CDZ Special Councel Appointment

[Tehon]

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)

The Morrison v. Olsen case was a challenge to the Ethics in Government Act, a law that no longer exists.

The Constitution makes clear that "Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper............in the Heads of Departments."

Since the expiration of the Ethics in Government Act provisions, I am not aware of any new law that vests the AG with the power to appoint inferior officers (Mueller).

The appointment is unconstitutional.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Last Tuesday Chief Judge Beryl Howell ruled that Mueller is an inferior officer and that his appointment is perfectly Constitutional and consistent with the Appointments Clause.

The unwarranted hostility that the OP and others on the right have with regard to the Mueller investigation is solely partisan and nothing more than a desperate attempt to defend a Republican president devoid of legal or Constitutional merit.

Link to the ruling:

http://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/sites/dcd/files/REDACTED_In_re_GJ_18-gj-34_MEM_OP_20180802_FINAL.pdf

 

[Syriusly]

Clearly you are enunciating one of the many strategies that Don the Con is going with to try to shield his former colleagues from prosecution.

As you mentioned- you are not a lawyer- but the judge who reviewed Manafort's pleadings on exactly these issues- is a lawyer- and ruled that your 'questions' are just that- your questions- not a legal defense.

Nowhere above I mentioned Manafort or any other people Mueller indicted so far, because they're not the subjects of this thread. Clearly you have no clue about issues I was addressing above. As I mentioned, I am not a lawyer, but one doesn't have to be a lawyer to read the Constitution, or laws, or regulations, to raise questions. The fact that you didn't comment any of the issues I wrote above, and make the issue about me instead, tells me that you're just a troll with no interest in discussion, and that you're just shitposting.

Now, now- language, language- remember this is the CDZ.

You raised your 'questions'- I pointed out that those 'questions' have been answered by an actual lawyer and judge.

You want a 'comment' on your 'questions'? Its best to use the judges own words

"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,"

And of course he also responded this week

"The Attorney General’s powers to define altogether the scope of a Special Counsel’s authority and rescind such authority at will give the Attorney General the effective power to oversee, supervise, and countermand a Special Counsel in exercising such authority," Howell ruled.


nstead, Howell found Mueller to be an "inferior officer" under the supervision of deputy attorney general Rod Rosenstein, who took up the oversight of the Russia investigation after Attorney General Jeff Sessions recused himself from it last year.
"His appointment, without presidential appointment and senatorial confirmation, thus did not violate the Appointments Clause," Howell wrote.

 

[Ame®icano]

This is the part where you point to the constitutional article, section, paragraph, law or regulation to back that up. Otherwise, saying something just to say something is, as usually, just garbage you pulled out of your ass and threw it out there.

Ok. Did you do the same showing Mr. Mueller is a “principal officer” though?

You do know what "principal officer" is, how is appointed, or I have to repeat it just for you?

Please quote the constitution where it says the special prosecutor is a principal officer

Go back to the opening post, or anywhere in the thread, and and find where I made that claim.

So are you now saying that the special prosecutor is not a principal officer

It seems that a demitasse would fit your head like a sombrero.

If you read anything I wrote since opening post, you wouldn't be asking stupid questions.

 

[Ame®icano]

Last Tuesday Chief Judge Beryl Howell ruled that Mueller is an inferior officer and that his appointment is perfectly Constitutional and consistent with the Appointments Clause.

The unwarranted hostility that the OP and others on the right have with regard to the Mueller investigation is solely partisan and nothing more than a desperate attempt to defend a Republican president devoid of legal or Constitutional merit.

Link to the ruling:

http://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/sites/dcd/files/REDACTED_In_re_GJ_18-gj-34_MEM_OP_20180802_FINAL.pdf

From the opening post:

"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."

Based on the scope of his investigation, Mueller has more power that any US Attorney (which is principal officer).

If Mueller is an "inferior officer", how come he has such broad mandate and powers of "principal officer"?

He is either overreaching his mandate, or Rosenstein overreached his by unconstitutionally giving him such power. Which one is it?

 

[Ame®icano]

Clearly you are enunciating one of the many strategies that Don the Con is going with to try to shield his former colleagues from prosecution.

As you mentioned- you are not a lawyer- but the judge who reviewed Manafort's pleadings on exactly these issues- is a lawyer- and ruled that your 'questions' are just that- your questions- not a legal defense.

Nowhere above I mentioned Manafort or any other people Mueller indicted so far, because they're not the subjects of this thread. Clearly you have no clue about issues I was addressing above. As I mentioned, I am not a lawyer, but one doesn't have to be a lawyer to read the Constitution, or laws, or regulations, to raise questions. The fact that you didn't comment any of the issues I wrote above, and make the issue about me instead, tells me that you're just a troll with no interest in discussion, and that you're just shitposting.

Now, now- language, language- remember this is the CDZ.

You raised your 'questions'- I pointed out that those 'questions' have been answered by an actual lawyer and judge.

You want a 'comment' on your 'questions'? Its best to use the judges own words

"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,"

And of course he also responded this week

"The Attorney General’s powers to define altogether the scope of a Special Counsel’s authority and rescind such authority at will give the Attorney General the effective power to oversee, supervise, and countermand a Special Counsel in exercising such authority," Howell ruled.


nstead, Howell found Mueller to be an "inferior officer" under the supervision of deputy attorney general Rod Rosenstein, who took up the oversight of the Russia investigation after Attorney General Jeff Sessions recused himself from it last year.
"His appointment, without presidential appointment and senatorial confirmation, thus did not violate the Appointments Clause," Howell wrote.

I understand tall that. That's what this whole topic is about. Something doesn't add up. Principal officer constitutionally can appoint inferior officers, that would make Mueller the inferior officer and I agree with judge on that. Since ruling explains it and the way he's appointed, Mueller is an inferior officer, but...

a) as inferior officer he cannot have powers of principal officer, and
b) I highlighted the part I asked about earlier in post #5. What exactly is the criminal statute to as judge says "conduct criminal litigation on behalf of the United States"?

 

[candycorn]

Ok. Did you do the same showing Mr. Mueller is a “principal officer” though?

You do know what "principal officer" is, how is appointed, or I have to repeat it just for you?

Please quote the constitution where it says the special prosecutor is a principal officer

Go back to the opening post, or anywhere in the thread, and and find where I made that claim.

So are you now saying that the special prosecutor is not a principal officer

It seems that a demitasse would fit your head like a sombrero.

If you read anything I wrote since opening post, you wouldn't be asking stupid questions.

If you can quote where the prosecutor is a “principal officer” in the constitution, you would have a case. But the only one elevating him to the position where the congress would have a voice is you. Hence…the insipid nature of your contention.

 

[candycorn]

Clearly you are enunciating one of the many strategies that Don the Con is going with to try to shield his former colleagues from prosecution.

As you mentioned- you are not a lawyer- but the judge who reviewed Manafort's pleadings on exactly these issues- is a lawyer- and ruled that your 'questions' are just that- your questions- not a legal defense.

Nowhere above I mentioned Manafort or any other people Mueller indicted so far, because they're not the subjects of this thread. Clearly you have no clue about issues I was addressing above. As I mentioned, I am not a lawyer, but one doesn't have to be a lawyer to read the Constitution, or laws, or regulations, to raise questions. The fact that you didn't comment any of the issues I wrote above, and make the issue about me instead, tells me that you're just a troll with no interest in discussion, and that you're just shitposting.

Now, now- language, language- remember this is the CDZ.

You raised your 'questions'- I pointed out that those 'questions' have been answered by an actual lawyer and judge.

You want a 'comment' on your 'questions'? Its best to use the judges own words

"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,"

And of course he also responded this week

"The Attorney General’s powers to define altogether the scope of a Special Counsel’s authority and rescind such authority at will give the Attorney General the effective power to oversee, supervise, and countermand a Special Counsel in exercising such authority," Howell ruled.


nstead, Howell found Mueller to be an "inferior officer" under the supervision of deputy attorney general Rod Rosenstein, who took up the oversight of the Russia investigation after Attorney General Jeff Sessions recused himself from it last year.
"His appointment, without presidential appointment and senatorial confirmation, thus did not violate the Appointments Clause," Howell wrote.

I understand tall that. That's what this whole topic is about. Something doesn't add up. Principal officer constitutionally can appoint inferior officers, that would make Mueller the inferior officer and I agree with judge on that. Since ruling explains it and the way he's appointed, Mueller is an inferior officer, but...

a) as inferior officer he cannot have powers of principal officer, and
b) I highlighted the part I asked about earlier in post #5. What exactly is the criminal statute to as judge says "conduct criminal litigation on behalf of the United States"?

He does not have the powers of a “principal officer”….

 

[Syriusly]

Last Tuesday Chief Judge Beryl Howell ruled that Mueller is an inferior officer and that his appointment is perfectly Constitutional and consistent with the Appointments Clause.

The unwarranted hostility that the OP and others on the right have with regard to the Mueller investigation is solely partisan and nothing more than a desperate attempt to defend a Republican president devoid of legal or Constitutional merit.

Link to the ruling:

http://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/sites/dcd/files/REDACTED_In_re_GJ_18-gj-34_MEM_OP_20180802_FINAL.pdf

From the opening post:

"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."

Based on the scope of his investigation, Mueller has more power that any US Attorney (which is principal officer).

If Mueller is an "inferior officer", how come he has such broad mandate and powers of "principal officer"?

He is either overreaching his mandate, or Rosenstein overreached his by unconstitutionally giving him such power. Which one is it?

All of that assumes that Mueller is a principal officer- which he is not- as the judge has noted twice now.

 

[Syriusly]

Clearly you are enunciating one of the many strategies that Don the Con is going with to try to shield his former colleagues from prosecution.

As you mentioned- you are not a lawyer- but the judge who reviewed Manafort's pleadings on exactly these issues- is a lawyer- and ruled that your 'questions' are just that- your questions- not a legal defense.

Nowhere above I mentioned Manafort or any other people Mueller indicted so far, because they're not the subjects of this thread. Clearly you have no clue about issues I was addressing above. As I mentioned, I am not a lawyer, but one doesn't have to be a lawyer to read the Constitution, or laws, or regulations, to raise questions. The fact that you didn't comment any of the issues I wrote above, and make the issue about me instead, tells me that you're just a troll with no interest in discussion, and that you're just shitposting.

Now, now- language, language- remember this is the CDZ.

You raised your 'questions'- I pointed out that those 'questions' have been answered by an actual lawyer and judge.

You want a 'comment' on your 'questions'? Its best to use the judges own words

"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,"

And of course he also responded this week

"The Attorney General’s powers to define altogether the scope of a Special Counsel’s authority and rescind such authority at will give the Attorney General the effective power to oversee, supervise, and countermand a Special Counsel in exercising such authority," Howell ruled.


nstead, Howell found Mueller to be an "inferior officer" under the supervision of deputy attorney general Rod Rosenstein, who took up the oversight of the Russia investigation after Attorney General Jeff Sessions recused himself from it last year.
"His appointment, without presidential appointment and senatorial confirmation, thus did not violate the Appointments Clause," Howell wrote.

I understand tall that. That's what this whole topic is about. Something doesn't add up. Principal officer constitutionally can appoint inferior officers, that would make Mueller the inferior officer and I agree with judge on that. Since ruling explains it and the way he's appointed, Mueller is an inferior officer, but...

a) as inferior officer he cannot have powers of principal officer, and
b) I highlighted the part I asked about earlier in post #5. What exactly is the criminal statute to as judge says "conduct criminal litigation on behalf of the United States"?

A) Says who? From what I have read the restriction is that he is under the supervision of a principal officer- and Mueller is- Rosenstein has the authority fire Mueller at any time.
b) I don't know what your point is about 'criminal statute'- Mueller was appointed to investigate Russian interference in the U.S. election and any possible collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign- just like in Whitewater- a criminal statute didn't need to be cited at the time of the appointment.

 

[Tehon]

Last Tuesday Chief Judge Beryl Howell ruled that Mueller is an inferior officer and that his appointment is perfectly Constitutional and consistent with the Appointments Clause.

The unwarranted hostility that the OP and others on the right have with regard to the Mueller investigation is solely partisan and nothing more than a desperate attempt to defend a Republican president devoid of legal or Constitutional merit.

Link to the ruling:

http://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/sites/dcd/files/REDACTED_In_re_GJ_18-gj-34_MEM_OP_20180802_FINAL.pdf

We have made no progress since 1973 and the Saturday Night Massacre.

The ruling places Mueller under the jurisdiction of the President. The only thing preventing history from repeating is politics. We are supposed to be a nation ruled by laws.

The purpose of the Ethics in Government Act, which was a reaction to the Saturday night massacre, was to give the independent counsel real autonomy and establish rule by law.

 

[Ame®icano]

You do know what "principal officer" is, how is appointed, or I have to repeat it just for you?

Please quote the constitution where it says the special prosecutor is a principal officer

Go back to the opening post, or anywhere in the thread, and and find where I made that claim.

So are you now saying that the special prosecutor is not a principal officer

It seems that a demitasse would fit your head like a sombrero.

If you read anything I wrote since opening post, you wouldn't be asking stupid questions.

If you can quote where the prosecutor is a “principal officer” in the constitution, you would have a case. But the only one elevating him to the position where the congress would have a voice is you. Hence…the insipid nature of your contention.

If you could quote where I have said that Mueller is "principal officer", your comment could have a reason. Since I have said no such thing, you're still posting for the sake of just writing something, as usual.

 

[Ame®icano]

Clearly you are enunciating one of the many strategies that Don the Con is going with to try to shield his former colleagues from prosecution.

As you mentioned- you are not a lawyer- but the judge who reviewed Manafort's pleadings on exactly these issues- is a lawyer- and ruled that your 'questions' are just that- your questions- not a legal defense.

Nowhere above I mentioned Manafort or any other people Mueller indicted so far, because they're not the subjects of this thread. Clearly you have no clue about issues I was addressing above. As I mentioned, I am not a lawyer, but one doesn't have to be a lawyer to read the Constitution, or laws, or regulations, to raise questions. The fact that you didn't comment any of the issues I wrote above, and make the issue about me instead, tells me that you're just a troll with no interest in discussion, and that you're just shitposting.

Now, now- language, language- remember this is the CDZ.

You raised your 'questions'- I pointed out that those 'questions' have been answered by an actual lawyer and judge.

You want a 'comment' on your 'questions'? Its best to use the judges own words

"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,"

And of course he also responded this week

"The Attorney General’s powers to define altogether the scope of a Special Counsel’s authority and rescind such authority at will give the Attorney General the effective power to oversee, supervise, and countermand a Special Counsel in exercising such authority," Howell ruled.


nstead, Howell found Mueller to be an "inferior officer" under the supervision of deputy attorney general Rod Rosenstein, who took up the oversight of the Russia investigation after Attorney General Jeff Sessions recused himself from it last year.
"His appointment, without presidential appointment and senatorial confirmation, thus did not violate the Appointments Clause," Howell wrote.

I understand tall that. That's what this whole topic is about. Something doesn't add up. Principal officer constitutionally can appoint inferior officers, that would make Mueller the inferior officer and I agree with judge on that. Since ruling explains it and the way he's appointed, Mueller is an inferior officer, but...

a) as inferior officer he cannot have powers of principal officer, and
b) I highlighted the part I asked about earlier in post #5. What exactly is the criminal statute to as judge says "conduct criminal litigation on behalf of the United States"?

He does not have the powers of a “principal officer”….

I see you're still posting for the sake of posting with no knowledge on the subject.

He was unconstitutionally given and has more power than any US attorneys, which are "principal officers".

 

[Ame®icano]

Last Tuesday Chief Judge Beryl Howell ruled that Mueller is an inferior officer and that his appointment is perfectly Constitutional and consistent with the Appointments Clause.

The unwarranted hostility that the OP and others on the right have with regard to the Mueller investigation is solely partisan and nothing more than a desperate attempt to defend a Republican president devoid of legal or Constitutional merit.

Link to the ruling:

http://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/sites/dcd/files/REDACTED_In_re_GJ_18-gj-34_MEM_OP_20180802_FINAL.pdf

From the opening post:

"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."

Based on the scope of his investigation, Mueller has more power that any US Attorney (which is principal officer).

If Mueller is an "inferior officer", how come he has such broad mandate and powers of "principal officer"?

He is either overreaching his mandate, or Rosenstein overreached his by unconstitutionally giving him such power. Which one is it?

All of that assumes that Mueller is a principal officer- which he is not- as the judge has noted twice now.

Great. By being appointed by Rosenstein, which is "principal officer", Mueller is clearly the "inferior officer".

That still doesn't explain how Rosenstein gave Mueller such powers that only "principal officer" can have.

 

[candycorn]

Please quote the constitution where it says the special prosecutor is a principal officer

Go back to the opening post, or anywhere in the thread, and and find where I made that claim.

So are you now saying that the special prosecutor is not a principal officer

It seems that a demitasse would fit your head like a sombrero.

If you read anything I wrote since opening post, you wouldn't be asking stupid questions.

If you can quote where the prosecutor is a “principal officer” in the constitution, you would have a case. But the only one elevating him to the position where the congress would have a voice is you. Hence…the insipid nature of your contention.

If you could quote where I have said that Mueller is "principal officer", your comment could have a reason. Since I have said no such thing, you're still posting for the sake of just writing something, as usual.

Oh…okay.
So far you’ve established nothing;

Our constitution does not spell out the mandate of any investigator so there is no constitutional argument to be made either for or against the creation of the Special Counsel’s office.

 

[candycorn]

Clearly you are enunciating one of the many strategies that Don the Con is going with to try to shield his former colleagues from prosecution.

As you mentioned- you are not a lawyer- but the judge who reviewed Manafort's pleadings on exactly these issues- is a lawyer- and ruled that your 'questions' are just that- your questions- not a legal defense.

Nowhere above I mentioned Manafort or any other people Mueller indicted so far, because they're not the subjects of this thread. Clearly you have no clue about issues I was addressing above. As I mentioned, I am not a lawyer, but one doesn't have to be a lawyer to read the Constitution, or laws, or regulations, to raise questions. The fact that you didn't comment any of the issues I wrote above, and make the issue about me instead, tells me that you're just a troll with no interest in discussion, and that you're just shitposting.

Now, now- language, language- remember this is the CDZ.

You raised your 'questions'- I pointed out that those 'questions' have been answered by an actual lawyer and judge.

You want a 'comment' on your 'questions'? Its best to use the judges own words

"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,"

And of course he also responded this week

"The Attorney General’s powers to define altogether the scope of a Special Counsel’s authority and rescind such authority at will give the Attorney General the effective power to oversee, supervise, and countermand a Special Counsel in exercising such authority," Howell ruled.


nstead, Howell found Mueller to be an "inferior officer" under the supervision of deputy attorney general Rod Rosenstein, who took up the oversight of the Russia investigation after Attorney General Jeff Sessions recused himself from it last year.
"His appointment, without presidential appointment and senatorial confirmation, thus did not violate the Appointments Clause," Howell wrote.

I understand tall that. That's what this whole topic is about. Something doesn't add up. Principal officer constitutionally can appoint inferior officers, that would make Mueller the inferior officer and I agree with judge on that. Since ruling explains it and the way he's appointed, Mueller is an inferior officer, but...

a) as inferior officer he cannot have powers of principal officer, and
b) I highlighted the part I asked about earlier in post #5. What exactly is the criminal statute to as judge says "conduct criminal litigation on behalf of the United States"?

He does not have the powers of a “principal officer”….

I see you're still posting for the sake of posting with no knowledge on the subject.

He was unconstitutionally given and has more power than any US attorneys, which are "principal officers".

What powers are those?

 

[Tehon]

Last Tuesday Chief Judge Beryl Howell ruled that Mueller is an inferior officer and that his appointment is perfectly Constitutional and consistent with the Appointments Clause.

The unwarranted hostility that the OP and others on the right have with regard to the Mueller investigation is solely partisan and nothing more than a desperate attempt to defend a Republican president devoid of legal or Constitutional merit.

Link to the ruling:

http://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/sites/dcd/files/REDACTED_In_re_GJ_18-gj-34_MEM_OP_20180802_FINAL.pdf

From the opening post:

"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."

Based on the scope of his investigation, Mueller has more power that any US Attorney (which is principal officer).

If Mueller is an "inferior officer", how come he has such broad mandate and powers of "principal officer"?

He is either overreaching his mandate, or Rosenstein overreached his by unconstitutionally giving him such power. Which one is it?

All of that assumes that Mueller is a principal officer- which he is not- as the judge has noted twice now.

Great. By being appointed by Rosenstein, which is "principal officer", Mueller is clearly the "inferior officer".

That still doesn't explain how Rosenstein gave Mueller such powers that only "principal officer" can have.

This explains it.

The Attorney General may from time to time make such provisions as he considers appropriate authorizing the performance by any other officer, employee, or agency of the Department of Justice of any function of the Attorney General.
28 U.S. Code § 510 - Delegation of authority

 

[Ame®icano]

Clearly you are enunciating one of the many strategies that Don the Con is going with to try to shield his former colleagues from prosecution.

As you mentioned- you are not a lawyer- but the judge who reviewed Manafort's pleadings on exactly these issues- is a lawyer- and ruled that your 'questions' are just that- your questions- not a legal defense.

Nowhere above I mentioned Manafort or any other people Mueller indicted so far, because they're not the subjects of this thread. Clearly you have no clue about issues I was addressing above. As I mentioned, I am not a lawyer, but one doesn't have to be a lawyer to read the Constitution, or laws, or regulations, to raise questions. The fact that you didn't comment any of the issues I wrote above, and make the issue about me instead, tells me that you're just a troll with no interest in discussion, and that you're just shitposting.

Now, now- language, language- remember this is the CDZ.

You raised your 'questions'- I pointed out that those 'questions' have been answered by an actual lawyer and judge.

You want a 'comment' on your 'questions'? Its best to use the judges own words

"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,"

And of course he also responded this week

"The Attorney General’s powers to define altogether the scope of a Special Counsel’s authority and rescind such authority at will give the Attorney General the effective power to oversee, supervise, and countermand a Special Counsel in exercising such authority," Howell ruled.


nstead, Howell found Mueller to be an "inferior officer" under the supervision of deputy attorney general Rod Rosenstein, who took up the oversight of the Russia investigation after Attorney General Jeff Sessions recused himself from it last year.
"His appointment, without presidential appointment and senatorial confirmation, thus did not violate the Appointments Clause," Howell wrote.

I understand tall that. That's what this whole topic is about. Something doesn't add up. Principal officer constitutionally can appoint inferior officers, that would make Mueller the inferior officer and I agree with judge on that. Since ruling explains it and the way he's appointed, Mueller is an inferior officer, but...

a) as inferior officer he cannot have powers of principal officer, and
b) I highlighted the part I asked about earlier in post #5. What exactly is the criminal statute to as judge says "conduct criminal litigation on behalf of the United States"?

A) Says who? From what I have read the restriction is that he is under the supervision of a principal officer- and Mueller is- Rosenstein has the authority fire Mueller at any time.
b) I don't know what your point is about 'criminal statute'- Mueller was appointed to investigate Russian interference in the U.S. election and any possible collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign- just like in Whitewater- a criminal statute didn't need to be cited at the time of the appointment.

I got what you're saying.

a) I addressed this in post 3. The "inferior officer" has limited duties and limited jurisdiction with clear objective, which was at the time of Mueller appointment to investigate "Russian collusion". That objective was broaden over time and changed into possible "obstruction of justice".

b) The investigation of Trump's campaign started way before Mueller was appointed, by spying on Trump's campaign, placing spies within the campaign, unmasking names of US citizens... based on what? If there was crime committed, there should be criminal statute to start the investigation. Two years into investigation, there is still no criminal statute, and Mueller indictments so far have nothing to do with "Russian collusion" but for things that happens outside of scope of his investigation (which is Russian collusion).

Vladimir Putin on his best day couldn't do kind of damage that Rosenstein, Meuller and few others teamed up with Democrats are doing to our country. They're not serving the interest of American people, they serving interest of Democrats. I'm thinking, why taxpayers are paying for all of this, instead of Democrats. So if they want to investigate president's tweets, let the do so on their expense.

 

[Syriusly]

Clearly you are enunciating one of the many strategies that Don the Con is going with to try to shield his former colleagues from prosecution.

As you mentioned- you are not a lawyer- but the judge who reviewed Manafort's pleadings on exactly these issues- is a lawyer- and ruled that your 'questions' are just that- your questions- not a legal defense.

Nowhere above I mentioned Manafort or any other people Mueller indicted so far, because they're not the subjects of this thread. Clearly you have no clue about issues I was addressing above. As I mentioned, I am not a lawyer, but one doesn't have to be a lawyer to read the Constitution, or laws, or regulations, to raise questions. The fact that you didn't comment any of the issues I wrote above, and make the issue about me instead, tells me that you're just a troll with no interest in discussion, and that you're just shitposting.

Now, now- language, language- remember this is the CDZ.

You raised your 'questions'- I pointed out that those 'questions' have been answered by an actual lawyer and judge.

You want a 'comment' on your 'questions'? Its best to use the judges own words

"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,"

And of course he also responded this week

"The Attorney General’s powers to define altogether the scope of a Special Counsel’s authority and rescind such authority at will give the Attorney General the effective power to oversee, supervise, and countermand a Special Counsel in exercising such authority," Howell ruled.


nstead, Howell found Mueller to be an "inferior officer" under the supervision of deputy attorney general Rod Rosenstein, who took up the oversight of the Russia investigation after Attorney General Jeff Sessions recused himself from it last year.
"His appointment, without presidential appointment and senatorial confirmation, thus did not violate the Appointments Clause," Howell wrote.

I understand tall that. That's what this whole topic is about. Something doesn't add up. Principal officer constitutionally can appoint inferior officers, that would make Mueller the inferior officer and I agree with judge on that. Since ruling explains it and the way he's appointed, Mueller is an inferior officer, but...

a) as inferior officer he cannot have powers of principal officer, and
b) I highlighted the part I asked about earlier in post #5. What exactly is the criminal statute to as judge says "conduct criminal litigation on behalf of the United States"?

A) Says who? From what I have read the restriction is that he is under the supervision of a principal officer- and Mueller is- Rosenstein has the authority fire Mueller at any time.
b) I don't know what your point is about 'criminal statute'- Mueller was appointed to investigate Russian interference in the U.S. election and any possible collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign- just like in Whitewater- a criminal statute didn't need to be cited at the time of the appointment.

I got what you're saying.

a) I addressed this in post 3. The "inferior officer" has limited duties and limited jurisdiction with clear objective, which was at the time of Mueller appointment to investigate "Russian collusion". That objective was broaden over time and changed into possible "obstruction of justice"..

And? The objective was broadened over time as the investigation unfolded- and with the consent of the primary officer supervising the investigation.

Clearly the Manafort prosecution didn't have anything to do with Russian collusion but was discovered in the course of the investigation. That is how investigations work out- remember- Whitewater didn't start off investigating a blowjob in the Whitehouse.

 

[task0778]

Alright, here's the deal as I see it for the way it SHOULD be:

When you have a situation such as the Russian interference into our 2016 election and the supposition that there was collusion between the Russians and one or more American citizens, then it seems to me to be entirely appropriate to appoint a special counsel to look into the matter. However, the focus of that investigation ought to be narrow and limited to the specific issue at hand: what interference took place and who colluded with the Russians, if anybody. IMHO that investigation ought to have a time limit of 6 months, at which time the special counsel reports to the AG their findings thus far. At which time the AG can decide:

1. Extend the investigation by a specified period of time at his or her discretion, or

2. Stop the investigation if it appears the investigation has reached its usefulness, and

3. Report to the President and the Congress what the findings were and why the decision was made to extend it or stop it. And I would expect the American public to be informed as to those findings too.

Enough of this crap of dragging it out for months and years, screw that. We need to know who did what, and we sure as hell need to know before the next election comes and goes. We do not need to know the ancillary stuff about any business dealings and tax evasion or whatever might have been uncovered. The DOJ has the resources necessary to pick up the threads of whatever the special counsel finds that might be illegal but not germane to the central issue.

The special counsel has to have the autonomy to conduct his/her business as needed without outside influence or interference. But by the same token the special counsel ought to have the good sense to make sure the investigation is being done fairly and impartially; you do not hire a bunch of lawyers and investigators who have ties to the parties involved, for or against. And you don't go off topic looking for any wrong-doing that is not directly related to the issue that you were hired to investigate in the 1st place.

It shouldn't take this long. In the toxic and highly partisan environment that is Washington DC these days, the current investigation has IMHO done a poor job in all of these things I mentioned, and that's why it looks to some like a witch-hunting fishing expedition. Maybe it was fore-ordained to appear to be such anyway, given the way things are, but Bob Mueller has not done an acceptable job of making it at least look to be fair and above board.