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. Olson
Pepperdine 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.

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. Olson
Pepperdine 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.

Name the 17 who were indicted, and when the grand jury meet to indict them. You can't because it never happened.

You must be referring to the subpoenas Mueller got from the court clerk to fill in the names of 17 he wanted to question.

Once Mueller questions these people he will present the findings of his witch hunt to the Grand jury and they will consider the evidence and true bill (indicte) or not indict.

You must be getting your information from

www//crooked fake swamp news.com....


God bless America and the President

Special counsel Robert Mueller’s team has either indicted or gotten guilty pleas from 19 people and three companies so far — with most of those being announced just in the past few weeks.

That group is composed of four former Trump advisers, 13 Russian nationals, three Russian companies, one California man, and one London-based lawyer. Five of these people have already pleaded guilty — the latest being former Trump campaign staffer Rick Gates, who signed a plea deal and committed to cooperate with Mueller’s investigation Friday.

These are facts btw. Where you've been?

Special counsel Robert Mueller’s team has either indicted or gotten guilty pleas from 19 people and three companies so far — with most of those being announced just in the past few weeks.

That group is composed of four former Trump advisers, 13 Russian nationals, three Russian companies, one California man, and one London-based lawyer. Five of these people have already pleaded guilty — the latest being former Trump campaign staffer Rick Gates, who signed a plea deal and committed to cooperate with Mueller’s investigation Friday.

These are facts btw. Where you've been?

Special counsel Robert Mueller’s team has either indicted or gotten guilty pleas from 19 people and three companies so far — with most of those being announced just in the past few weeks.

That group is composed of four former Trump advisers, 13 Russian nationals, three Russian companies, one California man, and one London-based lawyer. Five of these people have already pleaded guilty — the latest being former Trump campaign staffer Rick Gates, who signed a plea deal and committed to cooperate with Mueller’s investigation Friday.

These are facts btw. Where you've been?

lol, One of those companies didn't even exist during the election.

The crimes these four Trump advisers have been charged with have nothing to do with our election or even Russian interference in our election, Manafort and Gates crimes have to do w/ things that happened in Ukraine (and a case that was being investigated years ago, that a judge dismissed for lack of evidence).


The London based lawyer that was charged also had to do with what happened in Ukraine's election and right afterwords, and nothing to do with the 2016 election of President Trump. Please do yourself a favor and research the facts of the charges against them and just what they are concerning.

The cases against Carter Page and Flynn the judge is demanding the evidence against them be provided to him--Mueller is slow walking that as well--because he knows he has nothing..