'Mueller Probe Is Unconstitutional' Under Article II

[WeToddDid2]

http://insider.foxnews.com/2018/05/...l-mark-levin-says-trump-russia-collusion-case

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.

 

[Tony Stark]

The right must be really scared right now of whats coming from Mueller

 

[Slartibartfast]

Watergate had a little certain something to do with the special prosecutor appointment being different. Lets not kid ourselves, this is a legacy from Nixon and the Saturday night massacre. Trump must be scared to be this bald faced trying to undo the Watergate provisions. Of course Roger Stone has wanted this since he worked for Nixon and Donny has that letter from Dick.

The special provisions may not have been renewed (late 90s?) however Watergate changed the law and process.

WeDidDodTodnothing will be the name when dictator powers are handed to a president because of blind left/right team bullshit.

 

[elderado]

Actually, one should watch the entire clip of Mark Levin. There is more to his argument.

And of course, he is correct.

 

[Slartibartfast]

Actually, one should watch the entire clip of Mark Levin. There is more to his argument.

And of course, he is correct.

If you understood how he was "correct" you would have stated this I expect. As you took the lazy route there is little point in looking at the clip. Opinion from pundits is propaganda so often on Fox and you guys saying something is true or not is usually based on liking something that seems to agree with you. Hannity failing to disclose etc.. I would not ask you to look at a long HuffPost clip without at least directing your to the relevant time.

I can't see it, geo restricted I guess but I will load a US proxy. This is an important matter.

So tell us what he said (more importantly what you believe he said) and we might agree. Right now it just seems like the Saturday night massacre is being re-litigated.

 

[Poindexter]

If you understood how he was "correct" you would have stated this I expect. As you took the lazy route there is little point in looking at the clip. Opinion from pundits is propaganda so often on Fox and you guys saying something is true or not is usually based on liking something that seems to agree with you. Hannity failing to disclose etc.. I would not ask you to look at a long HuffPost clip without at least directing your to the relevant time.

I can't see it, geo restricted I guess but I will load a US proxy. This is an important matter.

So tell us what he said (more importantly what you believe he said) and we might agree. Right now it just seems like the Saturday night massacre is being re-litigated.

Says the paper trading Constitutional scholar from Colombia who thought the Army replaced the Second Amendment

 

[Slartibartfast]

Says the paper trading Constitutional scholar from Colombia who thought the Army replaced the Second Amendment

Don't weasel. You know perfectly well that you were dating from the rebel army inception and I was from it's official formation date, dictated by the government being formed under the constitution. I also corrected myself on the error I did make.

You know I am not from Colombia. Why the lies and smear? (fake Jew and fake intelligence agent advisor whatever your Walter Mitty brain comes up with).

 

[Tony Stark]

Actually, one should watch the entire clip of Mark Levin. There is more to his argument.

And of course, he is correct.

You probably belived in and are still waiting for his convention of states too.Right wing media have right wing idiots believing in anything.

 

[Poindexter]

Don't weasel. You know perfectly well that you were dating from the rebel army inception and I was from it's official formation date, dictated by the government being formed under the constitution. I also corrected myself on the error I did make.

We've been through this before but since you're trying to lie your way out of it again, you need to be schooled again. Here's what you wrote; I've added the dates in brackets:

"The well regulated militia line [from the 1791 Second Amendment] was before the US Army was created [in 1775] to replace it."

The U.S. Army was founded on June 14, 1775 and had eleven branches by late 1776. What you refer to was a mere formality in 1789 that is STILL BEFORE the adoption of the Second Amendment in 1791, and wasn't even significant enough to be noted by the U.S. Army Center of Military History in their chronology of the Army's beginnings. https://history.army.mil/html/faq/branches.html

You know I am not from Colombia. Why the lies and smear? (fake Jew and fake intelligence agent advisor whatever your Walter Mitty brain comes up with).

Sure paper trader.

 

[TreeFrogTrader]

The right must be really scared right now of whats coming from Mueller

I heard that Carter Page has unpaid traffic tickets from when he was in Moscow but somehow they were made to go away. BUSTED!!!!