Tomorrow, former Special Counsel Robert Mueller will testify before the House Judiciary Committee and the House Intelligence Committee about his two-year investigation into Russian interference with the 2016 election.
While the Justice Department yesterday ordered Mueller to stay within the confines of his report, there are unanswered questions about Mueller’s conflict of interest that have not been answered but are the subject of a pending FOIA lawsuit by the National Legal and Policy Center.
President Trump has repeatedly said Mueller has a conflict for a number of reasons, such as a dispute with membership fees at Trump’s Virginia golf club, his relationship with fired FBI Director James Comey, not getting appointed by Trump to head the FBI, and his law firm’s work with the Clinton Foundation. Here’s what Mueller should be asked:
On May 16, 2017, you had an interview with President Trump in the White House about the vacancy
Andrew Miller will testify before the Grand Jury at 11:00 AM today. Miller’s appearance follows a nearly year-long court battle over the Constitutionality of the appointment former Special Counsel, Robert Mueller.
On Tuesday, May 28, 2019 Miller’s legal challenge was remanded from the D.C. Circuit to the District Court following its February 26, 2019 ruling rejecting the argument.
Miller’s attorney, Paul Kamenar, made a final attempt to quash Miller’s subpoena on the grounds that since Mueller’s investigation is over, and Roger Stone has been indicted, it would be improper under Department of Justice policy and precedent to use the Grand Jury to obtain pre-trial evidence on someone already indicted.
The exception to that rule is if the government is seeking to indict the defendant on other crimes or that were other possible targets for which evidence was needed – opening the door for compelling testimony.
Andrew Miller, a witness in the Russia investigation, today agreed to honor a subpoena issued last year to appear before the grand jury convened by Special Counsel Robert Mueller. The former aide to GOP operative Roger Stone had been refusing to appear on the grounds that Mueller’s appointment and authority were unconstitutional.
Miller’s appearance before the grand jury will effectively end the constitutional challenge to Mueller.
Miller’s challenge went through the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, up to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, and back down to the District Court. Today, District Court Judge Beryl Howell denied a motion by Miller to further stay the subpoena. Miller’s attorney, Paul Kamenar, argued that grand juries are not allowed to gather evidence after an indictment has been made. It has been presumed that the Special Counsel’s interest in Miller pertained … Read More ➡
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.
The motion also cites Brett Kavanaugh to support Miller’s argument that Mueller should have been appointed as … Read More ➡
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.
Miller is represented by constitutional and appellate lawyer Paul Kamenar on a partial pro bono basis, and is supported by the National … Read More ➡
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.
NLPC has already received a Justice Department document confirming that Mueller had a conflict, but it is withholding another saying what the conflict was … Read More ➡
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.
The plaintiff in the case is Andrew Miller of St. Louis, Missouri, who has been subpoenaed as a witness in Mueller’s Russia probe. Miller worked as an aide to … Read More ➡