The legacy media (of course) has focused on all the evidence Robert Mueller considered in his report about whether President Donald Trump obstructed justice during the Russian (non)collusion investigation, questioning whether the special counsel made the right decision not to prosecute the Commander-in-Chief.
There are disputes in the testimony between witnesses, which is why Mueller didn’t move forward with a “prosecutorial decision” on that point (or on any other). But setting aside the analysis about what happened, and interpreting it under the law, there is one question that is not being addressed:
National Legal and Policy Center filed suit today against the Department of Justice to force release of a document specifying a conflict of interest for which Special Counsel Robert Mueller received a retroactive waiver.
In the wake of demands for “transparency” through the release of the Mueller report, we are also asking for transparency.
Justice Department foot-dragging on a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request filed by NLPC in September 2018 necessitated the suit. We asked for all records pertaining to the appointment of Mueller to be Special Counsel by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein on May 17, 2017. The Justice Department regulations governing appointment of Special Counsels require a “detailed review of ethics and conflicts of interest issues” of any individual who is under consideration.
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.
Fred Lucas in The Daily Signal today reports on the investigation supposedly being conducted by John Huber, the United States Attorney for Utah. Instead of appointing another Special Counsel, then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions a year ago appointed Huber to investigate the FISA warrant issued on Trump campaign aide Carter Page, as well as the Uranium One deal. From the story:
Since his appointment, Huber’s investigation has been a complete mystery, said Peter Flaherty, chairman of the National Legal and Policy Center, a conservative government watchdog group.
“There is no evidence a real investigation is taking place,” Flaherty told The Daily Signal. “We don’t have a grand jury. It doesn’t seem key witnesses were interviewed. There is certainly no evidence he has staffed up. What he is up to is a mystery.”
Flaherty said he agrees with Graham and others who support appointment of a new
Those who hoped the Special Counsel would find criminal acts by President Trump are disappointed this week, but for Robert Mueller and his team it can only be “mission accomplished.”
Of course, Mueller’s team would have loved to have taken down Trump, but the more achievable goal was to misdirect attention from their own actions. The probe was initiated and staffed by the same people who prior to the election sought to use the mechanisms of the law enforcement bureaucracy to deny Trump the presidency.
Sigmund Freud called it “psychological projection,” whereby the human ego defends itself by attributing one’s own negative traits to others. That is how a group of high-level bureaucrats and prosecutors convinced themselves that Donald Trump had no regard for democratic norms and that he was a traitor in the embrace of a foreign power, allowing them to answer “a higher calling” by illegally intervening in … Read More ➡ “The Successful Mueller Misdirection”
The delivery of Robert Mueller’s report to Attorney General William Barr does not mean the end of the constitutional challenge to the Special Counsel’s authority by Andrew Miller, who has been subpoenaed as a witness in the investigation.
Paul Kamenar, who represents Miller, commented, “Several days ago the Special Counsel notified us that they are still interested in having Andrew Miller testify before the grand jury regarding Roger Stone whose case is also being handled by the local U.S. Attorney.
We are pursuing further judicial review of our challenge to Mueller’s constitutional authority to issue his subpoena last June despite today’s action that indicates the Special Counsel has terminated his investigation.
Thus, it is not clear at this point whether any further request for Mr. Miller’s testimony will come from the U.S. Attorney’s office should we not prevail, or whether they will decide his testimony is no longer needed.”
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.
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.
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”