Mueller Probe Set To Fail Under Article II

[Stormy Daniels]

The Special Counsel is exempted from Article II requirements.

Show me where it says that!

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

 

[protectionist]

Conservative snowflakes are fun to watch, Trump is padding his pockets and family on their taxes and they are busy looking the other direction. Golf anyone? And how's that great great great cheap healthcare going for you wingnuts? Mexico paying for that wall yet? You conservatives must like being made fools of. MAGA Is really MAER, Make America's Elite Richer, note only how little is said about wages under Donnie and the dark money elite.

"The swamp is never drained; it just gets taken over by different reptiles." Karen Tumulty

Dean Baker: The Conservative Nanny State

Understand America today:

The View From Flyover Country: Essays by Sarah Kendzior by Sarah Kendzior
Strangers in Their Own Land: Anger and Mourning on the American Right by Arlie Russell Hochschild
Invisible Hands: The Making of the Conservative Movement from the New Deal to Reagan by Kim Phillips-Fein
Dark Money: The Hidden History of the Billionaires Behind the Rise of the Radical Right by Jane Mayer

Most of us conservatives are military veterans, and we get 100% free medical care from the VA. If only liberals were patriotic and courageous enough to join the military, they could have this too.

Not only Trump is padding his pockets from the tax reductions, so is everybody else, including millions who have gotten raises and bonuses.

The Mexican border wall payment from Mexico can't occur until its been stablished what the exact cost is. It will have to be built first, then cost reimbursed.

Money paid to campaigns was in this order >>
1. Most - Hillary (from the Wall St. "Elite")

2. Much less - Bernie

3. Much, much less - Trump

Yeah, we understand America, quite well, thank you.

 

[Care4all]

, 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."

Rosnstein WAS appointed by trump, Mueller, his lessor, was appt by rosenstein

The LAW defines who appts special counsel

 

[protectionist]

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.

 

[Stratford57]

It's a shame that in USA innocent people like Trump are under investigation and real war criminals like Soros, both Clintons, Obama and his administration and many others are still enjoying their freedom.

Listen to the Kiev Russian guy. He knows what is good for the USA.

1. According to your logic you should shut up and stop telling me what's good for Ukraine. I hope you will follow your own logic in future.
2. You liberals are the worst enemies for your own country, not Koreans, Chinese, Iranians or Russians. You have already destroyed your country and badly want to keep destroying it. It's pretty obvious now not only for USA residents but for foreigners as well.

According to my logic I suspect you of being a Russian troll and when you insult America I take offense. I do not like it when Russian trolls come on USMB and insult US. Is it difficult for you to understand because you are so stupid?

1. Looks like your "logic" = absence of any logic.
2. For sissies like you it's very comfortable to call everybody who says something you don't like "a troll" instead of coming up with a decent argument.

 

[protectionist]

Rosnstein WAS appointed by trump, Mueller, his lessor, was appt by rosenstein

The LAW defines who appts special counsel

Problem there is, Rosenstein isn't doing the investigation. Mueller is. He wasn't appointed by Trump. He would have to have been appointed by Trump (so says the Constitution). The consitution doesn't give the power to an asst AG.

 

[Stormy Daniels]

Most of us conservatives are military veterans, and we get 100% free medical care from the VA. If only liberals were patriotic and courageous enough to join the military, they could have this too.

You have a few mathematical and logical problems with your assertions.

After claiming that most conservatives are vets, you seem to imply the reverse, even though it does not logically follow. That is to say, you imply that most veterans are conservatives. That is like saying most dogs have fur, therefore most animals with fur are dogs. While the conclusion might turn out to be true, it can't be inferred from anything you've stated thus far. In fact, it is likely to be false.

About 7.3% of the total US population is current or former military. So even if we assume for a moment that all people who serve in the military are conservatives, and if military veterans account for most conservatives in the overall population, then that means very few people in the United States are conservatives. It would be difficult to say that conservatives account for much more than 10% of the populace, based on your claim.

Therefore, if your claims are correct, then conservatives account for a very small minority in the country, and as such conservative policies should not finding their way into a government of the people, by the people, and for the people which enjoys the consent of the governed.

 

[toobfreak]

More desperate weaseling.

One thing I've learned over the years is that when the Left tells you that you're "desperate," it is a sure sign you are too close for comfort! The only reason why Mueller's phony investigation has lasted this long is because of all the political wrangling not to touch it under threat of being accused of "obstruction." But it would have been better to let Trump shut it down rather than the inevitable now: Mueller coming up with nothing more than a few penny anti old specious charges on technicalities to people barely connected that get thrown out in court for their unconstitutionality.

 

[protectionist]

You have a few mathematical and logical problems with your assertions.

After claiming that most conservatives are vets, you seem to imply the reverse, even though it does not logically follow. That is to say, you imply that most veterans are conservatives. That is like saying most dogs have fur, therefore most animals with fur are dogs. While the conclusion might turn out to be true, it can't be inferred from anything you've stated thus far. In fact, it is likely to be false.

About 7.3% of the total US population is current or former military. So even if we assume for a moment that all people who serve in the military are conservatives, and if military veterans account for most conservatives in the overall population, then that means very few people in the United States are conservatives. It would be difficult to say that conservatives account for much more than 10% of the populace, based on your claim.

Therefore, if your claims are correct, then conservatives account for a very small minority in the country, and as such conservative policies should not finding their way into a government of the people, by the people, and for the people which enjoys the consent of the governed.

I never "imply", infer, or insinuate anything.

But I purposely inserted a wrong statement just to see if anybody would pick up on it, and just how far they would run with it. LOL. You ran pretty far. with >> "conservative policies should not finding their way into a government of the people,..."

Well, what policies find their way into the government, are determined by this >>>

 

[Care4all]

Rosnstein WAS appointed by trump, Mueller, his lessor, was appt by rosenstein

The LAW defines who appts special counsel

Problem there is, Rosenstein isn't doing the investigation. Mueller is. He wasn't appointed by Trump. He would have to have been appointed by Trump (so says the Constitution). The consitution doesn't give the power to an asst AG.

The LAW, written and passed by Congress and signed by the president, gives the appointed Rob Rosenstein, the power to appoint a special counsel.

The constitution says its constitutional....

and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper

 

[Care4all]

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

 

[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.

 

[protectionist]

The LAW, written and passed by Congress and signed by the president, gives the appointed Rob Rosenstein, the power to appoint a special counsel.

The constitution says its constitutional....

and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper

FALSE! We're talking about the Constitution(Article II) And what you posted doesn't say an Asst AG can appoint officers. It says the Congress can. Asst AG is not the Congress. And the Congress won't appoint Mueller either.

 

[protectionist]

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

You must be talking about the OBAMA administration. That's where the BIG crimes were committed. (Treason, Sedition, Murder, etc)

 

[DrLove]

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.

Is this you Rudy?

 

[protectionist]

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)

 

[protectionist]

Is this you Rudy?

Running out of words, apparently.

 

[DrLove]

Is this you Rudy?

Running out of words, apparently.

Yes - if you saw his interview with Dana Bash yesterday on Meet the Press .. You'd know that indeed Rudy is running out of words.

The senile, angry old bastard can't string a coherent sentence together -

Which is why it reminded me of the OP

 

[dudmuck]

It's a shame that in USA innocent people like Trump are under investigation and real war criminals like Soros, both Clintons, Obama and his administration and many others are still enjoying their freedom.

 

[Crepitus]

More desperate weaseling.

One thing I've learned over the years is that when the Left tells you that you're "desperate," it is a sure sign you are too close for comfort! The only reason why Mueller's phony investigation has lasted this long is because of all the political wrangling not to touch it under threat of being accused of "obstruction." But it would have been better to let Trump shut it down rather than the inevitable now: Mueller coming up with nothing more than a few penny anti old specious charges on technicalities to people barely connected that get thrown out in court for their unconstitutionality.

Sorry, but that is incorrect. The constant posts about how the mueller investigation is "going down" or "unconstitutional" are nothing more than desperate twistings and turnings of people who know they have had it.