Former Roger Stone assistant challenges Muellers authority

This is going to be interesting to follow.

Former Roger Stone assistant, Andrew Miller, and his attorney have implemented a plan in order to challenge Mueller's authority as SC in the Russian Collusion investigation. The first step was to intentionally get Andrew held in contempt for not going before the grand jury - which is done. Their goal is to get their case heard by the Supreme Court. Here is a video on the details of their plan. Miller's attorney begins explaining their motion (getting Miller held in contempt) to date and what aspects of Mueller's appointment they plan to challenge in court @ the 3:20 mark:

Paul Kamenar, the attorney for Stone associate Andrew Miller, whose refusal to appear before the grand jury Friday led him to be held in contempt, argued after the proceedings that Mueller’s appointment is unconstitutional. He asserted that Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein did not have the authority to appoint Mueller to lead the investigation into Trump campaign contacts with Russia.

Kamenar also said a prosecutor with powers as broad as Mueller’s should be treated like a U.S. attorney and be subject to Senate confirmation.

“There’s been no authority, we say, that gives the Justice Department the power to appoint Mr. Mueller,” Kamenar told reporters outside the courthouse in Washington after Miller was held in contempt for refusing to appear before the grand jury.

Kamenar asserted that Mueller has vastly more authority than any U.S. attorney, including the ability to indict foreign actors and bring cases in more than one jurisdiction.

“So our point is if the U.S. attorneys have to be approved by the United States Senate, so, too, should Mr. Mueller,” Kamenar said.

Fox
AP

Miller & Kamenar's case for the Supreme Court:
1. Statutory argument - there is no statute that allows for the appointment of the SC.
2. Constitutional argument - if allowed, Mueller should've been appointed by the head of the department (Sessions). But Rosenstein appointed him.

And his attorney said, if they lose, Miller will testify although he's already turned over all documents and gave his statement to the FBI so there is nothing new he can provide.

If successful, this will unravel all that Mueller has done to date, including all the indictments he's issued - albeit after Mueller's investigation is expected to wrap.

a reply to: six67seven

It's an interesting argument and one I think may end up being true.

To play devils, advocate...

In the future when the legitimacy of a president comes into question, how does an investigation proceed? This whole Russian collusion and he said she said ordeal has left an exploitable hole in how our democracy works. The media circus takes no qualms in dragging democracy through the mud and the fighting between left and right is an embarrassment. When I immigrated here I looked at America as that shining beacon of light and hope to give the world direction. The dirty laundry needs to stop and the checks and balances need to be reinstated.

I don't accuse Trump of anything as of yet due to the lack of evidence, but I know for sure the way the left, the media and the previous administration have conducted themselves thus far is by far the biggest embarrassment since the birth of this nation.

Manafort tried three times to discredit Mueller or his authority as SC and failed. Roger Stone has already tried a few times and all attempts further validate Mueller's authority, legally and in the public eye.

Do you think this most recent ploy will gain traction and succeed for a change?

Second question, would someone clean try so hard and so desperately to invalidate those who investigate them?

this is why I think Roger Stone has a hand in Q

a reply to: Kharron

Chalk up another attempt. Although Id say trying to discredit and challenging in court are on different levels.

Im sure this is a long shot too. Im not versed enough on the arguments Miller’s lawyer brought forth to determine if they’ll hold water but it could be interesting. And it may depend on what judge hears the case.

Would someone clean try so hard to invalidate those investigating.... hell yeah!!! If I were innocent and felt the heavy hand of the law trying to put the fix in, Id try everything under the sun to expose them.

Anyone would.

a reply to: Kharron

Second question, would someone clean try so hard and so desperately to invalidate those who investigate them?

That is the question you should be asking the FBI and DOJ with all their foot dragging.

originally posted by: Kharron
Second question, would someone clean try so hard and so desperately to invalidate those who investigate them?

Could proper investigators with clean hands be so able to be invalidated?

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: Kharron
Second question, would someone clean try so hard and so desperately to invalidate those who investigate them?

Could proper investigators with clean hands be so able to be invalidated?

Is that why every attempt to invalidate SC authority failed in courts? Because the SC team is clean? Is that the claim you're making?

originally posted by: 727Sky
a reply to: Kharron

Second question, would someone clean try so hard and so desperately to invalidate those who investigate them?

That is the question you should be asking the FBI and DOJ with all their foot dragging.

What foot dragging?

If you're alluding to the length of the investigation, you must know, just like the rest of us know, that by all standards of past investigations this one is just beginning. If it ended this fast it would be one of the fastest ones in history.


We are now at what, about half way through the length of the average one? We're at some 450 days or so, and the average is over 900 days.

So, what foot dragging? Been listening to main-stream media much?

a reply to: Kharron

To be fair, if that’s what we’re aiming for.... that graph is very skewed by the length of the Iran-Contra and Whitewater investigations.

If you remove the outliers, both high and low, the average would be well under 900 days.

originally posted by: Kharron

originally posted by: 727Sky
a reply to: Kharron

Second question, would someone clean try so hard and so desperately to invalidate those who investigate them?

That is the question you should be asking the FBI and DOJ with all their foot dragging.

What foot dragging?

If you're alluding to the length of the investigation, you must know, just like the rest of us know, that by all standards of past investigations this one is just beginning. If it ended this fast it would be one of the fastest ones in history.

We are now at what, about half way through the length of the average one? We're at some 450 days or so, and the average is over 900 days.

So, what foot dragging? Been listening to main-stream media much?

Yep sorry you are left ... Congress asking for documents (from DOJ & FBI) since the oversight committee was formed should be over looked .. Nothing to see there, even the accusation of contempt from Congress should be disregarded.. Muller's investigation stacked with DNC/democratic lawyers with absolutely no attempt at a balanced investigation should also be over looked. Kinda already is as after almost two years the only thing they have managed to do is go after Manafort even though in 2005 he was not prosecuted even though the evidence was already looked at and any prosecution was not instigated... Of course they also managed ruined Flint's life and bankrupt him.

Brennan being the instigator of the fake Russian collusion while he was at the CIA simply to deflect from the true Russian collusion of the DNC and the Clinton foundation; business as usual ? Brennan lying under oath to congress saying the CIA never spied on US citizens ... No problem he is a wonderful guy who deserves to be heard. Bruce Orr, Strzok, and Comey, with their text messages and collusion... nothing to see there right ?

Gotta love freedom of speech as it allows anyone to spout fake news and lies and actually believe their lies.

You keep peddling the MSN and CNN talking points and in the next two years we will find out one way or the other which way this will go down.. May the truth be supreme when this is wrapped up. Good luck

Ya really gotta respect a lawyer who's plan begins with getting their client held in contempt of court. Legal genius.
Not.

a reply to: six67seven

Someone clean would let the investigation prove it for them.
Muellers appointment is perfectly legal and constitutional and no one is running rough shod over trump. He's just whining and crying and making it look and sound that way. Just trying as hard as he can to discredit not just Mueller but the entire department of justice from top to bottom.