Saturday, August 4, 2018

Trump appointed federal judge hearing case to stop Mueller

Lawyers for a Russian company accused of financing a massive political influence operation in the United States urged a federal judge Friday to “be brave” and declare special counsel Robert Mueller’s appointment invalid.

At a federal courthouse just steps from the U.S. Capitol, the Russian firm’s attorney — James Martin, an appellate lawyer with the Pittsburgh-based firm Reed Smith — urged District Court Judge Dabney Friedrich to look past Supreme Court precedent recognizing the appointment of the Watergate special prosecutor in the 1970s.

Mueller indicted the Russian company, Concord Management, in February along with 13 individual Russians.

[...]

The company contends that his appointment violates the Constitutions’ “appointments clause” because he was picked by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein instead of Trump or Attorney General Jeff Sessions. The company also asserts that the regulations governing special counsels — set out in 1999 — are “unlawful” and usurp congressional authority. Finally, Concord maintains that Rosenstein’s order to appoint Mueller last year improperly gave him nearly unchecked authority.

[...]

Concord, through its attorneys, has pleaded not guilty in the case.

[...]

Courts have already ruled twice to uphold Mueller’s appointment, most recently this week when the D.C. District Court’s chief judge Beryl Howell rejected an effort by Andrew Miller — a longtime associate of Trump confidant Roger Stone — to invalidate a Mueller-issued subpoena to testify. Miller's attorney had incorporated many of Concord’s arguments into his own briefs.

[...]

During Friday's hearing, Friedrich at times appeared open to Martin’s legal argument, even calling it “compelling” at one point, but underscored the significance of that Supreme Court precedent.

“Don’t I as a district court judge have to follow that?” she asked.

Martin argued that the Watergate precedent didn’t apply in this case because it was an acknowledgment made “in passing” by the Supreme Court at the time. As Friedrich wondered aloud about whether she should consider contradicting that precedent, Martin offered her advice.

“Well,” he said with a slight smile, “be brave.”

[...]

Friedrich, the first Trump-appointed judge to weigh the matter, gave few clues as to how she would ultimately rule on the question.

  Politico
I have a guess.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

No comments: