Mark Levin: Appointment of Robert Mueller ‘Utterly Unconstitutional’ — In Violation of Article II

Tuesday on Fox News Channel’s “Hannity,” nationally syndicated radio host Mark Levin made the argument that Department of Justice special counsel Robert Mueller was serving in an unconstitutional capacity in violation of Article 2 of the Constitution.

Levin said there was a distinction between principal officers and inferior officers, with principle officers requiring confirmation by the U.S. Senate. Mueller is acting as a principal officer in violation of Article II, Levin said.

Partial transcript as follows:

We have something in the Constitution called the appointments clause. And it applies to principal officers of the executive branch. There’s inferior officers, you know, like a chief of staff, an administrative assistant who reports to a principle. Then there’s principal officers. As an example, very single United States attorney in the United States has to be nominated by the president of the United States and confirmed by the Senate because our founders made clear that they wanted both branches of government involved in appointments of these senior level people. You have assistant secretaries in departments and cabinet secretaries, and I said U.S. Attorneys.

Here’s the problem. The appointment of Mueller is utterly unconstitutional for a number of reasons. Rod Rosenstein gave him an agenda that is so broad, not a specific individual, not a specific statute, not even a specific matter, and not only was the initial appointment incredibly broad. He keeps expanding it. So this special counsel’s different than past special counsels. He’s more like a roving U.S. Attorney.

Also, we learned something today that is absolutely incredible from Politico. It says court filings indicate when lawyers appeared in court earlier this year, they did so not only as representatives of Mueller’s office, but they received an appointment, a special assistant United States attorney appointment in the eastern district of Virginia.

They are, in effect, assistant United States attorneys. Robert Mueller wanted to expand their power. They report to him. If they’re assistant United States attorneys or special assistant United States attorneys that makes Mueller, without question, the equivalent of the United States attorney.

So, what’s unique about him and past independent counsel and special counsel is the massive breadth of his investigation. He’s going to into bank fraud, wire fraud, he’s going into Russia, he’s going into a number of other countries. He’s interviewed hundreds of individuals, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of documents. He’s not an inferior employee, like an administrative assistant or anything of that sort. He’s a principal officer.

Under the appointments clause of the United States Constitution, Article II, Mr. Rosenstein usurped the authority of the president of the United States to nominate whomever he wants as a prosecutor, and Mr. Rosenstein usurped the power of the United States Senate, which has the control over the confirmation or not. Mr. Mueller is serving unconstitutionally in violation of the appointments clause of the Constitution because of the way Rosenstein appointed him, because of expanding his authority, because Mr. Mueller has expanded his own authority with these four now assistant United States attorneys.

And every defendant, in this case, every witness, in this case, everybody who received a subpoena in this case, whatever federal court it is, should raise the issue of the appointments clause of the Constitution, that Mr. Mueller is conducting himself and is appointment is unconstitutional.

Follow Jeff Poor on Twitter @jeff_poor