Challenging the lack of cooperation by former Roger Stone associate Andrew Miller, prosecutors told the D.C. Circuit Thursday that the grand jury that worked with special counsel Robert Mueller still needs Miller’s testimony.
Filed this morning by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia, the government’s 21-page opposition brief indicates that the grand jury empaneled by Mueller is likely still working, and that more criminal charges related to Miller’s testimony are possible.
The grand jury working with Mueller had subpoenaed Miller in May 2018 for testimony concerning Stone’s relationship to WikiLeaks, its founder Julian Assange and Guccifer 2.0, a fake persona allegedly tied to Russian intelligence that filtered hacked Democratic emails damaging to Hillary Clinton during the 2016 election.
Andrew Miller, a former aide to Roger Stone, has filed a motion to stay the mandate in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia that rejected his constitutional challenge to Special Counsel Robert Mueller in order to seek review of the court’s decision upholding his contempt of court for refusing to appear before the Mueller Grand Jury last June, 2018 in the U.S. Supreme Court.
In the motion, Miller’s attorney Paul Kamenar argued that a stay was justified because the petition to the Supreme Court will present “substantial questions” of Mueller’s constitutionality and that “good cause” exists justifying the short stay of the case from being remanded to the district court.
Kamenar represents Miller on a partial pro bono basis, and is supported by the National Legal and Policy Center.
On April 29, the U.S. Court of Appeals refused to rehear a constitutional challenge to the appointment and authority of Special Counsel Robert Mueller. The Court did not rule on a related but separate request to decide whether the case was now moot because Mueller has turned in his report. That question was kicked back down to D.C. Circuit Court.
A three-judge panel of the Appeals Court ruled against the plaintiff Andrew Miller on February 26. Miller is a former aide to Roger Stone who has been subpoenaed to appear as a witness before Mueller’s grand jury. He has refused to any questions on the basis that Mueller’s probe is unconstitutional. Miller had sought an en banc rehearing of all eleven judges of the Appeals Court.
Paul Kamenar, attorney for Andrew Miller, today filed a petition for rehearing before the full U.S. Court of Appeals to review and reverse the 3-judge court’s decision of February 26, 2019 rejecting Miller’s constitutional challenge to a grand jury subpoena issued by Special Counsel Mueller last summer.
The Special Counsel was seeking testimony from Miller, who was a one-time aide to Roger Stone at the RNC Convention in 2016. The petition asked the Court to first consider whether the case is moot now that Mueller has completed his investigation.
If the Court determines that the case is still active, Miller intends to pursue his case in the U.S. Supreme Court to get a definitive ruling on the legality of Mueller. The challenge is supported by the National Legal and Policy Center.
As of today, the U.S. Court of Appeals has not ruled on the constitutional challenge to Special Counsel Robert Mueller. The case was argued on November 8 before a three-judge panel consisting of Judges Judith W. Rogers, Karen Henderson and Sri Srinivasan.
That hearing, which lasted well over an hour, took place against the backdrop of the resignation of Attorney General Jeff Sessions. Judge Henderson opened the session by saying, “We have caucused on this. Argue this case as if it was being argued yesterday morning.”
The Sessions resignation proved to be anti-climatic as it pertained to this litigation. The Court asked for supplemental briefs on how it impacted this case. In response, both sides asserted that it should have none.
On Thursday, November 8, the U.S. Court of Appeals will hear In Re: Grand Jury Investigation, No. 18-3052, Andrew Miller v. Robert Mueller. The 1pm hearing will take place at the United States Courthouse in the fifth floor courtroom at 333 Constitution Avenue, NW in Washington, DC.
Miller is represented by constitutional and appellate attorney Paul Kamenar, who will advance three principal arguments:
1) Congress did not authorize the appointment of a Special Counsel as an officer of the United States.
2) Mueller is a principal officer and should have been appointed by the President and confirmed by the U.S. Senate like all U.S. Attorneys.
3) If Mueller is an inferior officer as he claims, the Appointments Clause requires that he be appointed by the “head of the department,” which is Attorney General Jeff Sessions, not Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein.
On October 9, 2018, constitutional and appellate attorney Paul Kamenar filed his reply to Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s brief in the case of Andrew Miller v. United States of America before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.
Kamenar represents Andrew Miller, a witness in Mueller’s investigation, who has declined to appear before the Grand Jury convened by Mueller on the basis that Mueller’s appointment is unconstitutional. Miller lost at the District Court level, a decision he is appealing. Oral arguments are scheduled for November 8, two days after the midterm elections. Kamenar’s representation of Miller is made possible by the National Legal and Policy Center and its supporters around the country.
Constitutional law attorney Paul Kamenar has taken Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller to a federal court of appeals, challenging Mueller’s legitimacy and powers as unconstitutional and arguing that Mueller acts like a “U.S. Attorney-at-large or a super U.S. Attorney with almost unlimited resources.” This is the only case to challenge the legitimacy of Mueller’s appointment in a court of appeals.
Kamenar represents Andrew Miller, a former part-time aide to Roger Stone, who was subpoenaed this summer by Mueller to testify against Stone in front of a grand jury. Mueller’s team has spent the past year and a half investigating the “Russian collusion” of Trump’s campaign and has brought criminal charges against numerous individuals, albeit none for “Russian collusion.” Mueller’s reliance on Special Counsel powers to make legal demands of the aide have presented a unique legal opportunity for Kamenar to challenge the arguably illegal powers … Read More ➡ “Taking Down Goliath: A Constitutional Challenge to Mueller’s Powers”
On September 11, 2018, constitutional and appellate attorney Paul Kamenar filed his brief with the U.S. Court of Appeals on behalf of his client Andrew Miller, a witness in the investigation of Special Counsel Robert Mueller. Miller is declining to honor a subpoena to appear before a Grand Jury and is challenging the constitutionality of Mueller’s appointment.
Miller lost at the District Court level, allowing his appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals. Oral arguments in the case are expected to take place in October. In his brief, Kamenar makes a compelling case that Mueller’s appointment by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein should be ruled invalid. Kamenar’s representation of Miller is made possible by the National Legal and Policy Center, and its supporters around the country.
In an op-ed in The Hill, Law Professor Steven Calabresi says that U.S. District Court Chief Judge Beryl Howell erred in upholding the constitutionality of the investigation of Special Counsel Robert Mueller. Her decision has been appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals. Briefs were due yesterday and oral arguments will take place in October.
Andrew Miller, a witness in the case, is challenging Mueller’s constitutionality. Constitutional and appellate attorney Paul Kamenar, who is supported by the National Legal and Policy Center, represents him. Here’s the op-ed:
In its decision in In re Grand Jury Subpoena, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, egged on by a power-crazy acting attorney general, reached two startling and alarming conclusions in order to uphold the legality of Robert Mueller’s appointment as special counsel.
The matter involved concerns the Appointments Clause of Article II of the Constitution, which provides: