jelun wrote:
Just exactly what does any of this have to do with the boundaries set by Rod Rosenstein?
Rosenstein specified the limits of the investigation, but he made one monumental mistake, followed by a succession of violations of DOJ regulations and unconstitutional maneuvers that now have him on the hot seat.
Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein violated the appointments clause of Article II, Section 2 of the constitution by appointing an independent special counsel to operate without supervision, which means Mueller is acting as a Principle Officer of the United States.
The Attorney General, deputy AG, associate AGs and all US Attorneys are Principle Officers of the United States. Only the president has the constitutional authority to appoint,
"with the advice and consent of the senate", a Principle Officer of the United States.
A Principle Officer of the United States cannot act outside the authority of his office. All Principle Officers of the United States are subject to the appointing authority and are duty bound to obey its supervisory instructions. In the case of the Mueller investigation, Rosenstein IS NOT supervising Mueller, he is rubber stamping every thing he does. Mueller is acting far outside his authority, he is a loose cannon.
References:
Article II, Section 2, US Constitution.
DOJ regulation 64 Fed. Reg. 37038
Deputy AG Rosenstein letter of appointment (ORDER NO. 3915-2017)
Title 18, Chapter VI, 28 C.F.R. § 600.4(a) (b) (c). (Special counsel jurisdiction)
Justice Scalia dissent in
Morrison v. OlsonPepperdine University Constitutional Law professor, Douglas Kmiec on special counsel appointments.
Northwestern Law School Professor Steven Calabresi on special counsel appointments
Mueller is not an inferior appointee, but a principal appointee as understood under our constitutional. His powers are more akin to an United States attorney, not an assistant United States attorney. Moreover, his boss, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, treats him as a principal officer — that is, Mueller is mostly free to conduct his investigation with few limits or restraints. The parameters of his appointment were extraordinarily broad in the first instance, and have only expanded since then.
Indeed, Mueller is more powerful than most United States attorneys, all of whom were nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate as principal officers. Furthermore, Rosenstein mostly rubber stamps Mueller’s decisions and is not involved in the regular management and oversight of Mueller to any significant extent, underscoring Mueller’s role not as an inferior officer but a principal officer. As such, Mueller’s appointment violates the Appointments Clause. Mueller would’ve had to be nominated for Senate confirmation like any other principal officer in the Executive Branch. Rosenstein did not have the constitutional power to appoint a principal officer on his own anymore than the President himself does. To do otherwise is to defy the procedure established by the Framers for making such consequential executive appointments. It follows, then, that every subpoena, indictment, and plea agreement involving the Mueller investigation is null and void. Every defendant, suspect, witness, etc., in this matter should challenge the Mueller appointment as a violation of the Appointments Clause.