'Mueller Probe Is Unconstitutional' Under Article II

WeToddDid2 said:
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.
More...
Agree in toto. However, I am elated that the Mueller probe was initiated as it is uncovering just how biased, illegal and corrupt the left is. Now we find out that James Comey had a spy in the Trump campaign. The Deep State is unraveling before our eyes. This would have only happened if Trump was elected. This is good news for the country. Drain the swamp!
 
Tony Stark said:
The right must be really scared right now of whats coming from Mueller :D
More...
Don't think the right is scared at all. I see our president continuing on with his plans ----He doesn't appear too worried. ---Andrew Weissmann? Well that's another story.---
 
Poindexter said:
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


Sure paper trader. :D

View attachment 186493
More...

:)

Ok you are just making smoke/trolling, with trying that 'constitutional scholar' label, fine. We both know you are not replying to me but to 'them' in this thread. A very old trick, like if something came up about manga pedophilia I would rebut you as a 'scholar of Asian pedophile pornography' or similar.

I was partly in error and I admitted that in the thread. This is called discussion. You are trying to mislead people which is your bad character showing.

To 'them', Poindexter is a blow in troll Walter Mitty who has claimed to be some kind of consultant to US military intelligence and furnished 1940s era letterheads from a general's office stationary as proof.

I guess there is no solution to the poindexters but it would be nice to have a room that has some entry requirement, a funded trading account (I have several) perhaps. I still recon Poindexter works as a deli delivery boy or something :)

Oh and Poindexter, "from" can be read as writing from somewhere not just where you were born. FIO require that you give your geo-location to help with fake account prevention. So I was in San Andreas island Colombia when I last updated the profile. And how many times have I said I was from Ireland (mostly?). Remember how you said I was lying (presumably thinking a 'paper trader' could not afford to go there) and I posted a panoramic photograph from the south point of the island?

Talk to me, not them. You may learn something.
 
Last edited:
Slartibartfast said:
We could still do with what the op thinks Levin said that apparently means the provisions made to stop a second Saturday night massacre were always unconstitutional?
More...
You seem to get easily confused.

You clearly do not understand Levin's argument.

Go watch the video and then try again. You may need to watch it numerous times.

I'm am not sure that you are capable of understanding the argument.
 
Last edited:
I heard levin on the radio yesterday speak on this subject.
he was expanding on the work of a professor....
I missed professor Calabresi's interview yesterday as I had arrived at my destination and got out of my vehicle.

But, the argument hinges on whether Mueller would be classified as an inferior officer or an officer who should be appointed and confirmed like a US Attorney. Levin made a strong argument that Mueller is not an inferior officer as he has a team working for him and has rubber stamp oversight. However, presuming he and Calabresi have correctly documented the controlling statute and case law... (I would not know for sure without researching it myself) you can still see a court would have to weigh the facts and factors.

In short the reviewing courts would make a judgement call and I am not as confident as Levin that Mueller is not an inferior officer. Levin probably has the stronger argument but its not an open and shut case. (as they say)

up. https://lawandcrime.com/politics/fe...s-muellers-investigation-is-unconstitutional/
 
WeToddDid2 said:
You seem to get easily confused.

You clearly do not understand Levin's argument.

Go watch the video and then try again. You may need to watch it numerous times.

I'm am not sure that you are capable of understanding the argument.
More...

So you don't know what specifically he is saying that has substance?

It is very relevant/important to explain what you think is being said when you refer to something. Otherwise we could all just say xyz is wrong/right and just say read the bible as justification.

I won't waste my time loading a proxy to watch it then. There is precedent in place following Watergate.

Hell even if it were correct and law is just collective opinion really, how can a President with a majority government be stopped from doing anything? Fire everyone who disagrees and load the judiciary with flunkies (as he is). That is African nation territory.

Edited: I seem Jem's post, ok but I still feel the Saturday night massacre provisions directly apply here and are a major stumbling block for anyone trying to make the case afresh as if none of that happened.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top