BOMBSHELL: Legal Expert States Mueller May Have Been Illegally Appointed As Special Counsel… This Is BIG


It seems no one, at least no one interested in facts and justice that is, are any sort of fans of the former head of the FBI and current special counsel Robert Mueller. There have been rumors that President Donald Trump has considered firing him and several Republican in both the House and the Senate have called for him to recuse himself due to significant conflicts of interest.  The Wall Street Journal’s editorial board have even called for Mueller’s resignation saying that “he lacks the critical distance to conduct a credible probe of the bureau he ran for a dozen years.”

However, according to at least one legal expert, Mueller might not need to resign or to be fired, as he may have been appointed illegally in the first place.

Meet Douglas W. Kmiec, currently a law professor at Pepperdine University School of Law as well as the former constitutional legal counsel for both former president Ronald Reagan and former president George Bush (the Senior).  Kmiec has presented an argument that is gaining traction among Republican and Conservative factions – Mueller may have been illegally or unconstitutionally appointed to the job in the first place.

take our poll - story continues below

Whom do you consider to be the most corrupt Democrat Politician?

  • Whom do you consider to be the most corrupt Democrat Politician?  

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to AFF updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Kmiec states he believes President Trump has the right idea but is essentially pursuing the wrong legal path by asking about things like pardons, when he should be focusing on the constitutionality of Mueller’s appointment in the first place –


“The president has a point, this is a complex idea. He is basically saying, hey look, something doesn’t seem right, and he might be right.”

Kmiec tells LawNewz in an interview his three points to justify his argument on this position –

  • Mueller has no oversight – Kmiec contends that Mueller is not being properly supervised because of the “flimsy” way in which he was appointed. After all, Comey said during Congressional testimony that he had leaked a memo about Trump trying to squash the investigation in order to get a special counsel appointment. On top of that, he says, it doesn’t appear Mueller has any direct supervision. Sessions recused himself, and under the same theory, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein has effectively recused himself because of his involvement in the process by writing a memo to Trump recommending James Comey be fired. So who exactly is Mueller accountable to? If he doesn’t have a boss, then the Constitution requires that he be confirmed by the Senate like all other executive appointees. 
  • President’s presumption of guilt – There is also an issue of a presumption of guilt. Most legal experts agree that a sitting president can not be indicted.  The manner by which the special prosecutor was appointed skirts awfully close to an indictment, in the eyes of the law, Kmiec contends.

He wrote in a recent opinion piece:

 The special counsel has not formally indicted Trump. But given Comey’s hair-trigger assumption that Trump was up to no good, and the way the special counsel process defines the president as a wrongdoer before any wrong is established, the investigation itself is arguably equivalent to an unconstitutional indictment.

  • There appears to be little  “specific and credible” information to open an investigation in the first place – This one requires a little backstory.  In 1988, the U.S. Supreme Court took up a case in which Assistant Attorney General Ted Olson challenged the constitutionality of Independent Counsel Act. Ultimately, the court found it did not conflict with the separation of powers. However, the law expired in 1999, and the new regulations have never faced rigorous legal scrutiny, and if they did, they probably wouldn’t meet constitutional muster.

“Under the expired law, independent counsels were appointed by a special three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals, but only after the attorney general conducted a preliminary investigation based on ‘specific and credible’ information about alleged wrongdoing by the president,” Kmiec wrote. Kmiec contends that none of these careful steps exist in the current regulations, and “there are no signs that in the wake of Sessions’ recusal, a constitutionally sufficient process triggered the Mueller appointment.”

It appears that the House of Cards the left has built is about to come tumbling down.  It is “interesting” when you spend months and months of time researching and investigating and all that is turned up is the crimes of the left. Millions of taxpayer dollars were spent for Mueller to charge Paul Manafort with crimes that happened in 2012-2013 regarding wire transfers that have already been “investigated”….for what?

The events occurred long before the Russia narrative, the Trump campaign, or the 2016 Presidential election really started in earnest. The events in question have ALREADY been investigated.

What is Washington wasting your tax dollars and mine on exactly?


Please share this on all social media and be sure to leave a comment below! We greatly appreciate it.

Facebook Has Banned Us!

The leftists at Facebook decided they didn’t like our message, so they removed our page and are censoring us. Help us fight back and subscribe to our newsletter so that you can stay up-to-date with everything Facebook doesn’t want you to see!

Disqus Comments