SpyGate
This book details the evidence and the reasons behind the recently failed Coup D’Etat against the American Democracy.
============
“This is the most important existential threat that our country has faced since the inception of this Republic” —Dr Churchill
============
This Book was written by Dr Pano Churchill
Copyright 2018
=========
Chapter Fifty
“Fair-Play & The Game of GOTCHA”
The evil game of a McCarthy era Red Scare, manifesting as a game of “GOTCHA” is what we see now playing daily in our screens and parading on the national mindscape, where the highest ever paid Federal Prosecutor is using his expert “fishing style” to tackle the whale.
Like a new and equally twisted captain Ahab, straight out of Melville’s book, “Moby Dick” — dirty cop Robert Mueller’s investigational fishing expedition is presented to us as the Mueller Russia Hoax, that continues for two years in what has proved to be a national shame.
It is the stuff of legends because after wasting two productive years of the national energy, this hoax has now become a national debasement, a rape of our Constitutional values, and the most awful manifestation of the debauchery of our national sense of the All American principle of Fair Play.
This dirty cop Robert Mueller’s mission statement and also his stated purpose and his modus operandi is none other than “WE HAVE TO CATCH THAT FISH AND KILL IT. And his instructions to his minions are to go ahead and throw dynamite in the water, to blow everything up and kill everything that lives under the surface — regardless of consequences — so long as he gets to see the POTUS coming belly up on the surface of the sea.
Yet what the prosecutors, the detractors of the 45th President, and all those snowflakes suffering from a Daddy issue complex have forgotten, is that the 45th POTUS is protected by God himself and the Good Lord Jesus Christ will not allow the diseconomy to succeed or even to continue against him.
This whole thing will blow away now that we’ve sen the Russian Collusion theory turning into a broken taillight or a tax matter that the vengeful cop dirty and American uranium seller Rto the Russian, Robert Mueller has allowed it to become.
This is obvious from the General Flynn, the Cohen, and the Manafort cases, where the Special Councel powers are used to make people compose literary things that can be then traced back to POTUS and used by Mueller’s rabid dogs, in order to accuse him of something, like a broken taillight, or indict him of some nefarious wrongdoing, or even ask for his impeachment…
And these poor folks like General Flynn, Attorney Cohen, and Campaign Manager Paul Manafort, that have gotten caught in the clutches of the Mueller Gestapo, and are pressed into the vice of the Rosenstein SS squad, and that of the DOJ goons who are willing to do anything it takes, in order to escape the torture and the solitary confinement, hoping to get some measure of leniency, and thus they are signaling that they are willing to make a deal (any deal with the Devil), in order to save themselves from a life time in the slammer — simply for daring to help elect a President other than the Hillary Clinton alcoholic hag and her army of evil snowflake minions.
What a Crime … eh?
To think differently…
To be at Liberty to vote your Christian Conscience…
All he above represent terrible crimes in the eyes of the unredeemable snowflakes and the phat buttercups, who are seeking to make our Revolutionary Republic and this Experiment in Government “By the People, Of the People, and From the People” — a redundancy.
They want to vacate our Democratic Republic and our Constitution, and instead want to provide for us, a single party rule, as they’ve seen it work so well for the people, in the whole of the Soviet Union, in North Korea, in Zimbabwe, in Cuba, in Venezuela, and in China. As a matter of fact, these are all places where ideology at the point of the gun is enforced, and tens of millions of people are murdered, disappeared, or becoming Non-Persons, for simply having a different idea in their head.
Choosing to have a different idea, a pluralistic mind, an open heart, a Christian conscience, and going even further on, to choose to campaign for an ideologically different platform — this is being outlawed today in this country of ours. And it is happening, rather fast….
We’ve got to stop that tide of National Socialist thought, and instead we ought to embrace the Constitutional principles tighter — if we are hoping to having and maintaining a strong Republic. Not a “one party” or even a “two party” system, but rather a multiparty Democratic Republic system, as envisioned by the Founders and the Framers of the Constitution — where fresh ideas are tried out in the cauldron of argumentative & parliamentary style open debate, and then under immense heat, the gold gets separated from the base metals, so we can find the “Golden Medium” and the “Best American Solution” that serves us best.
Because now — methinks it’s time — we all need to join hands in order to control and stop this evil two tier Justice system, and the un-American way of mistreating the Christian Conservative people, before we rip this country of ours apart. We need to stop this crap, before we separate our beautiful country in two. Two opposing and warring halves…
And that is the palpable danger and perhaps the very foundational design of this Russia-Russia hoax, and the out-of-Control investigation, this fishing expedition, that has become the equivalent of a modern era witch hunt, against our President. It is the Chinese who will benefit from this and nobody else.
This partisan travesty of Justice, must STOP right now.
Further as I pointed out, and as Rep. Mark Meadows (R-NC) also believes — there is evidence to suggest that some of the Russia/Clinton investigation FBI interview reports (known as 302s) were “changed to either prosecute or not prosecute” certain individuals. This raises many concerns and a multitude of questions about Mueller”s witch hunt… Yet chief among them, is what does this mean for former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn?
Because former FBI Director James Comey also provided conflicting testimony and statements regarding whether or not the FBI agents who conducted the Flynn interview believed he was lying during the questioning.
So, what is an FBI 302 report in the the case of former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn?
This is what the process of entrapping General Michael Flynn by putting together a 302 witness report happened. Keep in mind that as proven by the Peter Strzok SMS texts with Lisa Page — Strzok who was the Chief Interviewer of Flynn, wanted to “Fvck Flynn” and then ‘Fvck the President Trump.” So obviously these FBI guys wanted to get General Flynn, and all he had to do was mis-remember just one time amongst the many many times that he had talked in passing with the Russian ambassador Kisliek in the many DC diplomatic circuits of diplomatic niceties, cultural events, and large dinner parties and balls and all other social events that hasten the nights of the Capital of the Free World. And that’s all it took to bring down General Flynn. His misremembering a wine & cheese reception during which he said a passing Hello to the Russian Ambassador. That’s all they got him on. Then they automatically brought him up on that one charge… because instead of remembering the 27 times of his random meetings — he recalled only the 26 of them during his testimony.
Typically, FBI procedures say that two agents are supposed to be present in order to do the interview. The rationale behind it is so that you get two people, so there’s redundancy. For example, if one agent is unable to testify, there’s another person there who witnessed it. An interview of a subject usually comes at the very end of an investigation. Next, they perform interviews of victims, and of crimes, and not just the subject. So in the form of a bank robbery, you might have multiple 302s from the people who were there, the teller, somebody who saw the getaway car, or associates of the subject.
When you first go into an interview, the process is that you identify yourself. I’m “so and so,” a special agent with the Federal Bureau of Investigation. You state the day, time, and you state the location of where the interview occurs. Once you’ve got that out of the way, then you delve into the actual process of the interview. Now an interview can be wide-ranging and it can go all over the place. You can typically go to an interview with an outline of what you want to talk about. You go in there full of knowledge of the investigation and of what has transpired so far. And you typically try and get the person to talk about those things without revealing all of that information that you have, without showing your cards, without tipping your hand.
As you’re performing that interview you get the person to talk about what you want them to talk about. Remember, the interview is strictly based on factual observations and statements that are made. There is no room for conjecture. There’s no room for opining and there is really no room for hypotheses to be put in [the 302 form]. It’s strictly observation. You can make personal observations about the person’s demeanor… If I suspected that somebody was drunk or under the influence of a substance during the interview, I could say something to the effect, “upon walking into the room to interview X, the interviewing agent noted that he smelled heavily of alcohol. X was slurring their words and having trouble making coherent sentences.” I could not say that I believe X was completely drunk because I did not know that for a fact and that’s not something that I was able to verify while there.
Typically one agent will be doing interviewing, another agent will be taking notes. Sometimes both agents will take notes. You usually only want to have one agent take notes because if it goes to court, both sets of notes could present a problem if they are not in agreement.
Regarding Flynn’s particular interview, both agents would physically sign that initial copy. In the case of Flynn you know both FBI Special Agent Peter Strzok, and FBI Special Agent Joe Pientka, both would digitally sign the 302. You know there’s a system and the FBI agents put in a card that identifies them. There’s a specific pin that is known only to you. You look at the documents. You say that everything looks good, then you click sign and…enter your pin. It’s digitally signed for you. Only they could do that. If somebody had their log-in information, which is highly unlikely, then, of course, they could do that. That’s really what a 302 is. It is a capture of facts and it is a capture of observations. It’s not a total report of an investigation. It’s not a summation of everything that’s happening. It’s just what transpired during that snapshot in time, for when they interview the person.
But, now with all the new evidence on Former Deputy Director, Andrew McCabe and Former Special Agent Peter Strzok, one has to wonder; how does that affect the Flynn case?
Would these agents have shared their findings with superiors?
As you know, there are all sorts of lies that have been discovered on what has transpired with regard to McCabe, Comey possibly as well here, as well as other people that were involved in that sort of special investigation. McCabe was caught lying, Comey was caught lying, and other FBI top level officers were caught lying too. For example, with Flynn’s 302s and notes, the agents would take those documents back to headquarters and then share what they observed with people. McCabe and Comey may be two of those people. The agents are going to talk about it and people are going to ask how the interview went. They are going to read that document and then ask for the opinions of the investigators, in this case, Strzok and Pientka. And that is where this idea that you know one agent or possibly both agents said, “look we don’t think that he was lying or maybe he wasn’t forthcoming.”
I heard that McCabe was upset after hearing from the agents that they didn’t think he was lying. I mean given what we’ve learned of McCabe so far and given what we know about McCabe’s previous actions of purposely trying to undermine the Trump administration, that’s what happened. Was there a difference between the way the FBI handled Flynn’s case and the way the bureau handled McCabe’s case?
Of course, since Flynn was only interviewed once and was never under oath. McCabe was interviewed twice and was under oath during both instances. Further, Flynn was never told that he was being formally interviewed. McCabe was advised of the nature of his interviews on both occasions. Third, Flynn was never told what they suspected him of lying about and given the chance to explain. McCabe was asked, through the OPR process, on two occasions and through a formal document, whether he needed to clarify anything or change any information. He did not, which makes his lying intentional and with his full knowledge of his actions. And finally, Flynn has been charged with 18 USC 1001, making false official statements. McCabe has not.
Is it a conflict of interest now that the congressional committees and the IG have found that Strzok had such anti-Trump bias based on the fact that he was conducting the interview with Flynn and was so integrally involved in both investigations?
It would, absolutely impact anything done here. Any judge would pick that apart in a court of law, any judge. He is tainted at that point. And you do have issues of taint in a court law… One of the things that you have issues with is [that] you have all this highly sensitive…top secret, tight reporting that occurs and you don’t want to have people who have been tainted by that material performing that interview. Now, you do it for a lot of reasons. One, you do it because sometimes you can’t give up that information. You want to get what’s called a clean team to do the interviews…people who haven’t had access to any of this highly sensitive information to perform the interview and you give them sort rough guidelines [of] what you want them to talk about and then hopefully they’ll get the person to admit to it.
Let’s Explain that…
That is, you won’t have to divulge where they received this extremely sensitive information. When you get very sensitive information from other governments…things that are within the arsenal of the U.S. government that you don’t want coming out … in the court of law.
What about now?
Now we know that even before the interview with Flynn, Strzok was so vehemently anti-Trump that he had every reason to want to pursue charges against him. Could Strzok have suggested later down the line that Flynn was lying? I mean, I would think that this information would taint the interview they had with Flynn.
I have the legal mind and the understanding that there’s actually a legal precedent against that, and I would say that any good lawyer should absolutely have a field day with him, being able to say that it was a biased interview because of the bias that Strzok had felt towards the Trump administration. I would be interested to see what McCabe’s text messages are, that sent him to the next point. But, you know it also looks like they were kind of smart enough to do a lot of in-person meetings in Andy’s office and not put anything into texts. I think McCabe has been pretty shrewd in handling all communications and letting, you know, Former FBI Attorney Lisa Page to be a conduit for it. Regardless of that, Flynn’s lawyer should absolutely have a field day with saying that…Flynn was a representative of the Trump administration and Strzok and McCabe had set their sights squarely on him as a member of the administration. They interviewed him and then they put this case together against him and presented those facts to the Special Counsel.
So, if they didn’t think he lied, how did they get him to admit guilt and accuse him of lying in the end?
It’s a dangerous charge and easy to use… one that is a difficult rap to escape.
And it could start from anything during the questioning that doesn’t exactly line up. They would question Flynn on the number of times he had contact with a Russian representative. They could have said, “Mr. Flynn how many times have you spoken with the Russian officials?” In good conscience, he may have said, “to the best of my recollection it was four to five times that I spoke with him.” Or, ” You know X amount of time.” That answer got that captured in the 302 document. The agents can go back and say, “we have technical collection says that he spoke with the Russians six or seven times.” And so, what you have is, you have Flynn saying “I suppose x amount of times” and then the government knowing he spoke this amount time. From a small inaccurate recollection, you have your a 18 USC 1001 charge, providing false information to federal agents. Now, it’s pretty damn flimsy. And I think if it were taken to court… it would have a hard time making it stand upright.
What we know about the Flynn interview, is that Flynn was very forthcoming about the things that they really didn’t even ask him about or about things that there’s no way he could have suspected that they knew information about. For example, other meetings that he had, or about people with whom he met and was very forthcoming about that. Even though he was very forthcoming about 99 percent of things that happened, if he mis-remembered, or if he was exhausted because the guy probably had about four hours of sleep a night during that time, it didn’t matter, in the end. They wanted to get him. All he had to do was misremember one time that he talked to the guy. Then they could automatically bring him up on that one charge.
This seems like an easy way to entrap someone or get them on a charge that really is weak…
Like I said, it’s a long tried and true technique that the FBI uses in investigations where they don’t have the very concrete charges to stick to somebody and they want to nail them. He got the charge that is usually filed against friends and families of suspects when you’re trying to break the suspect. And I gotta be honest with you, there have probably been times where the FBI has really overreached and might have overstepped the boundaries in using that 1001 charge. It’s a dangerous charge and easy to use.
So, if Flynn didn’t lie, why did he plead guilty to the charge?
From what I understand is that the McCabe/Strzok team basically tarnished his name overnight and then they held out until he’s really at his wit’s end. Flynn’s financially was in a hole. He’s already sold his house. He’s completely destitute. The bureau starts going after his family and they say, “Hey Mike Flynn, we’re going to go after your family.” Maybe there’s something they think they can get on his son or anyone close to him. Flynn is a true patriot and a stand-up guy. So he takes the 1001 charge to get the Special Counsel off his back. The FBI and Special Counsel clap their hands and pat themselves on the back and then there it is. That’s how it all happens.
I would think there is some legal precedent for something like this; some kind of grounds just based on the fact that Strzok and McCabe appear to be so biased against Trump…
Here’s the legal definition of Giglio information or material: it refers to material tending to impeach the character or testimony of the prosecution witness in a criminal trial. I’d say there’s something here based on all the evidence that’s already come forward.
On the other hand Mr Cohen accepted a rap and a bum deal and he will come up for sentencing in December of 2018 after his plea deal and Mr. Manafort, in also facing another trial next month, on seven charges, including obstruction of justice, failure to register as a foreign agent, and conspiracy to launder money — all in the District of Columbia.
So let’s examine now how did we end-up where we are today:
Three of President Trump’s former advisers have received certain legal setbacks in their persecution by the errant forces of the evil & dirty cop Robert Mueller, and yet the White House remained cheerful with the pervasive belief, rightly, that things are looking up.
The are looking up because after two years NOT A SINGLE INSTANCE OF RUSSIAN COLLUSION has been found — there fore it is obvious eta the spurious charges against the President are just that. It has now been proven that this whole Russia Witch-Hunt was a successful side show used to cover up the Democrats’ own and verified Russian Collusion, exhibited broadly by the sale of American Uranium to the Kremlin.
Of course this, was little consolation to General Flynn, Paul Manafort, or even Stephen Cohen, because as advisers who either took a “plea deal” or not — they have been entered into the ‘system” that is designed to break the men. And this strategy of dirty cop Robert Mueller for leaking the news that Mr Trump’s former fixer, Michael D. Cohen, had admitted in federal court that Mr. Trump directed him to arrange payments to two women during the 2016 campaign in order to silence them from talking publicly about affairs they said they had with Mr Trump — is also now been spun as news, whereas Stephen Cohen many times said that the initiative to pay the porn stars was his alone. That clears Trump fully from the hookers’ wrap, or mouth as the case might be with each particular one — since Omarosa is also known for being a felatio afficionado, and she has taken her big mouth on the news windows to play the talking head for a change instead of the giving head, following the road that Stormy Daniels opened up for the alliance of unrepentant hoes.
It has also further been revealed that the President offered up for questioning the White House Councel whose 30 hours of questioning by the angry Democrats of dirty cop Robert Mueller, ended in a PHAT NOTHING, and continued with President Trump offering more than a million records, and also making available dozens of current and former White House aides, to put a spin on the conviction of Paul Manafort, by Mr Trump. All that without once invoking Executive Privilege.
This guy Trump has got to be the most transparent President in history. End of story.
However as President Trump’s former campaign manager, Paul Manafort, was just now found guilty on eight counts of decades old financial affairs, that are completely unrelated to the Presidential Election Campaign of 2016, or anything to do with President Trump, or with Russia, or with anything remotely related to Politics — we need to celebrate instead of crying in our cups for poor Paul Manafort.
We need to celebrate because this is further proof that the dirty cop Robert Mueller is on a fishing expedition like Captain Ahab of Melville’s Moby Dick fame. And the fact that all of the Manafort financial matters, are far more than a dozen years removed from his association with President Trump — further proves the vengeance and the desperation of the dirty cop and deranged “Captain Ahab” Robert Mueller, who is monomaniacal in his wish to “catch” the President in this dirty game of GOTCHA as all his leftists and angry Democrat prosecutors are. And they are desperate because they all associated with Hillary Clinton and are now Losers with a capital “L” tattooed permanently on their foreheads.
As for these decade old financial matters of Manafort — it is important to note, that they have never impacted our Republic, and are all going to be appealed, and the sentencing of course of these matters is going to be delayed for a while now. But the damage done to our Republic today by the toxic, old, smelly & dirty cop, turned “Captain Ahab” Robert Mueller, is palpable everywhere. And it is most strongly felt in the diminishing wish and capacity of our young people to get involved in our Democracy, for fear that if they enter politics in our campaign and in our electoral system of Democracy today, as Conservative Christians — they will be targeted and destroyed. And this comes at a time when the young people are concerned that they have to fight for what is right; if they want to have any kind of future in our Republic.
Still Paul Manafort and General Flynn are both upbeat, and of course that is the only option for all winning Trump people: Follow Mr Trump’s lead in seeking Victory for all the American people, at all costs. The President in a very Churchillian manner, took a rather PRESIDENTIAL TOUR OF THE COUNTRY, and is returning to his office this week as he decided to grab the bull by the horns, and seize the opportunity to speak through a pre-planned sit-down interview with the News on Wednesday.
Sarah Huckabee Sanders, the White House press secretary, offered these comments on the Manafort matter: “This is proof that the President did nothing wrong” … “There are absolutely no charges against him, and no intimation of anything done wrong by him.”
Make a note of that.
After two years of dogged pursuit, all that Captain Ahab has caught is a couple of little sardines that have been canned for a dozen years or more.
Well done Bobbie.
Best get back to fishing in your retirement.
Or go back to Stormy Daniels and her porn-hoe lawyer, because only the “treasure chest” might save you… from the red & stormy sea thats coming to get you.
Sarah Huckabee Sanders, the White House press secretary, again and repeatedly told reporters that Mr. Trump had done “nothing wrong.”
“We started with Russia collusion,” the president mused, according to several people who witnessed Mr Trump’s somber mood. “How did we end up here?”
On Wednesday, several aides dismissed the news about Mr Cohen as just another fake news bad headline…
Mr Trump spent the early hours of Wednesday tweeting — he called Mr Manafort a “brave man” who, unlike Mr Cohen, “refused to ‘break’” or “make up stories in order to get a ‘deal.’’’ He also monitored headlines, as he did after his news conference with Mr Putin. In his interview with Fox News, he asserted that money for the payments to the women had come not from his campaign, but from his own accounts.
“I don’t know if you know” Mr Trump said during the interview, “I tweeted about the payments. They didn’t come out of the campaign.” Campaign finance laws still prohibit Mr Trump from making unreported payments related to the campaign, regardless of where they came from. Neither payment was disclosed to the Federal Election Commission.
On Air Force One on Tuesday night on the way back from a rally in West Virginia, Mr. Trump repeatedly minimized the news, telling aides that the legal developments were not about him, but about Mr Manafort and Mr Cohen. He also groused over the optics of the rally, telling a person close to him that the crowd seemed flat and that some chairs were empty.
By Wednesday, Mr Trump’s lawyers were arguing privately that Mr Cohen’s admission, and guilty plea, taking the Mueller deal to accept that he violated campaign finance laws was a “punch” and were assessing what options they had for fighting back. They stressed that Mr. Cohen had said repeatedly in public and under oath, on many previous accounts that Mr Trump was not aware of his payment to Ms Clifford, known as “Treasure Chest” Stormy Daniels, at the time that he made the payments.
Inside the White House, in an interview, Mr Giuliani said that he had spoken at length with Mr Trump, but that the president had wanted to move on from legal tangles to other topics — including the golf game that Mr Rudy Giuliani was playing at a course in Scotland on Wednesday.
Mr Giuliani said the two had discussed the political fallout should Mr Trump grant a pardon to Mr Manafort.
“Yesterday’s plea and Manafort’s conviction, none of it had to do with collusion, none of it has to do with obstruction,” Mr Giuliani said, echoing much of what the president has said in public and in private. “He really thinks Manafort has been horribly treated.”
He added that Mr Trump’s team was looking at the possibility of making public at least one recording of Mr Cohen speaking to journalists about his payments to Ms Clifford DBA Stormy Daniels, in which he said he made the payments on his own initiative to spare the Trump family pain.
People who have known Donald J Trump for years point out, that he is at his most combative when he feels backed against the wall. They pointed to his reaction after the “Access Hollywood” tape of him boasting of grabbing women’s genitals was released in October 2016. Mr Trump responded by parading Bill Clinton’s female accusers in front of Hillary Clinton at the presidential debate in St Louis, and acted like a man with nothing to lose.
This dynamic has led President Trump to publicly praise — and privately muse about pardoning — Mr Manafort.
As indeed President Trump has exercised his pardon power several times since he took office, for the wronged black boxer, for the black Grandma who took a hit for her grandkids drug bust, for many others, who were targeted by the leftist prosecutors seeking to curry favor with their snowflakes and the politically correct brigades, and the President sought to alleviate their burden, such as when he signed a Presidential Pardon for Sheriff Joe Arpaio, for Dinesh D’Souza, the conservative writer who was prosecuted unreasonably for a minimal campaign finance violation and . One official said that there was a list of people Mr. Trump has said he would like to consider for pardons or commutations, but that Mr Manafort’s name had never been on the list.
New York 911 Mayor and Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani, said in the interview that a pardon for Mr Manafort was not under consideration at this time.
Ms Sanders said that, to her knowledge, the President had not discussed the idea of pardoning Mr Manafort. Several of President Trump’s advisers said that he was uncertain about the political fallout and was not quite ready to do so.
Yet, now is the moment, that President Trump should unilaterally appoint a special counsel to oversee and investigate the Department of Justice, FBI and Mueller investigation, and should bypass the Department of Justice on the grounds that it is inherently and incurably conflicted. Jeff Sessions recused himself for all matters stemming from the Mueller investigation, even those matters that have nothing do with Trump-Russia collusion because Rod Rosenstein drafted the mandate so broad that general Attorney General powers were delegated to him, which some would argue cover any matters that are discovered, meaning Sessions’ recusal would extend to any such matters.
Rod Rosenstein is also inherently conflicted and wrongfully not recusing himself. He was both a material witness in the firing of James Comey; he helped draft the firing memo, and he signed off on the fourth Fisc warrant, which we now know was predicated on an unverified dossier compiled by Christopher Steele, who had thenceforth been fired by the FBI, leaving Rosenstein completely conflicted, insofar as matters around potential obstruction of justice brought by Mueller against the President, and insofar as the investigation of the abuse of power, fraud and impropriety of the DOJ in procuring Fisc warrants to spy on Trump advisors. Presumably, the inferior officers would feel jeopardized if they besmirched their superior officers – Rod Rosenstein and Jeff Session, and therefore would be conflicted. No matter how far down the chain you go, the conflicts of interests in investigating the wrongdoing of the Department of Justice, and of Robert Mueller, including using the delegation in false pretenses as a tool to “find a crime”, instead of investigating an “actual crime”, and the use of such special counsel as a pretext for the ulterior motive of impeaching the President, a misuse of the office for political purposes, make it such that these potential wrongdoings cannot be adequately investigated by the Department of Justice, and the Department of Justice cannot be depended on to appoint a special counsel for the same reason they can’t investigate themselves – the entire Department of Justice is inherently conflicted. Therefore, the President should appoint a special counsel to oversee and investigate the Mueller Investigation for possible fraud, abuse of power and misuse of the special counsel to further a political agenda, and investigate the Department of Justice, FBI, CIA and NSA officials for which there is substantial evidence of abuse of power to further political agenda, and potential collusion with Russia, and the Democrats, in order to meddle and rig the election in Hillary Clinton’s favor.
We all are aware that the institution of the special counsel goes back to the Grant administration, and even presidents Coolidge, and Reagan, used special counsels. However, the point is that they are not not being used sparingly, as they were before the Nixon era. Like the process of the filibuster, and so many other things, the special councel appointment has grown government legs. No matter which side uses the special counsel today, it appears partisan and punitive, instead of being rooted in maintaining order, delivering justice and bringing a measure of liberty. We cannot keep creating new government entities because the current older entities are bureaucratic nightmares and dysfunctional.
“We the People” have to keep our elected officials feet to the fire. Our nation is found mired in this mess, because we were complacent with misplaced trust. We trusted that after we elected these folks, they would do what they promised us on the campaign trail. It is drudgery, it is tedious, it involves hard work and harder decisions. If it was easy every country would be us. We can do this because we are Americans…
We the people, need to keep exerting force on the bureaucrats and especially on the politicians we elect. Change is slow but look how far we have come in 40 years. The media tells us we are losing but we are not. They are in a panic. The measuring stick is the number of local, county, parrish, state, and Federal political positions which have flipped to the Christian Conservative side since Reagan. This is a long game, the leftists have been playing this game for over a century and are masters at this game. Look at what they, the rabid left, have done to the Democratic party. The Democrats had real statesmen at one time. Slightly different philosophy but statesmen nonetheless. I can only imagine were we would be if JFK had completed his term. This fight will ebb and flow, but the momentum is on our side if we keep the faith.
The constitution will win if we keep faith.
Now, let’s get these midterms won with a red sea and let’s put the politicians on notice, that we will not stand for platitudes any longer: We want constitutionally based actions and we want them now. And we want an end to the SC position of Robert Mueller and his angry Democrats, because this one is fraught with partisan political implications. We don’t need, nor should we want, more politics being played. We want the rule of law. We want both sides of the aisle cleaned up for only that way, we can get back to our constitutional form of government.
We want transparency, because corrupt Republicans are just as dangerous as corrupt Democrats. Our enemy is the corruption. That is what is destroying the nation from the inside out. Corrupt politicians from both parties are the ones who sold out our financial system and control of our currency to the control of foreign entities rather than admit their failures and deal with we the people in a straightforward and honest manner.
We have to put an end to all of this corruption or we put an end to none of it, for it will just grow another head like a hydra and continue under another guise. Our last chance for the restoration of our liberty and Constitution will be gone forever, if we don’t deal with the issue of corruption, because then we will become a nation of serfs living under the domination of national socialists, marxists, and so-called neo-con financial elites of the world.
Indeed, Mueller was actually drafting a report proposing impeachment of Trump. It’s so weak that he is trying to get Trump into the perjury trap to actually cite a crime. He is going to argue that the President tried to obstruct justice by firing Comey, and that while he had the constitutional authority to do so, he had bad intentions, to stop the investigation of his own potential bad conduct, which is what dictators do. This is what Mueller will argue. He will try to say that he tried to get Flynn free from perjury charges, with his comment “go light on him” which Comey felt sent the message “don’t prosecute him at all” and he will try to argue that he knew about the Trump tower meeting and that he knew of the Hillary emails before they were released leading only to one conclusion. That he had to have somehow been in cahoots with the Russians or at least was an abetter after the fact of the DNC hacking and of the distribution of the hacked emails. While all of these things are NOT supported by evidence, not even circumstantial evidence, Mueller will argue that the totality of the circumstances lead only to these conclusions, that the President is dishonest, had bad authoritartian intentions and colluded with the enemy, Russia, even if it was unwitthingly, like calling for them to release Hillary’s 30,000 emails at a campaign rally.
While I don’t believe that one reasonably lawyer or American should fall for this false pretenses manufactured political report to impeach that Mueller will present, it will do grave political damage to the President, and give a Democrat congress a slam-dunk for impeachment – -which is their grand plan. Once the Democrats take congress they will undoubtedly move to impeach President Trump, and Mueller’s handy dandy report will be their basis to do so. This is their grand plan.
How to stop it?
First, is that Trump and the GOP allied camp have to maintain power in Congress and the Senate, and yet so many Trump supporters I know have gone back into their cocoon of life – working hard, playing golf, driving children around, taking long deserved holidays, working on their hobbies etc, which is a basic state of pure complacency…
So word has to go out that we will lose all the progress that has been made and transend into an open border socialist society very quickly if Democrats take over congress. That they are not the JFK Democrats – these are radical Leftists who want to throw the US Constitution into a garbage can and set fire to it.
Second, the President needs to do something bold to preempt Mueller’s report – Councel to investigate the dirty cop Robert Mueller and his merry band of angry nasty Democrats. Because only if the Captain Ahab dirty cop Robert Mueller is being investigated — then he will be forced to act apolitically and actually make conclusions supported by actual evidence. He will also be subject to the Brady act, which takes away prosecutorial immunity when they have failed to show exonerative evidence. For General Flynn, the fact that they accepted a guilty plea when Comey stated that the FBI didn’t think Flynn was lying – could put Mueller in legal jeopardy. But he will only be in legal jeapardy if he is accountable to someone – and Rod Rosenstein is also a confederate force so – he is aiding and abetting Mueller’s and his plight – to rid Donald Trump of the Presidency – and thereafter to cause permanent harm to our Constitutional Republic.
And by the way, this will also be the death knell for all the Christian and Conservative leaders in this country.
So only if President Trump chooses to channel his inner Andrew Jackson, with a good dose of Jeffersonian statesmanship thrown in, along with a Churchillian measure of Victory at any cost – we will win. At the very least none can complain because indeed we are living in interesting times…
Still, case law suggests that a President would have the power to appoint a special counsel to investigate the DOJ, that statutory authority would not be necessary, because he is not completely re-organizing the executive branch just making sure it is carrying out the laws properly.
But the question remains; why would he do that, when there is already a team doing this? Horowitz and Huber together have more power and prosecutorial discretion than a SC would have, and they are already set up and working which is something no SC would be ready to do for months. As a matter of fact, quite a few legal scholars have said that Sessions appointment of Huber was pure genius and the best decision he could have made…
Yet questions about Sessions being a pvssy remain, and are augmented by his inability to take control of the DOJ and the FBI in a way that the Deep State will notice and start falling back…
Still, did you ever stop to think that maybe Sessions is staying out of the way in order to eliminate the charge of political prosecutions? It is reasonable thinking that if he were to un-recuse himself, the political backlash would be terrific, and it might cause more issues, than if he stays in the background, letting Horowitz and Huber work out of sight and allow them to bring the necessary charges and built the prosecutions that are necessary to come if we are ever able to clean and drain the God awful DC swamp.
Still, it seems to me that Sessions has covered his bases, and there is ton of work being done behind the scenes. Just the number of indictments in the last 18 months ought to tell you that, but still Sessions by nature is a pvssy.
And of course, Huber is a conservative judge from Utah that was appointed by Obama who didn’t have the stones to fight with the two Republican senators from Utah and gave Huber a “pass.” So it follows that Alfred Sessions appointment of Huber as the IG is an act of genius, because the Democrats can’t cry “Partisan Politics” since Huber was appointed by Obama. Indeed it appears to be a neat trap for birds, but not for bear, or crocodiles…
Still we must examine the President’s Reorganization Authority, to fulfill his powers to appoint a Second Council in order to give “Captain Ahab” his just deserts, and to offer the dirty cop Mueller his due, because an Investigator to investigate the Investigators his always a Good thing in times that the “Terror” has descended upon us as this time seems to be, like the blood bath of the French Thermidor with Robespierre’s Guillotine working overtime…
The President may be able to accomplish some reorganization goals through particular statutory delegations of authority, executive orders, department memos, management policies, and other devices, but to accomplish major reorganization objectives, he will need explicit statutory authority from Congress, a viable procedure to enact reorganization plans, and a feasible implementation strategy. As for the details of any reorganization plan, exact limits on the President’s authority to reorganize the executive branch “can properly be analyzed only in light of the particular changes which are proposed” and the relevant constitutional provisions and statutory authority.
KEY TAKEAWAYSThe President has no statutory authority to reorganize the executive branch, except where acts of Congress delegate authority to make particular changes. Even without statutory authority, the President may convene a task force or commission to study executive branch concerns and recommend changes to Congress. The President may create, reorganize, or abolish an office that he established but cannot reorganize the executive branch in violation of an act of Congress.
What is the President’s authority to reorganize the executive branch? The Constitution vests authority in Congress as an instance of its power to enact legislation; to create the departments, agencies, and offices within the executive branch; to define their duties; and to fund their activities. The President may create, reorganize, or abolish an office that he established, but he cannot fundamentally reorganize the executive branch in direct violation of an act of Congress.
The President traditionally has “acquiesce[ed] in the need for reorganization legislation in order to restructure or consolidate agencies within the Executive Branch.”1
Limitations on Presidential Power to Create a New Executive Branch Entity to Receive and Administer Funds Under Foreign Aid Legislation, 9 Op. O.L.C. 76, 78 (1985).
Prior Reorganization Acts were valuable to the President, in part because they incorporated expedited parliamentary procedures, and to Congress because they included a one-house legislative veto. But in 1983, the Supreme Court of the United States, in INS v. Chadha, found the legislative veto to be unconstitutional.2
INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919 (1983).
While Reagan-era legislation purported to offer a procedure to preserve presidential reorganization authority, that authority has never been used and so remains untested.3
See Reorganization Act Amendments of 1984, Pub. L. 98-614, 98 Stat. 3192 (1984) (expired 1984) (codified as amended at 5 U.S.C. § 901 (1984)), pertinent parts published supra as appendix; Ronald C. Moe, Administrative Renewal: Reorganization Commissions in the 20th Century 114–117 (2003).
The most recent Reorganization Act expired in 1984.
The President retains whatever reorganization authority Congress has delegated to him by law, as well as the ability to develop task forces and commissions and to work with Congress on reorganization plans. The exact limits of the President’s authority to reorganize the executive branch “can properly be analyzed only in light of the particular changes which are proposed” and the relevant statutory authority.4
President’s Authority to Promulgate a Reorganization Plan Involving the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 1 Op. O.L.C. 248, 251 (1977).
Does the President Have Authority Under Article II of the U.S. Constitution to Reorganize the Executive Branch on His Own?
Article II of the U.S. Constitution provides three potential sources of authority for the President to reorganize the executive branch on his own. Each, however, falls short of that goal.
First, the Executive Vesting Clause specifies that “[t]he executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.”5
U.S. Const. art. II, § 1, cl. 1.
This grants the President “those authorities that were traditionally wielded by executives” subject to constitutional constraints.6
“Hence the President cannot declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, or regulate commerce, even though executives had often wielded such authority in the past.” And “the President cannot make treaties or appointments without the advice and consent of the Senate. Likewise, the President’s pardon power is limited to offenses against the United States and does not extend to impeachments or violations of state law.” Sai Prakash, Executive Vesting Clause, in The Heritage Guide to the Constitution, http://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/articles/2/essays/76/executive-vesting-clause (last visited May 9, 2017).
The Founders did not leave this as a kingly power to change government functions at will. Rather, the power to execute the laws extends only as far as the laws allow.7
See, e.g., Centralizing Border Control Policy Under the Supervision of the Attorney General, 26 Op. O.L.C. 22 (2002); Steven G. Calabresi & Saikrishna Prakash, The President’s Power to Execute the Laws, 104 Yale L.J. 541 (1994); Prakash, supra note 6 (arguing that the U.S. Supreme Court “apparently has accepted the notion that the Executive Vesting Clause grants powers beyond those enumerated in the remainder of Article II”) (citing Myers v. United States, 272 U.S. 52 (1926); Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 731 (1982); Morrison v. Olson, 487 U.S. 654 (1988)).
For entities created by Congress, the power to enact, amend, or abolish these executive departments and agencies and their functions belongs to Congress.8
See U.S. Const. art. I, § 1 (“All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.”); INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919 (1983); Clinton v. City of New York, 524 U.S. 417 (1998) (holding that the President’s line-item veto granted by the Line Item Veto Act of 1996 was unconstitutional).
Article II’s Take Care Clause—that “[The President] shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed”9
U.S. Const. Art. II, § 3. “The Take Care Clause…is best read as a duty that qualifies the President’s executive power.” Sai Prakash, Take Care Clause, in The Heritage Guide to the Constitution, http://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/articles/2/essays/98/take-care-clause (last visited May 13, 2017).
—“refutes the idea that he is to be a lawmaker. The Constitution limits his functions in the lawmaking process to the recommending of laws he thinks wise and the vetoing of laws he thinks bad.”10
Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579, 587 (1952); see also Cass R. Sunstein & Lawrence Lessig, The President and the Administration, 94 Colum. L. Rev. 1, 60–69 (1994).
Yet the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized that the Executive Vesting Clause did not compel the President to execute the laws alone.11
“He must execute them by the assistance of subordinates.” Myers v. United States, 272 U.S. 52, 117 (1926).
“To aid him in the performance of these duties, he is authorized to appoint certain officers, who act by his authority and in conformity with his orders.”12
Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 166 (1803).
May the President therefore reorganize the executive branch through subordinates in executive departments and agencies? Two more Article II clauses are pertinent, but the answer remains no.
Second, the Appointments Clause reads, “The President…shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint…[the] Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law.”13
U.S. Const. art. II, § 2, cl. 2.
That provision enables the President to select officers who will implement his policies.14
Alexander Hamilton explained that department heads “ought to be considered as the [President’s] assistants or deputies…and on this account they…ought to be subject to his superintendence.” The Federalist No. 72, at 436.
Subject to statutory restrictions,15
See Morrison, 487 U.S. 654 (“independent counsel provisions of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978” did not violate separation of powers); Sunstein & Lessig, supra note 10, at 116–17.
the President may remove those who prove obstinate,16
See Myers, 272 U.S. at 135; The Jewels of the Princess of Orange, 2 Op. Att’y Gen. 482, 489 (1831) (the President’s power of “removal of the disobedient officer, and the substitution of one more worthy in his place, would enable the President, through him, faithfully to execute the law”).
but the power to appoint and remove officers “alone does not ensure that all decisions made by administrative officials will accord with the President’s views and priorities.”17
Elena Kagan, Presidential Administration, 114 Harv. L. Rev. 2245, 2385 n.307 (2001).
Third, the Opinion Clause enables the President to “require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices.”18
U.S. Const. art. II, § 2, cl. 1. See also Akhil R. Amar, Some Opinions on the Opinion Clause, 82 Va. L. Rev. 647 (1996); Vasan Kesavan & J. Gregory Sidak, The Legislator-in-Chief, 44 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 1, 8 (2002) (The “clause implies the specification of orders to, and the evaluation of the performance by, someone to whom the President has delegated executive power. The analogy is to a principal and agent relationship.”).
This allows the President to obtain information from, and to “consult with and try to persuade,” his subordinates in the course of their official conduct.19
Peter L. Strauss, The Place of Agencies in Government: Separation of Powers and the Fourth Branch, 84 Colum. L. Rev. 573, 669 (1984). Executive branch “officers cannot keep the President in the dark about how their departments are operating.” Gillian E. Metzger, The Constitutional Duty to Supervise, 124 Yale L.J. 1836, 1879 (2015).
President George Washington used this process to direct subordinates’ official actions, but the relevant statutes “commonly delegated final authority directly to him.”20
Harvey C. Mansfield, Reorganizing the Federal Executive Branch: The Limits of Institutionalization, 35 L. & Contemporary Problems 462, 463 (1970).
These provisions do not enable the President to reorganize the executive branch on his own or though subordinates.21
See Amar, supra, note 18, at 653 (“Even as the sole apex of awesome [executive] powers…the President appears as a limited figure—as a Generalissimo, CEO, and Executioner under law.”); Peter L. Strauss, Overseer, or “The Decider”? The President in Administrative Law, 75 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 696 (2007); Kathryn A. Watts, Proposing a Place for Politics in Arbitrary and Capricious Review, 119 Yale L.J. 2, 60 n.264 (2009) (citing Sierra Club v. Costle, 657 F.2d 298, 410 (D.C. Cir. 1981), for the idea that “an administrative rulemaking may be overturned on the grounds of political pressure if ‘the content of the pressure…is designed to force [the agency] to decide upon factors not made relevant by Congress in the applicable statute’ and if the agency’s determination was actually affected by the ‘extraneous considerations.’”).
Congress, not the President or the U.S. Constitution, creates and organizes the offices and departments that the Appointments and Opinion Clauses address by virtue of the Necessary and Proper Clause.22
U.S. Const. art I, § 8, cl. 18 (“The Congress shall have Power To…make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.”); M’Culloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316 (1819); Edward Corwin, The President: Office and Powers 83 (1948).
“The organizational function of this clause was recognized from the outset. Among Congress’s first acts were establishing executive departments and staffs.”23
When the First Congress created the Treasury Department, for example, it established therein “distinct offices—Secretary, Comptroller, Auditor, Treasurer and Register—and their duties.”24
Mansfield, supra note 20, at 463.
Congress sets “to whatever degree it chooses, the internal organization of agencies,” their missions, “personnel systems, confirmation of executive officials, and funding, and ultimately evaluates whether the agency shall continue in existence.”25
Cong. Res. Serv., RL30876, The President’s Reorganization Authority: Review and Analysis 2 (Mar. 8, 2001) (hereafter CRS 2001).
Congress may delegate broad authority to executive branch officials to implement, change, and even reorganize their functions.26
See Kendall v. U.S. ex rel. Stokes, 37 U.S. 524, 610 (1838) (“There are certain political duties imposed upon many officers in the executive department, the discharge of which is under the direction of the President. But it would be an alarming doctrine, that congress cannot impose upon any executive officer any duty they may think proper…and in such cases, the duty and responsibility grow out of and are subject to the control of the law, and not to the direction of the President.”); Isbrandtsen-Moller Co. v. United States, 300 U.S. 139 (1937) (upholding a secretarial order enforced after an executive reorganization plan).
The First Congress, however, “set a precedent” of delegating “statutory powers and instructions…to specified officials of or below Cabinet rank, rather than to the President.”27
Mansfield, supra note 20, at 463.
The President’s Article II authority to oversee those powers does not amount to directing every decision that is made by someone within the executive branch.28
See Kagan, supra note 17.
Congress can also use the Appropriations Clause to curb the President’s reorganization efforts, even efforts authorized by substantive statutes.29
U.S. Const. art. I, § 9, cl. 7 (“No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.”).
The power of the purse remains “the most complete and effectual weapon” against “carrying into effect” an executive reorganization plan and any other “just and salutary measure.”30
James Madison, The Federalist No. 58. For instance, in 1989, the U.S. Department of Justice sent Congress its plans to reorganize the Office of Legal Policy under statutory authority to undertake “significant reprogramming, reorganizations, and relocations” within the department. “[C]ertain Congressmen” disapproved and barred any further implementation of departmental reorganization schemes by writing the following into appropriations law: “None of the funds provided in this or any prior Act shall be available for obligation or expenditure to relocate, reorganize, or consolidate any office, agency, function, facility, station, activity, or other entity falling under the jurisdiction of the Department of Justice.” See Department of Justice Authority Regarding Relocations, Reorganizations, and Consolidations, 13 Op. O.L.C. 280, 281 (Aug. 28, 1989).
An executive branch officer’s statutory authority to execute reorganization schemes “can only be affected by passage of a new law.”31
13 Op. O.L.C. at 283 (citing INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919 (1983)).
But Congress can simply amend an appropriations law if it does not like where reorganization is headed,32
See United States v. Dickerson, 310 U.S. 554, 555 (1940).
and the Anti-Deficiency Act prohibits officers and employees of the U.S. government from going around the will of Congress in any way that involves incurring obligations in excess of appropriated funds.33
31 U.S.C.A. § 1341 (West) (1990).
The result is that the President does not have constitutional authority to reorganize the executive branch on his own.
Does the President Have Statutory Authority to Reorganize the Executive Branch?
Under current law, the President has no statutory authority to reorganize the executive branch, except where acts of Congress delegate authority to make particular changes.34
See William G. Howell & David E. Lewis, Agencies by Presidential Design, 64 J. Politics 1095, 1096 (2002) (identifying “over 240 administrative agencies” that Presidents “constructed” after 1950 “through executive orders, orders issued by department secretaries or agency heads, and reorganization plans”); John Yoo & Todd Gaziano, Presidential Authority to Revoke or Reduce National Monument Designations, Am. Enterprise Inst. 8 (Mar. 2017) (“A basic principle of the Constitution is that a branch of government can reverse its earlier actions using the same process originally used.”); Harold J. Krent, From a Unitary to a Unilateral Presidency, 88 B.U. L. Rev. 523 554–59 (2008) (criticizing unilateral executive reorganization).
In 1932, Congress first enacted law delegating to the President broad authority to reorganize the executive branch according to specific guidelines.35
See Isbrandtsen-Moller, 300 U.S. 147 (noting that a 1932 appropriations law authorized the President to abolish or transfer functions of “‘any commission, board, bureau, division, service, or office in the executive branch of the Government’”).
Since then, nine Presidents have sought and secured similar authority from Congress.36
They are Presidents Herbert Hoover, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Harry S. Truman, Dwight D. Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy, Lyndon B. Johnson, Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter, and Ronald Reagan. See Cong. Res. Serv., RL31446, Reorganizing the Executive Branch in the 20th Century: Landmark Commissions (June 10, 2002) (hereafter CRS 2002). Past reorganization plans have shaped much of the modern executive branch. For example, they created the Department of Health, Education and Welfare; Drug Enforcement Agency; Environmental Protection Agency; and Federal Emergency Management Agency (see Howell & Lewis, supra note 34, at 1097) and established the Executive Office of the President. See Cong. Res. Serv., R42852, Henry B. Hogue, Presidential Reorganization Authority: History, Recent Initiatives, and Options for Congress 31–32 (Dec. 11, 2012) (hereafter CRS 2012).
The last to exercise that authority was Jimmy Carter; the last to receive it was Ronald Reagan. The most recent Reorganization Act expired in December 1984.37
See CRS 2001, supra note 25, at n.1. Presidents George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton did not seek statutory reorganization authority. See CRS 2012, supra note 36.
Since then, Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama sought reorganization power from Congress,38
CRS 2012, supra note 36, at 32.
which introduced but did not enact legislation that would have granted them reorganization authority.39
See H.R. 10, § 5021 (108th Congress) and S. 2129 (112th Congress) and H.R. 4409 (112th Congress).
The history of delegated legislative authority for Presidents to reorganize the executive branch is informative for future usage with one caveat. Those acts were valuable in part because they provided expedited parliamentary procedures—in particular, a one-house legislative veto, which enabled either house of Congress to reject a President’s reorganization plan.40
See Chadha, 462 U.S. 919; CRS 2012, supra note 36; Louis Fisher, The Legislative Veto: Invalidated, It Survives, 56 L. & Contemporary Problems 273 (1993).
In 1983, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the one-house veto violated the U.S. Constitution’s bicameralism and presentment requirements for lawmaking.41
Chadha, 462 U.S. 919. But see Effect of INS v. Chadha on the Authority of the Secretary of Defense to Reorganize the Department of Defense Under U.S.C. § 125, 8 Op. O.L.C. 82, 93 (1984) (arguing that prior “reorganization authority survives the fall of the veto”).
In 1984, Congress enacted an alternate procedure along with reorganization authority: “that a joint resolution be introduced in both the House and Senate upon receipt of a reorganization plan.”42
CRS 2001, supra note 25, at 8. See Reorganization Act Amendments of 1984, Pub. L. 98-614, 98 Stat. 3192 (1984) (expired 1984) (codified as amended at 5 U.S.C. § 901 (1984)), pertinent parts published infra as appendix.
No vote, no plan; no presidential signature, no plan. While that seems to follow the constitutional lawmaking process, President Reagan never used his reorganization authority, and these procedures remain untested.43
See Moe, supra note 3, at 114–117.
As a result, the President currently has no general statutory authority to reorganize the executive branch. 44
Arguably, “what little advantage remained in the reorganization plan process, namely an expedited procedure with a guaranteed vote, was more than matched by the disadvantages of” other procedural and substantive requirements. Id. at 116–17. So “[i]n short,” it may be easier “to simply follow the regular legislative process.” Id. But if left entirely to Congress, “we will fiddle around here all summer trying to satisfy every lobbyist, and we will get nowhere.” Fisher, supra note 40, at 278 (citing 75 Cong. Rec. 9644 (1932) (statement of Sen. David Reed (R–PA))).
Yet Congress could decide to enact a law similar to the last-used Reorganization Act of 1977 or one of its progenitors.45
See generally CRS 2012, supra note 36. The 1977 Act offered broad authority to consolidate inter- and intra-agency functions as well as “the abolition of all or a part of the functions of an agency, except” for any “enforcement function or statutory program.” 5 U.S.C. § 903. It also prohibited the President from certain actions such as creating, abolishing, or completely consolidating any executive departments. See 5 U.S.C. § 905 (1977); CRS 2001, supra note 25, at 6.
Even without statutory authority, the President may convene a task force or commission to study concerns within the executive branch and recommend changes to Congress.46
For instance, in 1993, President Bill Clinton “simply announced” the creation of a National Performance Review with “no statutory authority,” staff, funding, or “work plan.” CRS 2002, supra note 36, at 91. Vice President Al Gore shaped it into an interagency task force to make the executive branch leaner and more entrepreneurial. It eventually claimed to have ended “the era of big government,” “reduced the size of the federal civilian workforce by 426,200 positions,” and delivered “savings of more than $136 billion…by eliminating what wasn’t needed.” Id. at 96.
History provides several examples that met with varying degrees of success.47
See generally Mansfield, supra note 20; John W. Lederle, The Hoover Commission Reports on Federal Reorganization, 33 Marq. L. Rev. 89, 91 (1949); Harry S. Truman Library Inst., Truman and the Hoover Commission, 19 Whistle Stop (1991), https://www.trumanlibrary.org/hoover/commission.htm.
Conclusion
The President may be able to accomplish some reorganization goals through particular statutory delegations of authority, executive orders, department memos, management policies, and other devices. But to accomplish major reorganization objectives, he will need explicit statutory authority from Congress, a viable post-Chadha procedure to enact reorganization plans,48
See CRS 2001, supra note 25, at 8 (discussing H.R. 1314 and the Reorganization Act of 1984).
and a feasible implementation strategy.49
See GGD-81-57, Report of the U.S. General Accounting Office to the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, Implementation: The Missing Link in Planning Reorganizations (Mar. 20, 1981), http://www.gao.gov/assets/140/132455.pdf (advising that implementation plans will help to avoid past staffing, funding, office space, accounting systems, and other problems that distracted officials from their missions).
As for the details of any reorganization plan, exact limits on the President’s authority to reorganize the executive branch “can properly be analyzed only in light of the particular changes which are proposed” and the relevant constitutional provisions and statutory authority.50
1 Op. O.L.C. 248, 251.
—Paul J. Larkin, Jr., is Senior Legal Research Fellow in the Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, of the Institute for Constitutional Government, at The Heritage Foundation. John-Michael Seibler is a Legal Fellow in the Meese Center.
Appendix
Reorganization Act Amendments of 1984, Pub. L. 98-614, 98 Stat. 3192 (1984) (expired 1984) (codified as amended at 5 U.S.C. § 901 (1984))
5 U.S.C. § 903—Reorganization plans:
(a) Whenever the President, after investigation, finds that changes in the organization of agencies are necessary to carry out any policy set forth in section 901(a) of this title, he shall prepare a reorganization plan specifying the reorganizations he finds are necessary. Any plan may provide for—
(1) the transfer of the whole or a part of an agency, or of the whole or a part of the functions thereof, to the jurisdiction and control of another agency;
(2) the abolition of all or a part of the functions of an agency, except that no enforcement function or statutory program shall be abolished by the plan;
(3) the consolidation or coordination of the whole or a part of an agency, or of the whole or a part of the functions thereof, with the whole or a part of another agency or the functions thereof;
(4) the consolidation or coordination of part of an agency or the functions thereof with another part of the same agency or the functions thereof;
(5) the authorization of an officer to delegate any of his functions; or
(6) the abolition of the whole or a part of an agency which agency or part does not have, or on the taking effect of the reorganization plan will not have, any functions.
The President shall transmit the plan (bearing an identification number) to the Congress together with a declaration that, with respect to each reorganization included in the plan, he has found that the reorganization is necessary to carry out any policy set forth in section 901(a) of this title.
(b) The President shall have a reorganization plan delivered to both Houses on the same day and to each House while it is in session, except that no more than three plans may be pending before the Congress at one time. In his message transmitting a reorganization plan, the President shall specify with respect to each abolition of a function included in the plan the statutory authority for the exercise of the function. The message shall also estimate any reduction or increase in expenditures (itemized so far as practicable), and describe any improvements in management, delivery of Federal services, execution of the laws, and increases in efficiency of Government operations, which it is expected will be realized as a result of the reorganizations included in the plan. In addition, the President’s message shall include an implementation section which shall (1) describe in detail (A) the actions necessary or planned to complete the reorganization, (B) the anticipated nature and substance of any orders, directives, and other administrative and operational actions which are expected to be required for completing or implementing the reorganization, and (C) any preliminary actions which have been taken in the implementation process, and (2) contain a projected timetable for completion of the implementation process. The President shall also submit such further background or other information as the Congress may require for its consideration of the plan.
(c) Any time during the period of 60 calendar days of continuous session of Congress after the date on which the plan is transmitted to it, but before any resolution described in section 909 has been ordered reported in either House, the President may make amendments or modifications to the plan, consistent with sections 903–905 of this title, which modifications or revisions shall thereafter be treated as a part of the reorganization plan originally transmitted and shall not affect in any way the time limits otherwise provided for in this chapter. The President may withdraw the plan any time prior to the conclusion of 90 calendar days of continuous session of Congress following the date on which the plan is submitted to Congress.
5 U.S.C. § 908—Rules of Senate and House of Representatives on reorganization plans:
Sections 909 through 912 of this title are enacted by Congress—
(1) as an exercise of the rulemaking power of the Senate and the House of Representatives, respectively, and as such they are deemed a part of the rules of each House, respectively, but applicable only with respect to the procedure to be followed in that House in the case of resolutions with respect to any reorganization plans transmitted to Congress (in accordance with section 903(b) of this chapter [1]) on or before December 31, 1984; and they supersede other rules only to the extent that they are inconsistent therewith; and
(2) with full recognition of the constitutional right of either House to change the rules (so far as relating to the procedure of that House) at any time, in the same manner and to the same extent as in the case of any other rule of that House.
5 U.S.C. § 909—Terms of resolution:
For the purpose of sections 908 through 912 of this title, “resolution” means only a joint resolution of the Congress, the matter after the resolving clause of which is as follows: “That the Congress approves the reorganization plan numbered transmitted to the Congress by the President on , 19 .”, and includes such modifications and revisions as are submitted by the President under section 903(c) of this chapter. The blank spaces therein are to be filled appropriately. The term does not include a resolution which specifies more than one reorganization plan.
5 U.S.C. § 910—Introduction and reference of resolution:
(a) No later than the first day of session following the day on which a reorganization plan is transmitted to the House of Representatives and the Senate under section 903, a resolution, as defined in section 909, shall be introduced (by request) in the House by the chairman of the Government Operations Committee of the House, or by a Member or Members of the House designated by such chairman; and shall be introduced (by request) in the Senate by the chairman of the Governmental Affairs Committee of the Senate, or by a Member or Members of the Senate designated by such chairman.
(b) A resolution with respect to a reorganization plan shall be referred to the Committee on Governmental Affairs of the Senate and the Committee on Government Operations of the House (and all resolutions with respect to the same plan shall be referred to the same committee) by the President of the Senate or the Speaker of the House of Representatives, as the case may be. The committee shall make its recommendations to the House of Representatives or the Senate, respectively, within 75 calendar days of continuous session of Congress following the date of such resolution’s introduction.
5 U.S.C. § 911—Discharge of committee considering resolution:
If the committee to which is referred a resolution introduced pursuant to subsection (a) of section 910 (or, in the absence of such a resolution, the first resolution introduced with respect to the same reorganization plan) has not reported such resolution or identical resolution at the end of 75 calendar days of continuous session of Congress after its introduction, such committee shall be deemed to be discharged from further consideration of such resolution and such resolution shall be placed on the appropriate calendar of the House involved.
5 U.S.C. § 912—Procedure after report or discharge of committee; debate; vote on final passage:
(a) When the committee has reported, or has been deemed to be discharged (under section 911) from further consideration of, a resolution with respect to a reorganization plan, it is at any time thereafter in order (even though a previous motion to the same effect has been disagreed to) for any Member of the respective House to move to proceed to the consideration of the resolution. The motion is highly privileged and is not debatable. The motion shall not be subject to amendment, or to a motion to postpone, or a motion to proceed to the consideration of other business. A motion to reconsider the vote by which the motion is agreed to or disagreed to shall not be in order. If a motion to proceed to the consideration of the resolution is agreed to, the resolution shall remain the unfinished business of the respective House until disposed of.
(b) Debate on the resolution, and on all debatable motions and appeals in connection therewith, shall be limited to not more than ten hours, which shall be divided equally between individuals favoring and individuals opposing the resolution. A motion further to limit debate is in order and not debatable. An amendment to, or a motion to postpone, or a motion to proceed to the consideration of other business, or a motion to recommit the resolution is not in order. A motion to reconsider the vote by which the resolution is passed or rejected shall not be in order.
(c) Immediately following the conclusion of the debate on the resolution with respect to a reorganization plan, and a single quorum call at the conclusion of the debate if requested in accordance with the rules of the appropriate House, the vote on final passage of the resolution shall occur.
(d) Appeals from the decisions of the Chair relating to the application of the rules of the Senate or the House of Representatives, as the case may be, to the procedure relating to a resolution with respect to a reorganization plan shall be decided without debate.
(e) If, prior to the passage by one House of a resolution of that House, that House receives a resolution with respect to the same reorganization plan from the other House, then—
(1) the procedure in that House shall be the same as if no resolution had been received from the other House; but
(2) the vote on final passage shall be on the resolution of the other House.
Yours,
Dr Churchill
PS:
“Make certain to rest in reason and move in passion.” – Kahlil Gibran
PPS:
It’s up to us ordinary patriots to pray, protect and support our People’s President and to suffer if needed be in the barricades as we fight the Good Fight against the forces of darkness and evil.
Let’s all pray and stand together patriots because this is the time of grave danger:
Join me to do just that this September in the Heartland here:
Or find yourself starting from here and join up:
https://www.eventbrite.com/e/join-the-80th-anniversary-of-the-god-arms-covenant-conference-in-vantage-wa-freedom-ride-to-the-tickets-48188064799
God Bless the Patriots and God Bless America!
Now it’s time to wake up and take action.
Please keep in mind that:
“100% of the shots you dont take don’t go in.”
-Wayne Gretzki
Dr Churchill
Bleeding Edge 
Leave a Reply