HERE IT IS=> Top 10 Reasons Why the Mueller Investigation is Unconstitutional (June Update)

Guest post by Joe Hoft

Legal scholar, author and radio host, Mark Levin was on Sean Hannity’s show on FOX News last night.  He stated what we at TGP detailed some time ago – the Mueller investigation is unconstitutional.

In the video below, Levin stated –

The defect here is not that every Special Counsel’s appointment is unconstitutional.  Every Special Counsel’s appointment is not unconstitutional.  This Special Counsel’s appointment is unconstitutional. Because the Deputy Attorney General Mr. Rosenstein hasn’t educated himself against the appointment’s clause.   He does not have the power to substitute his will for the President and the Senate.

The Mueller investigation is criminal and corrupt and above all unconstitutional. We agree with Levin and provided a list of  10 reasons in April describing why the Mueller investigation is unconstitutional.  (Levin’s argument is in item #2 below) 

Here is our list –

1.Rosenstein’s special counsel order identifies collusion as the crime but no such crime exists in US Law.

Gregg Jarrett at FOX News wrote when Mueller initially brought charges against Manafort that Mueller is tasked with finding a crime that does not exist in the law. It is a legal impossibility. He is being asked to do something that is manifestly unattainable because there is no such thing as the crime of collusion with foreign countries in the US statutory code.

Jarrett wrote the most succinct article about the Trump – Russia Collusion investigation to date. In his post Jarrett makes many statements that are almost shocking, but none more than the fact that the entire investigation is lawless. Jarrett states the following about the recent charges reported in the Russia collusion story –


George Papadopoulos pled guilty to a single charge of making a false statement to the FBI. He was not charged with so-called “collusion” because no such crime exists in American statutory law, except in anti-trust matters. It has no application to elections and political campaigns.

It is not a crime to talk to a Russian. Not that the media would ever understand that. They have never managed to point to a single statute that makes “colluding” with a foreign government in a political campaign a crime, likely because it does not exist in the criminal codes.

2. Mueller’s investigation exceeds the scope of special counsel law which requires the scope of a special counsel to be specific. Rosenstein created the special counsel with a scope that is so broad it is not supported by this law.

Paul Manafort sued the DOJ, Mueller and Rosenstein because what they are doing is not supported by US Law as noted previously by Jarrett. Manafort’s case also argues in paragraph 33 that the special counsel put in place by crooked Rosenstein gave crooked and criminal Mueller powers that are not permitted by law –

But paragraph (b)(ii) of the Appointment Order purports to grant Mr. Mueller further authority to investigate and prosecute “any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation.” That grant of authority is not authorized by DOJ’s special counsel regulations. It is not a “specific factual statement of the matter to be investigated.” Nor is it an ancillary power to address efforts to impede or obstruct investigation under 28 C.F.R. § 600.4(a).

After Rosenstein and Mueller provided a document to the court this past week, Gregg Jarrett tweeted that it was additional support that Mueller’s investigation is unconstitutional –

3. Mueller accepted the special counsel position with known conflicts of interest.

Gregg Jarrett also called for Mueller to resign in June of 2017 stating the special counsel has an egregious conflict of interest.

In a previous Fox News column, Jarrett stated:

The Washington Post reported that that Robert Mueller is now investigating President Trump for obstruction of justice, examining not only the president’s alleged statement to James Comey in their February meeting, but also the firing of the FBI Director.

If true, this development makes the argument even more compelling that Mueller cannot serve as special counsel. He has an egregious conflict of interest.

The special counsel statute specifically prohibits Mueller from serving if he has “a personal relationship with any person substantially involved in the investigation or prosecution.” The language is mandatory. He “shall” disqualify himself. Comey is substantially involved in the case. Indeed, he is the central witness.

The two men and former colleagues have long been friends, allies and partners. Agents have quipped that they were joined at the hip while at the Department of Justice and the FBI. They have a mentor-protégé relationship. The likelihood of prejudice and favoritism is glaring and severe.

So, it is incomprehensible that the man who is a close friend of the star witness against the president… will now determine whether the president committed a prosecutable crime in his dealings with Mueller’s good friend.

4. Rosenstein and Mueller’s entire team have known conflicts of interest.

Rod Rosenstein signed a FISA application to spy on Trump but he never recused himself from the Mueller investigation. In addition, Mueller brought in a team of Obama and Clinton lackeys to form his investigative team who had no intention of performing an independent and objective investigation. The entire team is corrupt lefties who have represented the Clinton Foundation or let Hillary go in her obvious crimes related to her email scandal. This group included the texting FBI scoundrels Peter Strzok and Lisa Page whose texts lead to bias and potential criminal actions.  (This past Friday Senator Graham sent Rosenstein a request to respond why he is not recused from the investigation.  A response has not yet been received.)

5. The Investigation exceeds the scope of Jeff Sessions’ recusal of only 2016 campaign related matters. Mueller’s scope is much broader.

Attorney Robert Barnes tweeted this argument this past week –

6. Rosenstein’s original authorization to Mueller extended to “Russia government collusion” in 2016 campaign only. By pressing charges against Manafort for 2006 actions, Mueller’s scope is much broader.

7. Rosenstein does not have authorization over tax crimes. Only the Assistant Attorney General in charge of Tax Division can authorize indictments of tax crimes.

8. Rosenstein’s letter tells Mueller only to look to Rosenstein for clarification of Mueller’s authorization. Rosenstein is not the Attorney General of the United States, and could not monopolize supervision of Mueller for matters that did not relate to Sessions’ recusal.

9. By Rosenstein issuing his expanded authorization to Mueller in secret, Rosenstein created a secret inquisitor, unelected and un-appointed by elected officials, with all the powers of the federal criminal law enforcement, but none of the democratic checks and balances.

10. The special counsel law requires that the Attorney General create the special counsel when a criminal investigation is warranted. There was no reason for Rosenstein to create the special counsel that could not have been addressed with other means, if necessary.

According to the Cornell Law School, the law states that the grounds for setting up a special counsel require the following –

The Attorney General, or in cases in which the Attorney General is recused, the Acting Attorney General, will appoint a Special Counsel when he or she determines that criminal investigation of a person or matter is warranted.

Because President Trump had committed no crimes, there was no reason to create the special counsel in the first place. Some may argue this and say Rosenstein had every right to create the special counsel but now we know that Rosenstein created the special counsel and appointed former FBI Head Robert Mueller to lead the investigation because they wanted unlimited resources to investigate the President and to remove him from power by any means possible.

For political reasons President Trump is not shutting down the unconstitutional and corrupt Mueller investigation at this time but AG Jeff Sessions has every right and even the duty to rein in on it or shut it down.

Robert Barnes wrote at Law and Crimes that –

Paul Manafort‘s legal team brought a motion to dismiss on Tuesday, noting that Rosenstein could not appoint Mueller to any investigation outside the scope of the 2016 campaign since Sessions did not recuse himself for anything outside the campaign. I agree with this take on Mueller’s authority. If we follow that argument that would mean Sessions himself has exclusive authority to appoint a special counsel for non-collusion charges, and Sessions has taken no such action. Sessions himself should make that clear to Mueller, rather than await court resolution. Doing so would remove three of the four areas of inquiry from Mueller’s requested interview with President Trump.

Sessions formally notifying Mueller that he does not have authority to act outside of campaign-related cases and cases related to obstruction of Mueller’s investigation would be doing what the Constitution compels: enforcing the Appointments Clause of the Constitution. Additionally, Sessions notifying Mueller that he does not have authority to act outside of campaign-related cases would be exercising Sessions’ court-recognized Constitutional obligation to “direct and supervise litigation” conducted by the Department of Justice. Furthermore, Sessions notifying Mueller that he does not have authority to act outside of campaign-related cases protects against the inappropriate use of the federal grand jury that defendant Manafort now rightly complains about.

Sessions limiting Mueller to the 2016 campaign would also be restoring confidence in democratic institutions, and restore public faith that democratically elected officials.

One thing to remember about Sessions’ recusal: Sessions only recused himself from “any existing or future investigations of any matters related in any way to the campaigns for President of the United States.” This recusal letter limits the scope of Sessions’ recusal to the 2016 campaigns; it does not authorize Sessions’ recusal for anything beyond that. Constitutionally, Sessions has a “duty to direct and supervise litigation” conducted by the Department of Justice. Ethically, professionally, and legally, Sessions cannot ignore his supervisory obligations for cases that are not related to the “campaigns for President.”

For the above reasons, we are still in a constitutional crisis. If AG Sessions will not uphold the law per his duties per the constitution, then Sessions should go! America cannot stand with an AG that does not uphold his duties and obligations and who allows this unconstitutional witch hunt to continue!

You Might Like

Comments

As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to edit or remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, anti-Semitism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. The same applies to trolling, the use of multiple aliases, or just generally being a jerk. Enforcement of this policy is at the sole discretion of the site administrators and repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without warning. Guest posting is disabled for security reasons.

You Might Like