Darren Samuelsohn of Politico today reports, according to a source, that Special Counsel Robert Mueller has delivered to President Trump written questions related to his Russia collusion probe. From the article:
Peter Flaherty, chairman of the National Legal & Policy Center, warned on Thursday against Trump’s submitting written responses “in any way” given the legal consequences.
“Mueller has come up so empty on collusion that this may be a final stab at a perjury trap,” said Flaherty, who runs a conservative nonprofit that is funding a legal challenge to the constitutionality of the special counsel’s appointment.
The U.S. Court of Appeals has scheduled oral arguments for November 8, two days after the midterm elections, on the challenge by Andrew Miller to the constitutionality of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation.
On Friday, September 28, Mueller filed a 71-page brief making many of the same flawed arguments he made at the District Court level. A reply brief by Paul Kamenar, Miller’s attorney, is due on October 9. Kamenar’s representation of Miller is made possible by the National Legal and Policy Center and its supporters around the country.
This article by ABC News digital reporter Ali Dukakis appears on the ABC website under the title, “The Conservative DC Legal Group Behind a Challenge to the Mueller Probe:”
The latest legal challenge to special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation, now heading to the U.S. Court of Appeals, is being steered by a veteran Washington legal group that has a history of taking on Democrats and is bankrolled, in part, by longstanding Republican donors.
The National Legal and Policy Center is backing a subpoena fight launched by Andrew Miller, a former associate of Trump confidant and political provocateur Roger Stone, who has refused a demand from prosecutors to appear before a grand jury. He is objecting, the lawyers said, in order to mount a broad legal challenge to the legitimacy of the special counsel probe.
“The government wanted to hold [Miller] in contempt,” said Paul Kamenar, who was … Read More ➡
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 ➡