Jump to content

Bombshell Revelations Show 'Mueller Probe Is Unconstitutional' Under Article II


Recommended Posts

  • Platinum Contributing Member

Interesting assessment.   Not saying I agree or disagree but he's got a point.

Constitutional expert and "Life, Liberty & Levin" host Mark Levin said on "Hannity" that new revelations about Robert Mueller's investigation into President Donald Trump and alleged Russian collusion appear to render the probe unconstitutional.

Levin said a new "special status" given to several of Mueller's prosecutors in the arm of the probe involving former Trump campaign chief Paul Manafort may be key to invalidating the entire investigation.

Levin said the attorneys in the case before an Alexandria, Va. federal judge are simultaneously considered "Special Assistant U.S. Attorneys."

He said that therefore, their direct supervisor -- Mueller -- should be lawfully considered a "roving" U.S. Attorney.

He said the Constitution designates the president as the person who must nominate all "principal officers" -- including U.S. attorneys and cabinet members.

But, Mueller was appointed by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and was not confirmed by the Senate, as anyone working as a U.S. attorney should be by law, according to Levin.

Levin said that the scenario therefore "violates the Constitution [via] the Appointments Clause" in Article II.

"Rosenstein usurped the authority of the president of the United States to nominate whoever he wants as a prosecutor," Levin said.

"Mr. Mueller is serving unconstitutionally in violation of the Appointments Clause of the U.S. Constitution because of the way Rod Rosenstein appointed him."

Levin called on every defendant in the Mueller probe and all attorneys for those subpoenaed or affected to raise the issue of the Appointments Clause in court.

"The breadth of his investigation is so massive, so broad [that] four of his own people get dual appointments [as assistant U.S. attorneys]," he added.

Watch more above.

http://insider.foxnews.com/2018/05/22/robert-mueller-probe-unconstitutional-mark-levin-says-trump-russia-collusion-case

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Platinum Contributing Member
13 minutes ago, Highmark said:

Interesting assessment.   Not saying I agree or disagree but he's got a point.

 

 

1 minute ago, Nazipigdog said:

So you (And Levin) think that the President should appoint investigators to investigate him? Oh, okay... 

I'd like to see more regarding this.   There have been many debates around the constitutionality of these types of investigations.  

I think the point Levin is trying to make is maybe they shouldn't be (and maybe they aren't) US attorney's because if they are it should follow the same Constitutional standards.  In other words it should be outside the DOJ (not be assigned by the POTUS or DOJ and not report to the DOJ)  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Highmark said:

 

I'd like to see more regarding this.   There have been many debates around the constitutionality of these types of investigations.  

I think the point Levin is trying to make is maybe they shouldn't be (and maybe they aren't) US attorney's because if they are it should follow the same Constitutional standards.  In other words it should be outside the DOJ (not be assigned by the POTUS or DOJ and not report to the DOJ)  

This is a horrible argument. Whatever the facts are. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Platinum Contributing Member
20 minutes ago, Nazipigdog said:

This is a horrible argument. Whatever the facts are. 

:lol:   Whatever the facts are.   Who gives a shit about the constitution.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Platinum Contributing Member
7 minutes ago, ICEMAN! said:

Levin and Fox News

lmao

GMAFB

Total bullshit

:lol2:

 

Nooks obsessed with Trump.  :lol2:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Highmark said:

:lol:   Whatever the facts are.   Who gives a shit about the constitution.  

Yes, appointing your own prosecutor to investigate yourself is a conflict of interest. You dont need to be a constitutional scholar to see that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Platinum Contributing Member
27 minutes ago, Snoslinger said:

why don't you ever say that to sludgebrain?

 

Who is that?  Momo?   I have said that to him in the past.  

Edited by Highmark
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Platinum Contributing Member
4 minutes ago, Nazipigdog said:

Yes, appointing your own prosecutor to investigate yourself is a conflict of interest. You dont need to be a constitutional scholar to see that. 

You mean like the DOJ does with its IG or if another special counsel is started to investigate the handling of the Clinton and Trump investigations?  :lol:  

I think that is Levin's point.   None of this should be under the jurisdiction of the DOJ.   Who should it be?  :dunno:

The issue is they hire someone supposedly outside the DOJ when in fact many really aren't.  

Edited by Highmark
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Highmark said:

You mean like the DOJ does with its IG or if another special counsel is started to investigate the handling of the Clinton and Trump investigations?  :lol:  

I think that is Levin's point.   None of this should be under the jurisdiction of the DOJ.   Who should it be?  :dunno:

Pull a name out of a hat at this point. Like I said, shit show... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Platinum Contributing Member
4 minutes ago, Nazipigdog said:

Pull a name out of a hat at this point. Like I said, shit show... 

Levin's point.  If he has the powers of a US attorney then really isn't he one?  The constitution is clear on this.

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39961732

What powers does he have?

The special counsel has the powers of a US attorney - meaning he can subpoena records and bring criminal charges. And he has done so.

Edited by Highmark
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Highmark said:

Levin's point.  If he has the powers of a US attorney then really isn't he one?  The constitution is clear on this.

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39961732

What powers does he have?

The special counsel has the powers of a US attorney - meaning he can subpoena records and bring criminal charges. And he has done so.

Appoint Hillary Clinton! :lol:

 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Highmark said:

You mean like the DOJ does with its IG or if another special counsel is started to investigate the handling of the Clinton and Trump investigations?  :lol:  

I think that is Levin's point.   None of this should be under the jurisdiction of the DOJ.   Who should it be?  :dunno:

The issue is they hire someone supposedly outside the DOJ when in fact many really aren't.  

The special prosecutor is far too politically charged for a case like this but by design this was the point when the investigation was opened. It should be the job of an independent council who do not answer to anyone inside the government.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Trying to pay the bills, lol

×
×
  • Create New...