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 ➡
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.
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 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.”
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 ➡