It might be newsworthy when any prominent conservative lawyer publicly shoots down the argument put forward by President Trump and his allies that Robert Mueller's investigation is unconstitutional, but in this case the lawyer is married to White House counselor and strident Trump defender Kellyanne Conway. And, George Conway made his argument at Lawfare, a site started and edited by a friend of former FBI Director James Comey, under the headline: "The Terrible Arguments Against the Constitutionality of the Mueller Investigation."
Conway flags Trump's tweet that "the appointment of the Special Counsel is totally UNCONSTITUTIONAL!" but he doesn't argue with the president for pushing "a meritless legal position, because, as a non-lawyer, he wouldn't know the difference between a good one and a bad one." But he does argue extensively with the case made by Steven Calabresi, "a well-respected conservative legal scholar and co-founder of the Federalist Society." You can read Conway's constitutional argument at Lawfare, but he ends with this thought:
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. [Lawfare]
Conway's criticisms of Trump, mostly via tweets, raise eyebrows in the West Wing and "become chyrons on cable news" because of who he's married to, Politico reported, "but in conservative legal circles ... Conway is seen as rebuking the silence of his fellow Federalist Society members — the elite, conservative lawyers who have generally chosen to give Trump a pass on his breaches of long-cherished legal norms and traditions in exchange for the gift of Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch." You can read more about the Conways at Politico. Peter Weber