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.
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
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.
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”