threw the motion out.

Morrison v. Olson doesn't have much in common with Mueller case. Unlike Mueller's, it doesn't violate appointment clause, for number of reasons. Mueller's appointment and scope of investigation is way too broad and did not provide any criminal statute. The oversight over his investigation isn't oversight at all, it looks more like Rosenstein is rubber stamping whatever Mueller wants. Also, being appointed by deputy AG and not by the President and confirmed by the Senate, Mueller seems to be more powerful that any US attorney in the country that are appointed constitutionally. Beside, what he has done so far could've been done by any US attorney... I'll add some more when it comes to me.

All I am saying above, these are all instances that can be challenged, and I hope someone will explore those options. Manafort's challenge was that Mueller investigation was outside his mandate. If I am not mistaken, the US District Judge T.S. Ellis agrees with that.

 

[Picaro]

Why is Mueller handing out indictments when he has no authority to do so?

 

[Picaro]

In case of Mueller, the deputy AG usurped the power of the President and power of the Senate by making the appointment that violate the appointment clause of the Constitution.


As for your last point - Manafort already tried to have the charges dismissed by challenging Mueller's jurisdiction. The judge threw the motion out.

Arbitrary Judicial fiat, and the rule of law is being dismantled. Good luck with trying to restore it after these gimps and hacks get done with destroying the courts as a trusted arbiter of anything.

 

[Ame®icano]

Why is Mueller handing out indictments when he has no authority to do so?

In my view, the Mueller appointment violates the Constitution and every subpoena, indictment, and plea agreement should be viewed as null and void.

Rosenstein gave himself, or rather seized the "presidential powers" by appointing principal Officer (at least Mueller is acting as he is one), and completely bypassed the Senate confirmation. That is unconstitutional.

theDoctorisin brought up Morrison v. Olson, and I already explained in my limited knowledge the differences in between two. If I am wrong, let's discuss why I am, but I think I am not...

I found another case, Edmond v. United States from 1997, where Justice Scalia summarized the history of appointment clause where he said:

"The Appointments Clause of Article II is more than a matter of "etiquette or protocol"; it is among the significant structural safeguards of the constitutional scheme. By vesting the President with the exclusive power to select the principal (noninferior) officers of the United States, the Appointments Clause prevents congressional encroachment upon the Executive and Judicial Branches..."

Edmond v. United States, 520 U.S. 651 (1997)

The president, not Deputy AG, has exclusive power of nomination.

 

[PredFan]

President Trump is letting this go on when he doesn’t have to. I believe that the reason is that he is in control of it and he is going to drop a bomb on the Democrats that will destroy them right before the elections when it’s too late to do damage control.

Watch and learn.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

President Trump is letting this go on when he doesn’t have to. I believe that the reason is that he is in control of it and he is going to drop a bomb on the Democrats that will destroy them right before the elections when it’s too late to do damage control.

Watch and learn.

#TheStorm is coming. Right?

 

[Ame®icano]

President Trump is letting this go on when he doesn’t have to. I believe that the reason is that he is in control of it and he is going to drop a bomb on the Democrats that will destroy them right before the elections when it’s too late to do damage control.

Watch and learn.

Whether I agree with you, or not... what you just wrote, and what you said you believe is completely irrelevant to this thread.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Why is Mueller handing out indictments when he has no authority to do so?

In my view, the Mueller appointment violates the Constitution and every subpoena, indictment, and plea agreement should be viewed as null and void.

Rosenstein gave himself, or rather seized the "presidential powers" by appointing principal Officer (at least Mueller is acting as he is one), and completely bypassed the Senate confirmation. That is unconstitutional.

theDoctorisin brought up Morrison v. Olson, and I already explained in my limited knowledge the differences in between two. If I am wrong, let's discuss why I am, but I think I am not...

I found another case, Edmond v. United States from 1997, where Justice Scalia summarized the history of appointment clause where he said:

"The Appointments Clause of Article II is more than a matter of "etiquette or protocol"; it is among the significant structural safeguards of the constitutional scheme. By vesting the President with the exclusive power to select the principal (noninferior) officers of the United States, the Appointments Clause prevents congressional encroachment upon the Executive and Judicial Branches..."

Edmond v. United States, 520 U.S. 651 (1997)

The president, not Deputy AG, has exclusive power of nomination.

Edmond v. US is about military judges. It has nothing to do with a special counsel.

 

[Ame®icano]

Why is Mueller handing out indictments when he has no authority to do so?

In my view, the Mueller appointment violates the Constitution and every subpoena, indictment, and plea agreement should be viewed as null and void.

Rosenstein gave himself, or rather seized the "presidential powers" by appointing principal Officer (at least Mueller is acting as he is one), and completely bypassed the Senate confirmation. That is unconstitutional.

theDoctorisin brought up Morrison v. Olson, and I already explained in my limited knowledge the differences in between two. If I am wrong, let's discuss why I am, but I think I am not...

I found another case, Edmond v. United States from 1997, where Justice Scalia summarized the history of appointment clause where he said:

"The Appointments Clause of Article II is more than a matter of "etiquette or protocol"; it is among the significant structural safeguards of the constitutional scheme. By vesting the President with the exclusive power to select the principal (noninferior) officers of the United States, the Appointments Clause prevents congressional encroachment upon the Executive and Judicial Branches..."

Edmond v. United States, 520 U.S. 651 (1997)

The president, not Deputy AG, has exclusive power of nomination.

Edmond v. US is about military judges. It has nothing to do with a special counsel.

What I wrote is not because of Edmond v. US. It's about what Scalia wrote about presidential appointments. I even make it bold for you, and you still missed it.

According to the SCOTUS, the appointment clause is critical feature of separation of powers and clarifies the presidential power. Scalia said in part, the context of the appointment clause is designed to preserve political accountability relative to important government assignments.

It's been that was since the first Congress when they established the first executive department (of foreign affairs) and they designated the Secretary of the Department as the principal Officer and his subordinates as inferior Officers. It's in the Constitution. Scalia just pointed to it.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Why is Mueller handing out indictments when he has no authority to do so?

In my view, the Mueller appointment violates the Constitution and every subpoena, indictment, and plea agreement should be viewed as null and void.

Rosenstein gave himself, or rather seized the "presidential powers" by appointing principal Officer (at least Mueller is acting as he is one), and completely bypassed the Senate confirmation. That is unconstitutional.

theDoctorisin brought up Morrison v. Olson, and I already explained in my limited knowledge the differences in between two. If I am wrong, let's discuss why I am, but I think I am not...

I found another case, Edmond v. United States from 1997, where Justice Scalia summarized the history of appointment clause where he said:

"The Appointments Clause of Article II is more than a matter of "etiquette or protocol"; it is among the significant structural safeguards of the constitutional scheme. By vesting the President with the exclusive power to select the principal (noninferior) officers of the United States, the Appointments Clause prevents congressional encroachment upon the Executive and Judicial Branches..."

Edmond v. United States, 520 U.S. 651 (1997)

The president, not Deputy AG, has exclusive power of nomination.

Edmond v. US is about military judges. It has nothing to do with a special counsel.

What I wrote is not about the Edmond v. US. It's about what Scalia wrote about presidential appointments. I even make it bold for you, and you still missed it.

Scalia is only one (former) judge - and the cases aren't the slightest bit similar.

Morrison v. Olsen is controlling here - it explicitly rules that special counsels are Constitutional.

 

[Ame®icano]

Why is Mueller handing out indictments when he has no authority to do so?

In my view, the Mueller appointment violates the Constitution and every subpoena, indictment, and plea agreement should be viewed as null and void.

Rosenstein gave himself, or rather seized the "presidential powers" by appointing principal Officer (at least Mueller is acting as he is one), and completely bypassed the Senate confirmation. That is unconstitutional.

theDoctorisin brought up Morrison v. Olson, and I already explained in my limited knowledge the differences in between two. If I am wrong, let's discuss why I am, but I think I am not...

I found another case, Edmond v. United States from 1997, where Justice Scalia summarized the history of appointment clause where he said:

"The Appointments Clause of Article II is more than a matter of "etiquette or protocol"; it is among the significant structural safeguards of the constitutional scheme. By vesting the President with the exclusive power to select the principal (noninferior) officers of the United States, the Appointments Clause prevents congressional encroachment upon the Executive and Judicial Branches..."

Edmond v. United States, 520 U.S. 651 (1997)

The president, not Deputy AG, has exclusive power of nomination.

Edmond v. US is about military judges. It has nothing to do with a special counsel.

What I wrote is not about the Edmond v. US. It's about what Scalia wrote about presidential appointments. I even make it bold for you, and you still missed it.

Scalia is only one (former) judge - and the cases aren't the slightest bit similar.

Morrison v. Olsen is controlling here - it explicitly rules that special counsels are Constitutional.

Yes, special counsels are constitutional. It also clarifies who can appoint them, what are their duties, limitations, powers, and what exactly is their jurisdiction and scope. Hardly any of those requirements are satisfied by Mueller's appointment.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Why is Mueller handing out indictments when he has no authority to do so?

In my view, the Mueller appointment violates the Constitution and every subpoena, indictment, and plea agreement should be viewed as null and void.

Rosenstein gave himself, or rather seized the "presidential powers" by appointing principal Officer (at least Mueller is acting as he is one), and completely bypassed the Senate confirmation. That is unconstitutional.

theDoctorisin brought up Morrison v. Olson, and I already explained in my limited knowledge the differences in between two. If I am wrong, let's discuss why I am, but I think I am not...

I found another case, Edmond v. United States from 1997, where Justice Scalia summarized the history of appointment clause where he said:

"The Appointments Clause of Article II is more than a matter of "etiquette or protocol"; it is among the significant structural safeguards of the constitutional scheme. By vesting the President with the exclusive power to select the principal (noninferior) officers of the United States, the Appointments Clause prevents congressional encroachment upon the Executive and Judicial Branches..."

Edmond v. United States, 520 U.S. 651 (1997)

The president, not Deputy AG, has exclusive power of nomination.

Edmond v. US is about military judges. It has nothing to do with a special counsel.

What I wrote is not about the Edmond v. US. It's about what Scalia wrote about presidential appointments. I even make it bold for you, and you still missed it.

Scalia is only one (former) judge - and the cases aren't the slightest bit similar.

Morrison v. Olsen is controlling here - it explicitly rules that special counsels are Constitutional.

Yes, special counsels are constitutional. It also clarifies who can appoint them, what are their duties, limitations, powers, and what exactly is their jurisdiction and scope. Hardly any of those requirements are satisfied by Mueller's appointment.

You know, I've read the decision a number of times, but I don't see any of those "clarifications" you're speaking of.

Where should I be looking?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Such is the hypocrisy of the right.

Special counsels are Constitutional when a Democratic president is in office; with a Republican president, not.

 

[Picaro]

President Trump is letting this go on when he doesn’t have to. I believe that the reason is that he is in control of it and he is going to drop a bomb on the Democrats that will destroy them right before the elections when it’s too late to do damage control.

Watch and learn.

Letting them dig deeper and deeper holes has certainly worked like gangbusters so far. I wonder if a little too much arrogance might come back and bite him in the ass, though. And, I'm still not happy with Sessions not getting indictments against Hillary, Obama, Comey, and the rest, despite numerous clear felonies and RICO violations.

Are they having to wait to make more SC appointments or what? Makes no sense to me at this point why they're holding back.

 

[Picaro]

Such is the hypocrisy of the right.

Special counsels are Constitutional when a Democratic president is in office; with a Republican president, not.

Nobody is talking about that.

 

[task0778]

What this says if I'm understanding it right, is that Special Counsels operate under the regulations as designated by the Attorney General, who specifies the procedures, circumstance, and conditions under which the Special Counsel does his job. These investigations ought to be narrowly defined and focused, it ain't supposed to be an all-inclusive witch hunt into the possible wrongdoings of the targeted individual or group. IMHO, there ought to be a specified end date, at which time the Special Counsel reports to the AG, who can then make the call to extend the investigation or close it.


CRS Report for Congress
Independent Counsel Law Expiration and the
Appointment of “Special Counsels”
January 15, 2002
Jack Maskell
Legislative Attorney
American Law Division




Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress
Independent Counsel Law Expiration and The
Appointment of “Special Counsels”
Summary
The provisions of federal law governing the appointments of “independent
counsels” expired on June 30, 1999. Since that date, no new independent counsels
may be appointed by the special three-judge panel upon the request of the Attorney
General, as had been provided for under the expired statute. All on-going
investigations and pending prosecutions under the authority of an existing independent
counsel, however, may be completed if deemed warranted by that independent
counsel.
The Attorney General, under the Attorney General’s existing authority to
administer the Department of Justice, hire staff, and supervise all prosecution of
federal offenses, may continue the practice of appointing a “special counsel” or a
“special prosecutor” to conduct certain investigations and or prosecutions for the
Justice Department on behalf of the United States. The Attorney General issued
regulations for the Department of Justice on July 9, 1999, providing for the
procedures, circumstances and conditions relative to the appointment of and the
conduct of investigations and prosecutions by “special counsels,” who would be
appointed personally by the Attorney General within his or her own discretion.
Unlike statutory “independent counsels,” the conduct of investigations and
prosecutions by “special counsels” under the Department of Justice regulations would
be under the ultimate control of and subject to review and countermand by, the
Attorney General.