Mueller Violates Law

PUBLISHED: 6:25 PM 14 May 2018
UPDATED: 7:19 PM 14 May 2018

WSJ Admits: Mueller’s Investigation Crosses Constitutional Line

His ‘unfettered power’ was blasted by Judge Ellis, for good reason.

Back in 1988, the Supreme Court made it crystal clear that there are limits and boundaries. Mueller isn’t following them while Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein helps him get away with it.

“What we don’t want in this country is… anyone with unfettered power,” Judge Ellis blasted at the Government prosecutor. Even the Wall Street Journal agrees with the judge. As Robert Mueller’s special investigation enters its second year, the liberal news outlet actually admits that the witch hunt unleashed by Rod Rosenstein has wandered so far across the line it brutally violates the sanctity of Constitutional law.

There is a good reason why Judge T.S. Ellis is upset. All this time, the grand inquisitor has been raping lady liberty while his so-called supervisor, Rod Rosenstein, watches and cheers him on at taxpayer expense.

The trial judge in Paul Manafort’s criminal case sternly warned Deputy Solicitor General Michael Dreeben, “it’s unlikely you’re going to persuade me that the special prosecutor has unlimited powers.”

Back in 1988, the Supreme Court made it crystal clear that there are limits and boundaries. Mueller isn’t following them, while Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein helps him get away with it.

The case of Morrison v. Olson spelled out exactly where the boundaries of special investigations are and has solidly withstood the test of time. Every attorney in the Department of Justice is intimately familiar with it.

Revolving around a core tenet of the Constitution known as the Appointments Clause, it requires “principal officers,” who wield considerable executive power, be selected by the President and approved by the Senate. Rod Rosenstein is a “principal officer.”

“Inferior officers” don’t have to go through the vetting process of appointment because there are limitations on what they can dig into. Even Devin Nunes (R-Ca.) can’t get anyone to tell him what is in the paperwork defining the scope of the Mueller investigation.

In the Morrison case, SCOTUS ruled that the independent counsel was an inferior officer because she was only tasked with investigating “certain federal officials suspected of certain serious federal crimes.”

Mueller has been dragging a wide net across Washington, hauling in numerous defendants who have been charged with a wide variety of crimes (some notably a lie).

The things Paul Manafort are charged with are totally unrelated to any kind of collaboration between President Donald Trump and Russia, which is what Mueller is supposed to be investigating.

All of Mueller’s actions prove he has been acting beyond his authority. Mueller reports to Rosenstein as his “boss” but that isn’t enough to satisfy the law.

Defense attorneys for Mr. Manafort are hopeful that Judge Ellis will simply dismiss the indictment against their client on the grounds that it is in violation of the Appointments Clause.

Following their example, anyone else who Muller points the finger of suspicion at will soon raise the same defense. Even simple subpoenas are ripe for challenge.

Not only is Mueller exceeding his authority, he has been abusing the grand jury process too. The recently leaked list of proposed questions for President Trump clearly violates the Article II executive privilege clause of the Constitution.

Attorney Victoria Toensing, who represents the whistleblower in the Uranium One investigation, points out that Mueller has been ignoring a simple basic principle. “A sitting president cannot be indicted,” she writes.

After Watergate, the DOJ had to answer the question of whether or not “a president could be subject to criminal prosecution.” No, they decided. Picking a president is a “highly complex nationwide effort.” It would not be fair for his fate to be decided by “a jury of twelve, selected by chance off the street.”

Instead, the constitution makes it clear that the only way to press criminal charges against a president is through the impeachment process. The House decides on the charges and then the Senate decides whether or not to convict.

That is what happened with Bill Clinton. The House voted to “impeach” him and charges were filed. The Senate refused to convict so he walked away scot-free.

When Nixon’s aides were on trial, the special prosecutor subpoenaed tapes of oval office conversations that Nixon had quietly recorded. The subpoena was enforced but only because it was limited.

The tapes could only be played in the judge’s office and the White House only had to produce what was “relevant and material information.”

The Supreme Court firmly held that once “criminal proceedings against a President in office” get to the point where it interferes with “the President’s performance of his official duties” so much that it becomes “an incapacitation,” the plug should be pulled.

If Mueller knows he can never file an indictment against President Trump, why subpoena his testimony? Because Mueller plans to pass it over to Congress to be used for impeachment. The only problem is that it’s just as illegal. It is “an abuse of the grand jury process.”

The U.S. Attorney’s Manual clearly states, “a grand jury has but two functions, to indict or, in the alternative, to return a no bill.” If you can’t indict, you can’t have a grand jury, it is not allowed.

Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein is an official in the executive branch. Impeachment is something that only Congress can do.

It is illegal for the executive branch to compel testimony in front of a grand jury for the sole purpose of turning it over to any other branch of the government. That would be a violation of both the Constitution and executive privilege.

Muller’s days as grand inquisitor are clearly numbered.