This judge is not a story
Anyone getting hyped as if it is a sign of trouble for Muller doesn't understand the court system. The only outlets hyping the Judge being counter to the prosecution's ability to prosecute is being fed another in a long line of false hopes that the investigation will be derailed. Remember those sucker stories?
The one before this one was: Here comes the Justice Dept. report that will expose the corruption of the FBI and the FISA Warrant process. You had posters on here proclaiming it would destroy Mueller and end the investigation. It was a dumb idea, but that is the low quality of false hope sucker stories continually pumped out to give the base hope that Trump will survive this.
If you are actually interested in Mueller's true status, then Chief Judge Beryl Howell who is presiding over the Roger Stone Grand Jury proceedings is the one that matters now.https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/04/politics/judge-beryl-howell-mueller-appointment-trump-subpoena/index.htmlhttps://www.cnn.com/2018/08/02/politics/mueller-subpoena-grand-jury/https://jonathanturley.org/2018/08/06/stone-cold-mueller-wins-key-legal-challenge-to-his-authority-as-special-counsel/comment-page-2/
If you want to actually educate yourself, read those. Here's a QUOTE from that last link:
The 92-page ruling by Chief Judge Beryl Howell gave Mueller a ringing victory that could be cited in other jurisdictions as persuasive authority. She ruled that the “scope of the Special Counsel’s power falls well within the boundaries the Constitution permits.”
Howell found Mueller to be an “inferior officer” given the supervision of deputy attorney general Rod Rosenstein. That is a much more solid constitutional footprint than the earlier Independent Counsels. “His appointment, without presidential appointment and senatorial confirmation, thus did not violate the Appointments Clause.”
On the first question, Howell wrote:
Edmond clarified that the first of these factors—whether an officer is “subject to removal by a higher . . . official”—is by far the most important to a Court’s determination of principal-inferior status, while reformulating that factor into a broader inquiry into whether an officer’s “work is directed and supervised at some level by others who were appointed by Presidential nomination with the advice and consent of the Senate.” 520 U.S. at 663. “Generally speaking,” Edmond explained, “the term ‘inferior officer’ connotes a relationship with some higher ranking officer or officers below the President: Whether one is an ‘inferior’ officer depends on whether he has a superior.” Id. at 662; accord Free Enter. Fund v. Pub. Co. Accounting Oversight Bd. (“PCAOB”), 561 U.S. 477, 510 (2010) (applying Edmond to conclude that officials were inferior rather than principal due to the agency’s “oversight authority” and “power to remove . . . at will”).11 Indeed, Edmond held that an officer with a presidentially-nominated, Senate-confirmed superior is inferior even if all three other Morrison factors—the magnitude of an officer’s duties,
jurisdiction, and tenure—weigh toward principal officer status. 520 U.S. at 661–62 (concluding that a Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals judge was an inferior officer despite that “the last two [Morrison factors—limited jurisdiction and tenure] do not hold . . . here” and that such judges “are charged with exercising significant authority on behalf of the United States”).The witness contends that the Special Counsel is a principal officer who was neither nominated by the President nor confirmed by the Senate, and thus was unconstitutionally appointed.
See Witness’s Mot. at 14. As explained in more detail below, however, the Attorney General has ample legal authority to “direct and supervis[e]” the Special Counsel, which makes the Special Counsel an inferior officer. Edmond, 520 U.S. at 663. To the extent relevant, theremaining three Morrison factors each weigh in favor of inferior officer status. Nor does thebreadth of the authority the Special Counsel wields negate his inferior officer status. The witness’s argument that the Special Counsel is a principal officer thus does not pass muster.
Here is the opinion: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1nRQqOs7kNxH2oabC5tIWShkYS6hBrgow/view
This opinion is the precedent setting ruling that matters now, not the white noise BS around the Manafort trial.
I've said for a long time now that many precedents will be set in this investigation and it is unlikely any will be in Trump's favor. The reason for this is no sitting President has ever sat for a trial outside of congressional impeachment proceedings.
Unless the Democrats take back both houses in November and directly impeach Trump, I'm also saying you can expect Mueller to indict Trump and additional new precedents will be set that should allow Trump to go on trial as a sitting president.