This jackazz from Slate is saying that she misinterpreted a 1966 statute that supposedly allows an AG to appoint a Special Prosecutor, while completely ignoring the fact that the Constitution and her ruling would have invalidated that law as well,since that law is in violation of the appointments clause.
Slate is delusional
“However, this route would require more work, because Garland would not be able to pick up Smith’s case and simply swap himself in; the attorney general would need to file a new, separate indictment.”
Garland cannot use Smith’s “evidence” from the Mar-a-Lago raid/attack because ALL of that is fruit of the poisonous tree. He cannot use Smith’s Grand Jury because THAT is tainted. He cannot use illegally gained evidence from the raid’s on Trump’s lawyers either.
He cannot refile anywhere else. He literally has NO STANDING because the court ruled he is a non-entity.
He can try a direct appeal to the Supremes where he lost unanimously in the past, and lost once on this case already. This fool needs to go away. He has no standing because he is not a US Attorney and holds superior powers to them, with no Senate confirmation as required.
The jeopardy could be lifted by an appeals court.
Don't think this is over yet.
Does Jack Smith (if that’s really his name) have standing to appeal if he’s been deemed by the court to be illegitimate, or should Garlick himself file the appeal to defend his flawed appointement of Smith in the first place?
As I understand things, a special division of the DoJ is the only authorized prosecution entity for national security cases.
I think it is headed by a man named Jay Brant. He could refile.
Judge Cannon got to dump her workload significantly.
You still have the problem of the thugs jumbling docs around during the Mar a Lago raid.
Constitution? Law? They mean nothing to a criminal.