Former FBI director and current Special Counsel Robert Mueller has been unrelenting in his investigation into alleged collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign during the 2016 presidential election.

But Tom Fitton, President of the government accountability organization Judicial Watch, questions the legality of the Special Counsel itself. According to a video message Judicial Watch posted to FacebookFitton argues that the office of the Special Counsel is unconstitutional because it holds the authority of a US attorney without the accountability that comes with being appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate.

For Fitton, the proper course for the Trump administration would be to dissolve the Special Counsel and begin anew, although he acknowledges that would be a “politically uncomfortable” move owing to immense media scrutiny.

Fitton explains: “Mueller was appointed under these regulations the Justice Department promulgated under [former Attorney General Janet] Reno’s term … and the Special Counsel is appointed by the Attorney General, or in this case the Deputy Attorney General …

“And he’s appointed, given a charge, to investigate X, Y, or Z, and then the responsible official washes his hands. Well, under our constitutional system that’s not the way it’s supposed to work. Under the regulations, Mueller has all the powers of a US attorney, but none of the accountability.”

Fitton continues, saying the current Special Counsel process lacks a “lawful delegation of authority” because Mueller and his team are not supervised “day-to-day” by appropriate Justice Department officials.

As a result, Fitton concludes that Mueller “doesn’t really have the authority under our Constitution to do the work he’s supposedly wanting to do. … It’s not about Mueller at this point, it’s about the Office of the Special Counsel.”

Fitton’s recommendation: “If I were them, I’d go back to square one, no matter how politically uncomfortable it is, to make sure that that office is lawful and lawfully run.”

Fitton goes on to question what he considers “the suspicious circumstances under which Muller was appointed.” He recounts how former FBI Director James Comey testified to leaking memos of his conversations with the President in order to provoke the creation of a Special Counsel. Interestingly, the individual ultimately selected by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein to lead the Special Counsel was Mueller, with whom Comey has a friendly “mentor-protege”  relationship.

If Mueller knew what Comey was planning, Fitton says he should have recused himself from the investigation due to being “conflicted.” Fitton emphasizes that “obstruction” charges against President Trump are unfounded because he was within his authority to dismiss Comey from the FBI for any reason he deemed appropriate. Fitton said, “The President isn’t above the law. But he’s not beneath the law.”

Judicial Watch argues that the office of the special counsel is unconstitutional because it holds the authority of a US attorney without the accountability that comes with being appointed by the President and confirmed by the SenateDo you agree?

Mueller’s Special Counsel has taken a strange turn of events. As Christian News Alerts reports, Mueller is preparing a case against former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort, ostensibly in the hope of getting to Trump.

Newsweek notes that the Special Counsel is now investigating the infamous Buzzfeeddossier containing salacious, debunked allegations about Trump. And Bloombergreports Mueller is having his team research the extent of the President’s pardon power to determine whether Trump could pre-emptively pardon aides under the Special Counsel’s scrutiny.

Mueller is operating with immense latitude. If Fitton is correct that the Special Counsel — as it’s currently operating — violates the Constitution, this investigation can have long-term ramifications for accountability in government.

https://www.christiannewsalerts.com/bad-news-mueller/?utm_source=Bo...

Views: 64

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Interesting that not a single republican has brought this to the public's attention, or taken any steps to put a stop to it.

yeah, interesting - in a disgusting kind of way.   a disgusting constant that won't go away.

Image result for robert mueller investigation illegal cartoon

Image result for robert mueller investigation illegal cartoon

Related image

Related image

Image result for robert mueller investigation illegal cartoon

The first Special Counsel was that of Archibald Cox, special prosecutor charged, by the AG, with the Watergate inquiry, a political witch-hunt and outright fiasco conjured up for the expressed purpose of preserving the separation of powers and insure that the Executive, while under legal attack, would not unduly influence the Judicial Branch.

In real time it was nothing but the front face of a Sam Ervin led destroy Nixon at any cost democrat political maneuver assisted by an oh so willing media that hated Nixon as well.

It is remarkable how these special counsels mirror each other. Names have changed, yet the same motivation lives on, and it is purely political as well as criminal. 

Judicial Watch knows as well as anyone that none of those involved in Mueller's Mirage  give a crap about the Constitution. They don't care, and they don't have to care either. Who is it that would make them answer to a parchment?  Who?

No damn body, that's who.

This isn't Bad News for Mueller. In fact, it isn't even new at all.

RSS

LIGHTER SIDE

Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel

Political Cartoons by Henry Payne

Political Cartoons by Mike Lester

ALERT ALERT

Newt Says What The Rest Of Us Are Thinking:
It’s Time To Throw Peter Strzok In Jail

Disgraced FBI special agent Peter Strzok, a senior member of the bureau who gained notoriety in recent months over his anti-Trump text messages to a colleague, was grilled for nearly 10 hours during a joint congressional committee hearing on Thursday.

At issue was Strzok’s anti-Trump texts to former FBI lawyer and lover Lisa Page that coincided with his leading of the investigations into both former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s private email server scandal and the alleged Trump/Russia 2016 election collusion, as well as his involvement in the subsequent Robert Mueller special counsel probe.

The hearing proved to be a heated battle, as Strzok displayed an arrogant smugness in defiance of pointed questions from Republicans that he largely danced around, while Democrats sought to upend and undermine the entire hearing with a plethora of interruptions, parliamentary maneuvers and outright praise for the man who helped let Clinton off the hook while ferociously targeting Trump.

Former House speaker and presidential candidate Newt Gingrich was less than impressed with Strzok’s performance and cooperation in the hearing and suggested during an appearance on Fox Business that the FBI agent should be held in contempt of Congress.

“I think they have to move to hold him in contempt and throw him in jail,” Gingrich said of Congress and Strzok.

“This is a person who is willfully standing up and refusing to appear as a congressional witness and he was a government employee at the time,” he continued.

“He has every obligation to inform the legislative branch, and I don’t think they have any choice except to move a motion of contempt because he is fundamentally — and so is his girlfriend (Page) — they’re both fundamentally in violation of the entire constitutional process,” he added.

Page had been subpoenaed to appear before Congress on Wednesday but refused to appear, saying she’d been unable to review relevant documents prior to the scheduled hearing, a closed-door hearing that has since been rescheduled for Friday.

Gingrich was not the only one who thought Strzok deserved to be held in contempt of Congress, as House Judiciary Committee chairman Bob Goodlatte informed Strzok that he remained at risk of such during the hearing, according to The Daily Caller.

That warning from Goodlatte came after Strzok had refused to answer a straightforward question posed by House Oversight Committee chairman Trey Gowdy, regarding how many people Strzok had personally interviewed between a specific set of dates in relation to the Clinton email investigation.

“Mr. Strzok, please be advised that you can either comply with the committee’s direction to answer the question or refuse to do so,” Goodlatte stated. “The latter of which will place you in risk of a contempt citation and potential criminal liability. Do you understand that? The question is directed to the witness.”

Strzok still refused to answer, citing instructions received from his counsel and the FBI to not answer certain questions on certain topics.

Goodlatte replied, “Mr. Strzok, in a moment we will continue with the hearing, but based on your refusal to answer the question, at the conclusion of the day we will be recessing the hearing and you will be subject to recall to allow the committee to consider proceeding with a contempt citation.”

It is unclear if Goodlatte and the committee ultimately did consider a contempt citation for Strzok following the contentious hearing, nor is it clear if Page will be held in contempt for blowing off her subpoenaed appearance on Wednesday.

Hopefully Congress will follow through on the threats of contempt followed by actual jail time against Strzok and Page in response to their uncooperative behavior and failure to appear when subpoenaed, if only to ensure that future witnesses called before Congress for sensitive or contentious hearings don’t think they can get away with the same sort of behavior.

TEA PARTY TARGET

Cops Sent To Seize Veteran’s Guns Without A Warrant, He Refused To Turn Them Over

“No one from the state was going to take my firearms without due process,” says Leonard Cottrell, after successfully staving off law enforcement and the courts from confiscating his firearms. Cottrell, an Iraq War veteran, was at work when he received a phone call from his wife. The cops were there, busting in to take his guns away. It all started after a casual conversation his son had at school.

Ammoland reports:

Police said their visit was sparked by a conversation that Leonard Cottrell Jr.’s 13-year-old son had had with another student at the school. Cottrell said he was told his son and the other student were discussing security being lax and what they would have to do to escape a school shooting at Millstone Middle School.

The conversation was overheard by another student, who went home and told his parents, and his mother panicked. The mom then contacted the school, which contacted the State Police, according to Cottrell.

The visit from the troopers came around 10 p.m. on June 14, 2018, Cottrell said, a day after Gov. Phil Murphy signed several gun enforcement bills into law.

After several hours, Cottrell said police agreed not to take the guns but to allow him to move them to another location while the investigation continued.

“They had admitted several times that my son made no threat to himself or other students or the school or anything like that,” he said.

Cottrell said he made it very clear to the police that he was “not going to willingly give up my constitutional rights where there’s no justifiable cause, no warrants, no nothing.”

The troopers searched his son’s room and found nothing, Cottrell said.

“To appease everybody, I had my firearms stored someplace else,” he said. “That way, during the course of the investigation, my son doesn’t have access to them and it’s on neutral ground and everything and everybody’s happy.”

“In the Garden State, the usual approach is to confiscate first and ask questions later, and victims of this approach often don’t know their rights. ‎In this case, the victim pushed back and confiscation was avoided — but the circumstances surrounding the incident are outrageous. A student expressing concern over lack of security is not a reason to send police to the student’s home — but it might be a reason to send police to the school to keep students and teachers safe” said Scott L. Bach, executive director of the Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs and a member of the NRA board of directors.

NJ.com adds:

Cottrell, a disabled U.S. Army veteran who served three tours during “Operation Iraqi Freedom,” owns a shotgun and a pistol. He has all the correct permits to own the firearms, he said, and predominately uses the shotgun to hunt.

He said his wife allowed the officers to enter the home, and with her permission, they searched his son’s room — but they did not find any weapons, he said. The officers, he said, didn’t have a warrant but still wanted to take his guns. Cottrell wouldn’t let them.

“No one from the state was going to take my firearms without due process,” he said Thursday.

He said the attempted seizure resulted because of a new law Gov. Phil Murphy signed into law that makes it easier for police to confiscate guns when someone in the state poses a threat to themselves or others. The law is part of a broader statewide effort to make New Jersey’s gun laws even tougher amid the national outcry for more gun control in the wake of the school shooting in Parkland, Florida.

Cottrell said the officers “danced around the issue” when he confronted them about the new law.

A New Jersey State Police spokesman declined to answer questions about whether this incident had anything to do with the new gun laws.

In an email, Sgt. First Class Jeff Flynn said, “Troopers responded to Mr. Cottrell’s residence in reference to the report of a possible school threat. Based on their investigation, it was determined that Mr. Cottrell’s weapons did not need to be seized.”

David Codrea, writing for Ammoland, further added:

To appease everybody, I had my firearms stored someplace else,” New Jersey gun owner and Army veteran Leonard Cottrell Jr. told New Jersey 101.5 after a June 14 visit from State Police,. “That way, during the course of the investigation, my son doesn’t have access to them and it’s on neutral ground and everything and everybody’s happy.”

Cottrell was recalling state troopers showing up at his door to confiscate firearms after his 13-year-old son was overheard discussing lax school safety with a friend.

Indoctrinated by a pervasive snitch culture — one that never seems to deter the blatantly obvious demonic nutjobs — the eavesdropping student told his parents, who told school administrators, who in turn called the cops. (Note “If you see something, say something” carries risks of its own – if you report the wrong person, you could end up smeared as a “hater.”)

“Cottrell said he made it very clear to the police that he was ‘not going to willingly give up my constitutional rights where there’s no justifiable cause, no warrants, no nothing,’” the report continued. Despite that, his home is now a “gun free zone” and that has been publicized by the media. He has, in fact, willingly ceded those rights, and by his own words in order to make authorities “happy.”

Before judging him for that, consider the environment that is New Jersey. Then consider the overwhelming force the state can bring to bear, and its predisposition to using it, especially if it’s to enforce citizen disarmament. It’s easy to anonymously declare “Molon Labe” on the internet. In meatspace, resistance is more effective when the aggressor doesn’t get to dictate the time and place, especially if that place is your home and you have family inside.

Appeasing gun-grabbers, generally couched as “compromise,” is impossible. It’s like throwing a scrap of flesh to a circling pack of jackals and expecting them to be sated and leave you alone — instead of sensing opportunity and fear, and moving in closer.

© 2018   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service