My commentary on Mark Levin’s argument on the unconstitutionality of Mueller’s appointment has generated tons of responses from readers, so many that it’ll take me a while to catch up. But there’s a cynical common thread: Thanks, Governor, for explaining this, but you realize it won’t matter, nothing will happen, the swamp is too thick to drain, the left is too entrenched, the media are in it with them, there’s nothing anybody can do. Yes, folks, I share the frustration, but the only way we can change things is to push back as hard as we can. If we back off, it’s over.
Common wisdom says that shining a light on roaches makes them run. But these infiltrators are a different species of roach, calling themselves "confidential insect sources" instead of what we know they are. Catch them in your beam, and they just lie to your face (they also get book deals) and say: “We are NOT filthy roaches...we are "we were, uh, PATROLLING your kitchen to track down the REAL pests! Yeah, that’s the ticket! We were doing you a favor. You should be GLAD we got into your house.”
So we have to fight these vermin. Some of my readers expressed skepticism that any lawyer wouldn’t already know about the Appointments Clause, but Mark Levin actually addressed that when he brought up the subject on Tuesday, saying that bureaucrat-lawyers such as those within the FBI and other departments would not necessarily have that much of an understanding. Their brains function in certain ways that pertain to the kind of work they do: warrants, indictments, trying cases, etc. Levin says they probably don’t know other parts of the Constitution all that well.
After hearing from so many who doubt anything will come of this, I concluded that the most likely way –- perhaps the only way –- the Appointments Clause could make a difference would be if it gets argued before the Supreme Court. And right after having that thought, I read a comment from former lawyer (who confessed he’d practiced law “before God relieved me of that burden”) James Nearen, who also happens to lives somewhere in my neck of the woods—er, beach.
Mr. Nearen writes to say that he’d heard Levin on the radio and agrees with him, but he adds that such an esoteric argument, to be successful, would have to go all the way to SCOTUS. (It does appear so.) In the meantime, he cautions Rudy Giuliani --- are you listening, Rudy?? --- that he MUST NOT allow President Trump to answer ANY questions. If Trump answers even one, it could be seen as a “waiver of a legal defect,” which I think means he wouldn’t be able to make the Appointments Clause argument from that point on, even if it’s valid.
He also mentioned something we should all know by now: that there’s no getting around the fact that any questioning by Mueller will be a perjury trap. So there would inevitably be an allegation of perjury, even if Trump is trying his best to be truthful, followed by an attempt at impeachment. Nearen says that even if Mueller’s team is committing legal malpractice, that fact wouldn’t help the President.
Again, are you there, Rudy? DO NOT let the President testify under any circumstances. Put the Appointments Clause argument together and get it before the Supremes. We might have just enough Supreme Court justices who care about constitutional protections of Presidential power.
Finally, in response to news from the Daily Caller that several FBI agents want subpoenas so they can reveal what they know about the agency's misconduct, Michael Caputo has announced that those rank-and-file FBI officials don't have to sit around waiting for a subpoena and that a fund has been set up to pay their legal fees; go to caputolegalfund.com.
LEAVE ME A COMMENT BY CLICKING HERE. I READ THEM!