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.
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)..
There were no 'spies' placed within the Trump campaign.
Based upon what?You still don't know?
I guess you haven't exactly been following this story for the last year and half- the FBI knew that a Trump campaign member had been attempted to be recruited by the Russians. They suspected he actually was a spy.
Last I checked- acting as a spy for a foreign government is a crime- and that was the basis of the investigation.
And the investigation has indeed found evidence of crimes committed by Russian nationals in the United States- crimes committed with the intent of affecting the 2016 election. As far as we know, so far the investigation hasn't found any evidence of criminal collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia- and hopefully- hopefully- the investigation will conclude that there was no collusion- and notify the American public of that fact.
Meanwhile the investigation continues- and I don't have a problem with criminals being prosecuted because their crimes happened to be uncovered during this investigation- what about you?
Last edited: