• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Mark Levin: Bombshell Revelations Show 'Mueller Probe Is Unconstitutional' Under Article II

Sam_Troy

Sam_Troy

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 22, 2018
Messages
661
Reaction score
146
Location
Deep South
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
This is about to get very interesting. Levin and his colleague are scholars on the Constitution and know what they're talking about . It does look like Rosenstein has usurped his authority. The Constitution is straight forward and just. Let's see what plays out with this new revelation.


Read the whole link and watch the video:
Mark Levin: Bombshell Revelations Show 'Mueller Probe Is Unconstitutional' Under Article II | Fox News Insider

Levin said a new "special status" given to several of Mueller's prosecutors in the arm of the probe involving former Trump campaign chief Paul Manafort may be key to invalidating the entire investigation.

Levin said the attorneys in the case before an Alexandria, Va. federal judge are simultaneously considered "Special Assistant U.S. Attorneys."

Snip~~

He said the Constitution designates the president as the person who must nominate all "principal officers" -- including U.S. attorneys and cabinet members.

But, Mueller was appointed by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and was not confirmed by the Senate, as anyone working as a U.S. attorney should be by law, according to Levin.

Levin said that the scenario therefore "violates the Constitution [via] the Appointments Clause" in Article II.
 
Last edited:
Radio show host says bombastic stuff for gullible loyal audience. Gullible loyal audience believes they are in on the secret details. Disappointment to soon follow. Collective amnesia will follow the disappointment. Repeat cycle.
 
Fiddytree said:
Radio show host says bombastic stuff for gullible loyal audience. Gullible loyal audience believes they are in on the secret details. Disappointment to soon follow. Collective amnesia will follow the disappointment. Repeat cycle.
Click to expand...

I'm still waiting for the whitey tape
 
Fiddytree said:
Radio show host says bombastic stuff for gullible loyal audience. Gullible loyal audience believes they are in on the secret details. Disappointment to soon follow. Collective amnesia will follow the disappointment. Repeat cycle.
Click to expand...

Sounds like you have Levin confused with CNN and Liberals.

Good luck!
 
Fiddytree said:
Radio show host says bombastic stuff for gullible loyal audience. Gullible loyal audience believes they are in on the secret details. Disappointment to soon follow. Collective amnesia will follow the disappointment. Repeat cycle.
Click to expand...

So debunk Levin's assessment!
 
MrMike said:
Sounds like you have Levin confused with CNN and Liberals.

Good luck!
Click to expand...

giphy.gif
 
Oh noes.
 
Sam_Troy said:
This is about to get very interesting. Levin and his colleague are scholars on the Constitution and know what they're talking about .
Click to expand...

No he's not. He's just a cranky old man who brags about working in an underground bunker to his CT minded followers.
 
To summarize the OP: The President can only be investigated by someone he personally appoints. :confused: I guess I missed that part of the Constitution.

What a terrible idea that would be.
Nixon: My buddy says I'm good. Investigation terminated.
Clinton: Ken who? My pal Rick says I'm above the law!
 
RabidAlpaca said:
To summarize the OP: The President can only be investigated by someone he personally appoints. :confused: I guess I missed that part of the Constitution.

What a terrible idea that would be.
Nixon: My buddy says I'm good. Investigation terminated.
Clinton: Ken who? My pal Rick says I'm above the law!
Click to expand...

Funny story, Nixon did not appoint the special prosecutor investigating Watergate.
 
Sam_Troy said:
Levin said that the scenario therefore "violates the Constitution [via] the Appointments Clause" in Article II.
Click to expand...

Are you really dumb enough to claim that Nixon and Clinton were both unconstitionally attacked and should've been able to appoint their friends to lead the investigation of themselves? Of course not, because that would be completely stupid.
 
Hatuey said:
Funny story, Nixon did not appoint the special prosecutor investigating Watergate.
Click to expand...
Correct.

Before Elliot Richardson was confirmed by the Senate for the job of AG, he was requested to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate Watergate, that would only be dismissed for unlawful conduct.

He made good on his promise and resigned when Nixon pressured him to remove the special prosecutor - rather than betray the good faith of Congress.

America truly owes Richardson for his good faith.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
Are you really dumb enough to claim that Nixon and Clinton were both unconstitionally attacked and should've been able to appoint their friends to lead the investigation of themselves? Of course not, because that would be completely stupid.
Click to expand...

You're not understanding what is being said. Go back and read the link. Listen to the video.
 
Sam_Troy said:
You're not understanding what is being said. Go back and read the link. Listen to the video.
Click to expand...

Sure I am, you're selectively pretending Trump and only Trump gets to pick his special counsel. That has never in American history been the case. You're making up things to make you feel good. If Bill Clinton and Nixon didn't get to pick their special counsel investigators, neither does Trump. You know the Constitution doesn't play favorites for little Sammy Troy, right? Isn't there a Klan rally you're missing right now?
 
Sam_Troy said:
You're not understanding what is being said. Go back and read the link. Listen to the video.
Click to expand...

If only we could all be as understanding as David Duke supporters.

:lol:
 
RabidAlpaca said:
Are you really dumb enough to claim that Nixon and Clinton were both unconstitionally attacked and should've been able to appoint their friends to lead the investigation of themselves? Of course not, because that would be completely stupid.
Click to expand...
Conservatives don't understand that the president is lawfully bound to execute his authority in good faith. That means the president doesn't get to use the mechanisms of government for personal affairs or interests.
 
Hatuey said:
If only we could all be as understanding as David Duke supporters.
:lol:
Click to expand...
MovingPictures said:
Conservatives don't understand that the president is lawfully bound to execute his authority in good faith. That means the president doesn't get to use the mechanisms of government for personal affairs or interests.
Click to expand...

You can't expect a proud, card-carrying KKK member to be anything short of a total dumbass.
 
Hatuey said:
Funny story, Nixon did not appoint the special prosecutor investigating Watergate.
Click to expand...

That wasn't a special prosecutor in Watergate. Archibald and Jaworski were independent prosecutors. Mueller isn't a special prosecutor now. He's a special counsel.

Consider Levin completely refuted, by a freaking duck no less.

Good times.
 
Howard the Duck said:
That wasn't a special prosecutor in Watergate. Archibald and Jaworski were independent prosecutors. Mueller isn't a special prosecutor now. He's a special counsel.

Consider Levin completely refuted, by a freaking duck no less.

Good times.
Click to expand...


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_prosecutor

In the United States, a special prosecutor (or special counsel or independent counsel or independent prosecutor) is a lawyer appointed to investigate, and potentially prosecute, a particular case of suspected wrongdoing for which a conflict of interest exists for the usual prosecuting authority. Other jurisdictions have similar systems.[1][2] For example, the investigation of an allegation against a sitting president or attorney-general might be handled by a special prosecutor rather than by an ordinary prosecutor who would otherwise be in the position of investigating their own superior. Investigations into other persons connected to the government but not in a position of direct authority over the prosecutor, such as cabinet secretaries or election campaigns, have also been handled by special prosecutors.
Click to expand...
 
Hatuey said:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_prosecutor
Click to expand...

Special counsels, independent prosecutors, and special prosecutors are 3 separate things entirely. They derive their authority from different statutes.

Independent prosecutors on the federal level, for example, no longer exist. The law lapsed in , I think, 1999, and Congress did not reauthorize it.

So, let's be clear: although Jaworski and Archibald were special prosecutors (and Starr was an independent prosecutor) investigating the president--Mueller is NOT an independent prosecutor. Nor is he a special prosecutor.

He's a special counsel.

Now you know and that makes you smarter than Mark Levin.

Congratulations.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom