Politics

Kellyanne Conway’s Husband Just Obliterated Donald Trump’s Attacks on Robert Mueller

White House counselor Kellyanne Conway is one of the president’s most vocal surrogates. She loyally defends him and his often false and outlandish statements. Her husband, however, is not so ready to defend this president.

George Conway is a lawyer who works as a litigator for the high-end law firm Wachtell Lipton & Katz in New York. Early in Trump’s administration, Conway chose to remove himself from being considered for a high ranking Justice Department job.

Conway has also regularly taken to Twitter to criticize the President’s choices. He has challenged the president’s tweets about the travel ban on Twitter and his rants against Special Counsel Robert Mueller.

On Monday, Conway took his criticism to the next level, writing an over 3,000-word article which destroyed the president’s argument that Robert Mueller’s Special Counsel investigation is unconstitutional.

Conway used the president’s own tweets to structure his article. In his article, Conway explains how the Special Counsel has authority and how Special Counsel investigations have been supported by both courts and Congress.

He specifically refutes Northwestern Pritzker School of Law professor Steven Calabresi by name. Calabresi has argued that Mueller has crossed constitutional bounds. Conway points out that Calabresi “paints Mueller as a rogue prosecutor run amok: He bizarrely accuses Mueller of [leaking].” Conway continues, “In support of all these serious charges and other censorious claims, Calabresi cites nothing.”

Conway sums up his thoughts saying, “It isn’t very surprising to see the president tweet a meritless legal position, because, as a non-lawyer, he wouldn’t know the difference between a good one and a bad one.”

He continues, “And there is absolutely nothing wrong with lawyers making inventive and novel arguments on behalf of their clients, or on behalf of causes or people they support, if the arguments are well-grounded in law and fact, even if the arguments ultimately turn out to be wrong. But the ‘constitutional’ arguments made against the special counsel do not meet that standard and had little more rigor than the tweet that promoted them.”

Leave a Comment