Tamper Tantrum (Mueller Thread v. 17)

Status
Not open for further replies.
"In support of all these serious charges and other censorious claims, Calabresi cites nothing."
 
TankAbbott said:
*gulp*

https://www.lawfareblog.com/terrible-arguments-against-constitutionality-mueller-investigation

Calabresi has made his argument in a Wall Street Journal op-ed, on a Federalist Society teleconference and in a more detailed paper he styles as a “Legal Opinion.” He contends that all of Special Counsel Mueller’s work is unconstitutionally “null and void” because, in Calabresi’s view, Mueller’s appointment violates the Appointments Clause of the Constitution, Article II, Section 2, Clause 2.

The Appointments Clause distinguishes between two classes of executive-branch “officers”—principal officers and inferior officers—and specifies how each may be appointed. As a general rule, the clause says that “Officers of the United States”—principal officers—must be nominated by the president and appointed “with the Advice and Consent of the Senate.” At the same time, however, the Appointments Clause allows for a more convenient selection method for “inferior officers”: It goes on to add, “but the Congress may by law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of law, or in the Heads of Departments.”

Calabresi argues that Special Counsel Mueller is acting as a principal officer and that, accordingly, Mueller’s appointment violates the Constitution because Mueller was appointed by the acting attorney general, and not by the president with the advice and consent of the Senate. In support of this broad point, Calabresi makes first a specific claim and then a more general one.

His specific claim, made at the outset of his “Legal Opinion,” is that “Robert Mueller has behaved like the 96 [sic] U.S. Attorneys who are principal officers of the United States and who must be nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate.” His more general, and overarching, claim is that under Supreme Court case law applying the Appointments Clause, Special Counsel Mueller is a principal officer because “because Mueller does not have a boss who is supervising and directing what he is doing.”
Click to expand...
Notice how the Federalist society has nothing to say about the Republican congress abdicating its constitutional responsibility to act as checks and balances on the executive or Trumps well documented Dictator tendencies?
 
TankAbbott said:
*gulp*

https://www.lawfareblog.com/terrible-arguments-against-constitutionality-mueller-investigation

Calabresi has made his argument in a Wall Street Journal op-ed, on a Federalist Society teleconference and in a more detailed paper he styles as a “Legal Opinion.” He contends that all of Special Counsel Mueller’s work is unconstitutionally “null and void” because, in Calabresi’s view, Mueller’s appointment violates the Appointments Clause of the Constitution, Article II, Section 2, Clause 2.

The Appointments Clause distinguishes between two classes of executive-branch “officers”—principal officers and inferior officers—and specifies how each may be appointed. As a general rule, the clause says that “Officers of the United States”—principal officers—must be nominated by the president and appointed “with the Advice and Consent of the Senate.” At the same time, however, the Appointments Clause allows for a more convenient selection method for “inferior officers”: It goes on to add, “but the Congress may by law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of law, or in the Heads of Departments.”

Calabresi argues that Special Counsel Mueller is acting as a principal officer and that, accordingly, Mueller’s appointment violates the Constitution because Mueller was appointed by the acting attorney general, and not by the president with the advice and consent of the Senate. In support of this broad point, Calabresi makes first a specific claim and then a more general one.

His specific claim, made at the outset of his “Legal Opinion,” is that “Robert Mueller has behaved like the 96 [sic] U.S. Attorneys who are principal officers of the United States and who must be nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate.” His more general, and overarching, claim is that under Supreme Court case law applying the Appointments Clause, Special Counsel Mueller is a principal officer because “because Mueller does not have a boss who is supervising and directing what he is doing.”
Click to expand...


From a post on Wednesday



Tekk said:
QotvVHG.jpg
Click to expand...
 
TankAbbott said:
*gulp*

https://www.lawfareblog.com/terrible-arguments-against-constitutionality-mueller-investigation

Calabresi has made his argument in a Wall Street Journal op-ed, on a Federalist Society teleconference and in a more detailed paper he styles as a “Legal Opinion.” He contends that all of Special Counsel Mueller’s work is unconstitutionally “null and void” because, in Calabresi’s view, Mueller’s appointment violates the Appointments Clause of the Constitution, Article II, Section 2, Clause 2.

The Appointments Clause distinguishes between two classes of executive-branch “officers”—principal officers and inferior officers—and specifies how each may be appointed. As a general rule, the clause says that “Officers of the United States”—principal officers—must be nominated by the president and appointed “with the Advice and Consent of the Senate.” At the same time, however, the Appointments Clause allows for a more convenient selection method for “inferior officers”: It goes on to add, “but the Congress may by law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of law, or in the Heads of Departments.”

Calabresi argues that Special Counsel Mueller is acting as a principal officer and that, accordingly, Mueller’s appointment violates the Constitution because Mueller was appointed by the acting attorney general, and not by the president with the advice and consent of the Senate. In support of this broad point, Calabresi makes first a specific claim and then a more general one.

His specific claim, made at the outset of his “Legal Opinion,” is that “Robert Mueller has behaved like the 96 [sic] U.S. Attorneys who are principal officers of the United States and who must be nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate.” His more general, and overarching, claim is that under Supreme Court case law applying the Appointments Clause, Special Counsel Mueller is a principal officer because “because Mueller does not have a boss who is supervising and directing what he is doing.”
Click to expand...
Want to post the next paragraph or two? What do they say?
 
TankAbbott said:
*gulp*

https://www.lawfareblog.com/terrible-arguments-against-constitutionality-mueller-investigation

Calabresi has made his argument in a Wall Street Journal op-ed, on a Federalist Society teleconference and in a more detailed paper he styles as a “Legal Opinion.” He contends that all of Special Counsel Mueller’s work is unconstitutionally “null and void” because, in Calabresi’s view, Mueller’s appointment violates the Appointments Clause of the Constitution, Article II, Section 2, Clause 2.

The Appointments Clause distinguishes between two classes of executive-branch “officers”—principal officers and inferior officers—and specifies how each may be appointed. As a general rule, the clause says that “Officers of the United States”—principal officers—must be nominated by the president and appointed “with the Advice and Consent of the Senate.” At the same time, however, the Appointments Clause allows for a more convenient selection method for “inferior officers”: It goes on to add, “but the Congress may by law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of law, or in the Heads of Departments.”

Calabresi argues that Special Counsel Mueller is acting as a principal officer and that, accordingly, Mueller’s appointment violates the Constitution because Mueller was appointed by the acting attorney general, and not by the president with the advice and consent of the Senate. In support of this broad point, Calabresi makes first a specific claim and then a more general one.

His specific claim, made at the outset of his “Legal Opinion,” is that “Robert Mueller has behaved like the 96 [sic] U.S. Attorneys who are principal officers of the United States and who must be nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate.” His more general, and overarching, claim is that under Supreme Court case law applying the Appointments Clause, Special Counsel Mueller is a principal officer because “because Mueller does not have a boss who is supervising and directing what he is doing.”
Click to expand...
George Will busted out this talking point Friday, and I'm sure the echo chamber will follow soon.
 
TankAbbott said:
George Will busted out this talking point Friday, and I'm sure the echo chamber will follow soon.
Click to expand...
I like the way that you just replied to your own post instead of any of the other people who responded to it.
 
Is there anyone connected with Trump who didn't meet with Russian Nationals?
 
Strychnine said:
Uh-oh…..

Somebody's got some 'Splaining to do....!
Click to expand...
Seems like everyone half way connected to tRUmp was offered dirt on clinton for some sort of access... How many times will a story like this break before the rubes actually admit the campaign was infiltrated with Russian interests

Also hope stone rots in prison
 
Sohei said:
Is there anyone connected with Trump who didn't meet with Russian Nationals?
Click to expand...

No evidence of collusion! So many people here still parrot this. And some well-meaning people, too, not just trolls.
 
JosephDredd said:
No evidence of collusion! So many people here still parrot this. And some well-meaning people, too, not just trolls.
Click to expand...

Why are you racist against Russians? Russia is great country Putin is strong man !!!
 
Sohei said:
Is there anyone connected with Trump who didn't meet with Russian Nationals?
Click to expand...

th


As far as I know, this is the only Trump that said "Funk DAT" when it came to working in this administration.
 
Strychnine said:
th


As far as I know, this is the only Trump that said "Funk DAT" when it came to working in this administration.
Click to expand...

To be fair, Tiffany tried to join the campaign, and Donald put her in a closet, aside Rudy's dresses......
 
As long as the Trumps were handing out backchannels to dictators...

https://www.thedailybeast.com/report-north-korea-sought-backchannel-with-jared-kushner

Report: North Korea Sought Backchannel With Jared Kushner

The North Korean government used an American businessman as an intermediary in trying to set up a secret backchannel with White House adviser Jared Kushner last year, The New York Times reports. The overture was reportedly made to the Trump administration by Gabriel Schulze, a financier with ties to North Korea who is said to have approached Kushner with the message that a top North Korean official wanted to discuss a possible meeting between Kim Jong Un and President Trump. Kushner referred Schulze to then-CIA Director Mike Pompeo, who later met with North Korean officials and played a vital role in arranging Trump’s June 12 meeting with Kim. Schulze’s outreach is thought to have kicked into motion a series of behind-the-scenes meetings that eventually led to Trump’s historic sit-down with Kim in Singapore earlier this month, though current and former officials told the Times that Schulze was one of about a dozen people to offer to act as a broker with North Korea, and Pyongyang has repeatedly sought to use intermediaries over the past three administrations.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,236,904
Messages
55,453,971
Members
174,785
Latest member
ljae89

Share this page

Back
Top