Late this afternoon, a Notice of Appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit was filed seeking review of the contempt order issued against Andrew Miller for not appearing before Special Counsel Mueller’s grand jury on Friday, August 10, 2018. The appeal will seek review of the court’s decision and opinion of July 31, 2018, upholding the constitutionality of Special Counsel’s appointment.
“This case is likely to go all the way to the Supreme Court,” said Paul Kamenar, Mr. Miller’s attorney, shortly after filing the appeal. To those, like Chris Cuomo of CNN who interviewed Mr. Kamenar on the case on Friday, August 10, who say this case is a distraction from Mueller’s investigation, Kamenar’s response is, “the constitution is not a distraction.” The Mueller challenge is being supported by NLPC.
Andrew Miller, a witness in the investigation by Special Counsel Robert Mueller, was held in Contempt by Judge Beryl Howell this morning, a result necessary to appeal the action to the U.S. Court of Appeals. Judge Howell stayed the Contempt pending the resolution of our appeal.
Miller is represented by constitutional and appellate attorney Paul Kamenar, representation made possible by NLPC.
Kamenar will file the appeal Monday morning based on our assertion that Mueller was appointed in violation of the Appointments Clause of the Constitution, and that his appointment is invalid because he was not appointed by the Attorney General but by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein.
Today’s action paves the way to higher courts, and possibly the Supreme Court. Getting to this stage was not automatic or easy. We received significant media coverage today. We are trying to get the … Read More ➡
Hon. Beryl Howell, Chief Judge of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, has denied a Motion to Quash a subpoena to a Grand Jury witness in the Russia collusion probe headed by Special Counsel Robert Mueller. The Motion was made by attorneys for a witness on the basis that Mueller’s appointment was not constitutional under the Appointments Clause. The Motion was argued during a 90-minute hearing on July 18. The names of the witness and the attorneys were redacted in the decision, which was made public today.
Howell’s denial was expected. Attorneys for the witness will appeal the ruling to a higher court.
Legal scholars Seth Barrett Tillman and Josh Blackman have weighed in on the increasingly relevant question of whether Robert Mueller’s appointment as Special Counsel is constitutional. I made my views known when I told the New York Times, “The founders feared exactly what we see in Mueller: a runaway federal official. We hope to see Mueller’s operation disbanded, once and for all.”
In an article titled “Is Robert Mueller an ‘Officer of the United States’ or an ‘Employee of the United States'”? appearing on the Lawfare website, Tillman and Blackman examine a number of arguments and offer some of their own:
Recent debates over the constitutionality of Robert Mueller’s appointment as special counsel turn on whether he is a principal or inferior “officer of the United States.” Steven Calabresi contends that Mueller is in fact a principal officer, who, as a result, must be nominated by the president, and … Read More ➡
The question of whether Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation is constitutional is examined by George Will in his latest column:
The president, who might not be fully acquainted with the pertinent Supreme Court case law, says the appointment of Robert S. Mueller III as special counsel was unconstitutional. The president’s opinion, because it is his, is prima facie evidence for the opposite conclusion. It is, however, not sufficient evidence. Consider the debate between two serious people who have immersed themselves in the history of the appointments clause, which says:
“[The president] shall nominate, and by and 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, and which shall be established by law: but the Congress may by law vest the … Read More ➡
This is rich. Robert Mueller now says that if he turns over evidence to the lawyers of defendants he has charged with crimes, the documents might find their way to foreign intelligence services. Mueller is right, especially when the defendants are Russians with close ties to Vladimir Putin and the Russian government.
The problem is of Mueller’s creation. When he indicted three business entities and 13 individuals in February, he knew it was unlikely they would ever show up in the United States to face trial. The indictments were nice window dressing because they had to do with actual Russian meddling in the 2016 election, unlike the rest of the investigation.
The only problem is that one of the defendants, a firm called Concord Management and Consulting LLC, called Mueller’s bluff in April and had its American attorneys show up to enter a not guilty plea. That makes Concord a … Read More ➡
Sometimes ulterior motives aren’t that hard to figure out. In the case of former FBI Director Robert Mueller, appointed last May as independent special counsel by the Justice Department to probe alleged Russian government meddling in the 2016 presidential election, the end game has become clear: Impeach President Donald Trump. Much of the focus now is on the Senate Judiciary Committee, chaired by Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, determined to give Mueller and his staff a vote of confidence. “It would be suicide” for Trump to fire Mueller, noted Sen. Grassley, who, despite objections from Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, seeks a committee vote this week on a bill to protect Mueller’s job. Actually, it might be suicidal for Trump not to fire Mueller.
The accusations that certain unnamed Russian officials conspired with Trump and his top campaign aides to steal the 2016 election isn’t going away anytime soon. That’s the way … Read More ➡