Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (1069271)	5/15/2018 8:56:39 AM
From: locogringo	1 Recommendation Recommended By FJB Respond to of 1576211

Russians Request Grand Jury Info... The Russians Try to Call Mueller’s Bluff, File Request to View Secret Grand Jury Info (Maybe Mueller the idiot can indict several more companies that don't exist to pad his record of amazing achievements?)

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (1069271)	5/15/2018 10:20:00 AM
From: Sdgla	1 Recommendation Recommended By locogringo Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1576211

Manafort raids Cohens offices and home and magically the porn lawyer has Cohens personal finance info which he broadcasts to the world. Your ability to analyze data is already below the short bus level. Mueller’s Investigation Crosses the Legal Line It’s unconstitutional under Morrison v. Olson—the decision, not the dissent. By Steven G. Calabresi May 13, 2018 1:49 p.m. ET 749 COMMENTS Judge T.S. Ellis has expressed skepticism about the scope of special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation. “What we don’t want in this country is . . . anyone with unfettered power,” Judge Ellis, who is to preside over the trial of former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort, told prosecutor Deputy Solicitor General Michael Dreeben May 4. “So it’s unlikely you’re going to persuade me that the special prosecutor has unlimited powers.” Judge Ellis is right to be skeptical. Mr. Mueller’s investigation has crossed a constitutional line, for reasons the U.S. Supreme Court made clear in the 1988 case Morrison v. Olson. That case is best known for Justice Antonin Scalia’s powerful lone dissent arguing that the post-Watergate independent counsel statute was unconstitutional. But Chief Justice William Rehnquist’s opinion for the court, while upholding the statute, set forth limits that the Mueller investigation has exceeded. U.S. Chief Justice William Rehnquist in 1990.PHOTO: CYNTHIA JOHNSON/GETTY IMAGES At issue is the Constitution’s Appointments Clause, which provides that “principal officers” must be appointed by the president with the Senate’s consent. Rehnquist wrote that independent counsel Alexia Morrison qualified as an “inferior officer,” not subject to the appointment process, because her office was “limited in jurisdiction” to “certain federal officials suspected of certain serious federal crimes.” Mr. Mueller, in contrast, is investigating a large number of people and has already charged defendants with many different kinds of crimes, including—as in Mr. Manafort’s case—ones unrelated to any collaboration between the Trump campaign and Russia. That’s too much power for an inferior officer to have. Only a principal officer, such as a U.S. attorney, can behave the way Mr. Mueller is behaving. Mr. Mueller is much more powerful today than any of the 96 U.S. attorneys. He is behaving like a principal officer. Rehnquist’s majority opinion has never been overturned. In Edmund v. U.S. and in Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Oversight Board, the justices said that an officer cannot be inferior unless he has a boss—as Mr. Mueller does in Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who appointed him. But that’s not a sufficient condition. As a principal officer, Mr. Rosenstein could legally have brought all the indictments Mr. Mueller has. But he may not delegate that authority to Mr. Mueller, any more than President Trump could delegate his veto power to Mr. Rosenstein. The Framers struggled long and hard over the Appointments Clause. For better or worse, they arrived at the process of presidential nomination with senatorial consent. The Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel should confirm the analysis set forth above in a legal opinion to guide Mr. Rosenstein in the exercise of his duties. Judge Ellis should dismiss the indictment against Mr. Manafort on Appointments Clause grounds. All other defendants Mr. Mueller charges, and witnesses he subpoenas, should challenge the constitutionality of his actions on Appointments Clause grounds. Mr. Calabresi served as a special assistant to Attorney General Edwin Meese (1985-87) and a law clerk to Justice Antonin Scalia (1987-88). He is a co-author of “The Unitary Executive: Presidential Power from Washington to Bush.”