If Kellyanne Conway has to go on TV to defend her boss' argument that the Robert Mueller appointment is unconstitutional, she might well be presented with a detailed argument to the contrary from her husband. George Conway, who the Washington Post notes is a respected conservative attorney, has written a 3,500-word piece in the Lawfare blog whose headline pretty much sums things up: "The Terrible Arguments Against the Constitutionality of the Mueller Investigation." Conway gives the president a bit of a pass for his June 4 tweet complaining that the Mueller appointment "is totally UNCONSTITUTIONAL!”" Yes, it's a "meritless legal position," writes Conway, but Trump is not a lawyer and thus "wouldn’t know the difference between a good one and a bad one." He's less forgiving of attorneys who make that case.
"The ‘constitutional’ arguments made against the special counsel … have little more rigor than the tweet that promoted them,” Conway writes. “Such a lack of rigor, sadly, has been a disturbing trend in much of the politically charged public discourse about the law lately, and one that lawyers—regardless of their politics—owe a duty to abjure." Conway suspects Trump's opinion is based on an essay by legal scholar Steven Calabresi in the Wall Street Journal, and Conway picks apart Calabresi's rationale that Mueller has exceeded his authority. “Unfortunately for the president,” Conway writes, “these writings are no more correct than the spelling in his original tweet.” (Trump initially spelled "counsel" as "councel.") Read the full essay here. CNN has more background on Conway and how he has "slyly" promoted this position for weeks on Twitter. (Read more Kellyanne Conway stories.)