The Muller Investigation
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 1 vote and with the same amount of points on both sides...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Number of rounds
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Voting system
Thank you, Logical-Master, for agreeing to debate this important topic with me.
-- TOPIC --
Resolved: The Muller investigation should be continued
-- DEFINITIONS --
Muller investigation: The ongoing Special Counsel investigation is a United States law enforcement and counterintelligence investigation of the Russian government's efforts to interfere, with primary focus on the 2016 presidential election. This investigation includes any possible links or coordination between Donald Trump's presidential campaign and the Russian government, "and any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation." In addition, the scope of the investigation reportedly includes potential obstruction of justice by Trump and others. The investigation, since it began May 17, 2017, has been conducted by the United States Department of Justice Special Counsel's Office, headed by Robert Mueller, a Republican and former Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). As part of his investigation, Mueller also took over several existing FBI investigations, including those involving former campaign chairman Paul Manafort and former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Counsel_investigation_%282017–present%29
Continued: persist in an activity or process
Should: Denotes moral obligation
-- STRUCTURE --
1. No forfeits
2. Citations must be provided in the text of the debate
3. No new arguments in the final speeches
4. Observe good sportsmanship and maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere
5. No trolling
6. No "kritiks" of the topic (challenging assumptions in the resolution)
7. For all resolutional terms, individuals should use commonplace understandings that fit within the logical context of the resolution and this debate
8. The BOP is evenly shared
9. Rebuttals of new points raised in an adversary's immediately preceding speech may be permissible at the judges' discretion even in the final round (debaters may debate their appropriateness)
10. Con must waive in R1 and Pro must waive in R5.
11. Violation of any of these rules, or of any of the R1 set-up, merits a loss
“The charges, filed Friday in the Eastern District of Virginia, accuse Elena A. Khusyaynova of St. Petersburg with using social media platforms to create thousands of social media and e-mail accounts — appearing to be from people in the U.S. — to "create and amplify divisive social media and political content." The case is not being brought by special counsel Robert Mueller's team.”Among the other topics were gun control, gay rights, the women's march and the NFL national anthem debate. They also keyed off specific events, including the Las Vegas shooting and the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia. The content adopted several viewpoints, not just one, court documents said.
Mueller does not have conflicts of interest under the applicable rules and regulations because (1) his relationship with Comey does not appear to constitute a“close and substantial connection”; (2) he did not personally represent Wilmer Haleclients Jared Kushner or Paul Manafort while at Wilmer Hale and does not appear to have had access to any confidential information relating to those representations; (3) the FBI review of Uranium One during Mueller’s tenure is unrelated to the issues that are the subject of the Special Counsel’s investigation;(4) Mueller’s spokesman has challenged the golf fee dispute allegation and in any event this issue is not remotely relevant to the subjects of the Special Counsel inquiry; and (5) a job interview does not constitute a prohibited political relationship under the relevant ethics regulations.Members of the Special Counsel investigative team are not disqualified from participating in the inquiry as the rules governing the conduct of executive branch employees generally and DOJ investigators specifically expressly permit them to make campaign contributions, and none served as an adviser to or official of the Clinton campaign. Nor would the Special Counsel have been permitted under applicable law to inquire about his staff’s political contributions.The Weissmann email to Yates also does not establish a violation of conflict of interest rules because it shows no bias with respect to the subject matter of the Special Counsel’s investigation.
There is no evidence that the assertion is true. I was the federal judge who presided over a successful lawsuit brought against the government by two of those men and the families of the other two, who had died in prison. Based on the voluminous evidence submitted in the trial, and having written a 105-page decision awarding them $101.8 million, I can say without equivocation that Mr. Mueller, who worked in the United States attorney’s office in Boston from 1982 to 1988, including a brief stint as the acting head of the office, had no involvement in that case. He was never even mentioned.I was unsparing in my criticism of the F.B.I. and Justice Department officials who were responsible for this wrongful imprisonment. I named names where the record supported it. I resoundingly condemned the government in an unusual court session in which I read my conclusions.Mr. Mueller is mentioned nowhere in my opinion; nor in the submissions of the plaintiffs’ lead trial counsel, Juliane Balliro; nor in “Black Mass,” the book about Mr. Bulger and the F.B.I. written by former reporters for The Boston Globe.
The argument that such coordination would be lawful is striking, including the fact that it follows 191 charges against 35 individuals and companies brought by special counsel Robert S. Mueller III, which have yielded five guilty pleas. Taken together, that work spells out the many crimes Russia committed to attempt to affect the outcome of the 2016 election.That conduct was deeply illegal, and it logically follows that if the president or his campaign team actually worked with the Russians in connection with their efforts, they, too, could be liable. That is not only common sense: It is also the law, with a raft of specific “collusion” crimes implicated.Many fall under the rubric of conspiracy: an agreement to further illegal action. The core federal conspiracy statute, 18 U.S.C. § 371, would be triggered here if there were any agreement by Trump or those around him with Russian agents to do something that the law forbids. For example, if in or around the infamous June 2016 Trump Tower meeting, the Russians and a Trump representative tacitly or explicitly agreed about the release or use of illegally obtained information, that could plausibly support a conspiracy charge. Indeed, there is already some evidence of just that, including Donald Trump Jr.’s infamous email that “if it’s what you say I love it.”
A. Conflict of Interest
He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: 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.
In 1988, the Supreme Court ruled in Morrison v. Olson that the Constitution allowed an Independent Counsel to be appointed by a three-judge court, completely separate from the Executive Branch,” Sklansky said via email. “In reaching that conclusion, the Supreme Court held that an Independent Counsel is an ‘inferior officer,’ not a ‘principal officer,’ for reasons that very clearly apply to Mueller: (a) he can be removed by a higher-ranking Department of Justice official, (b) he is authorized only to investigate and, if appropriate, prosecute, particular federal crimes, not to formulate Department of Justice policy, and (c) his jurisdiction is limited to the matters delegated to him by the Department of Justice.“The only significant difference between Mueller’s appointment and the appointment scheme for Independent Counsels, upheld by the Supreme Court in Morrison v. Olson, is that Mueller, unlike the Independent Counsels, was appointed by President Trump’s own appointee, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, rather than by a three-judge court,” Sklansky said. “But that just makes the argument for the constitutionality of Mueller’s appointment even stronger. Given the Supreme Court’s ruling in Morrison v. Olson, there is no remotely plausible argument that Mueller’s appointment was unconstitutional
The jurisdiction of a Special Counsel shall be established by the Attorney General. The Special Counsel will be provided with a specific factual statement of the matter to be investigated. The jurisdiction of a Special Counsel shall also include the authority to investigate and prosecute federal crimes committed in the course of, and with intent to interfere with, the Special Counsel's investigation, such as perjury, obstruction of justice, destruction of evidence, and intimidation of witnesses; and to conduct appeals arising out of the matter being investigated and/or prosecuted.
Mueller’s investigation has made controlled leaks of information to the press designed to embarrass the President and hinder him in the performance of his constitutional duties, and his investigation has dominated the headlines for one year now distracting President Trump from performing his job and making Mueller far more powerful and well-known than are any of the ten Assistant Attorneys General or the 93 U.S. Attorneys, all of who are principal officers nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate. Unlike the officers in [cited case in article], Robert Mueller’s work is not being “supervised and directed” by principal officer Rod Rosenstein who has treated Mueller as if he was “independent”. Moreover, unlike the Morrison v. Olson investigation, this investigation is not limited in scope or in jurisdiction. To the contrary, Mueller’s investigation is breathtaking in scope, his indictment of Russian citizens and business entities directly interferes with President Trump’s ability to control foreign policy with Russia, and his breach of Attorney-client privilege is a threat to civil liberties unlike any that has been attempted in this country since Senator Joe McCarthy’s red scares.There is no question at all that Robert Mueller has behaved over the past year as if he were a principal officer of the United States even though he has never been nominated by the President or confirmed by the Senate. He is best analogized to an Assistant Attorney General or a permanent U.S. Attorney and not to an Interim U.S. Attorney or to an Assistant U.S. Attorney or to a special assistant to Rosenstein. Thus, even though Mueller has a boss in Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, he is not an inferior officer in any meaningful way. Mueller is, in fact, more powerful than are any of the permanent U.S. Attorneys because he has nationwide jurisdiction and has indicted more than a dozen Russian citizens and three Russian business entities. He is thus more akin to an Assistant Attorney General than to even a permanent U.S. Attorney. The Assistant Attorneys General have always been treated as being principal officers who must be nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate. It follows afortiori that Mueller is a principal officer and that his appointment is unconstitutional because Mueller was not nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate.