Breaking! Ed Meese’s amicus brief has been accepted in the Trump appeal (challenging Smith’s standing), and the court has directed the parties to be prepared to argue the issues raised by the Amicus Brief

Foia Fan on Twitter X ^ | January 2, 2024 | FoiaFan

[Macho MAGA Man]

FoiaFan🇮🇱 @15poundstogo

Cool. Ed Meese’s amicus brief has been accepted in the Trump appeal (challenging Smith’s standing), and the court has directed the parties to be prepared to argue the issues raised by the amici.

[Macho MAGA Man]

Okay a question. What’s the difference between Barr appointing John Durham vs Garland appointing Jack Smith?

[Repeal The 17th]

I have received two replies as to which court this was.
One was The DC court of Appeals, the other was The Supreme Court.

[Go Gordon]

Durham was a US Attorney.

[TheWriterTX]

Durham was already a federal attorney, properly appointed, and under the purview of the Justice Dept.; Jack Smith was an assistant attorney, never properly appointed, and operating independent of the Justice Dept.

Not permissible by law. Extra-judicial appointments must be approved by Congress. He was operating outside his authority.

[TennesseeProfessor]

Is it really so difficult to click through a few links?

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cadc.40415/gov.uscourts.cadc.40415.1208584119.0_1.pdf

US Court of Appeals for DC Circuit

[Chode]

[Deaf Smith]

>>What’s the difference…Barr appointing John Durham…

Under law, Barr was authorizing investigation (CYA) of his subordinates FIB.

[norwaypinesavage]

"Biden will just appoint Smith (and then it’s legal). "

Biden doesn't have the authority. It must be approved by congress. .,p .

[Repeal The 17th]

Yes, it should not be necessary.

[Deaf Smith]

>>It must be approved by congress

**Approved by Senate.

[hecticskeptic]

The Conclusions are even written in plain understandable English....
~~~~~~~~~~~~
“Not properly clothed in the authority of the federal government, Smith is a modern example of the naked emperor. Illegally appointed, he has no more authority to represent the United States in this Court, or in the underlying prosecution, than Tom Brady, Warren Buffett, or Beyoncé. That fact is sufficient to sink Smith’s prosecution of Defendant, and the Court should vacate the decision below and order that the prosecution be dismissed. We express no views on the substantive issues addressed in the parties’ briefs.”

[SunkenCiv]

• Breaking! DOJ Recommends JUST 6 MONTHS PRISON TIME for Ray Epps -- Because He "Cooperated with the FBI and Congress!" [01/02/2024]

  ---

• Analysis: Legal Scholar Asserts U.S. Constitution Disqualifies Nikki Haley from Presidential or Vice-Presidential Candidacy [01/02/2024]
• After initially bowing out, John Curtis enters race for U.S. Senate (Mitt Romney II) [01/02/2024]

  ---

• One Massive National Crisis That Is Providing Lots Of Fuel For Another Massive National Crisis [01/02/2024]
• Americans are right to feel miserable about the economy, Reagan economist Art Laffer says [01/02/2024]
• Joe Biden Claims His 'Favorite Memory' of 2023 Is the Economy Supposedly Improving [01/02/2024]

  ---

• Epstein Bombshell: Forget the Client List, the FBI is Hiding Thousands of Video Tapes Used to Blackmail Epstein's Twisted Clients [01/02/2024]
• Row over rape definition hampers EU violence directive [01/02/2024]
• Home Secretary Apologises for 'Date Rape' Joke [01/02/2024]
• Depardieu Affair: French Cultural World Divided as Artists Sign Counter-Petition. [01/02/2024]

[cableguymn]

I’d argue the Reagan administration was the last one tied to the Constitution.

Although as Reagan admitted. amnasty was a bad idea.

[mouske]

“Biden doesn’t have the authority. It must be approved by congress.”

Biden could nominate. Majority vote in senate required to complete appointment. No approval by house is required.

[Macho MAGA Man]

Okay, thanks 👍

[stylin19a]

that's a good question but not relevant in this particular brief.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-624/293864/20231220140217967_US%20v.%20Trump%20amicus%20final.pdf

Meese's brief is narrow in focus: "This Court should reject Mr. Smith’s request for certiorari before judgment for the simple reason that he lacks authority to ask for it. Nor does he have authority to conduct the underlying prosecution. Those actions can be taken only by persons properly appointed as federal officers to properly created federal offices. Neither Smith nor the position of Special Counsel under which he purportedly acts meets those criteria."

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/28/600.1

§ 600.1 Grounds for appointing a Special Counsel.
The Attorney General, or in cases in which the Attorney General is recused, the Acting Attorney General, will appoint a Special Counsel when he or she determines that criminal investigation of a person or matter is warranted and—

(a) That investigation or prosecution of that person or matter by a United States Attorney's Office or litigating Division of the Department of Justice would present a conflict of interest for the Department or other extraordinary circumstances; and

(b) That under the circumstances, it would be in the public interest to appoint an outside Special Counsel to assume responsibility for the matter.

Danforth, Mueller, Smith, Hur, Weiss were not part of DOJ when appointed.
Fitzgerald, and Durham were part of the DOJ.

Generally, they go outside the FEDs to get the SC to avoid an appearance of a conflict of interest...part (b) of the law.

This issue is about Smith not being eligible under statutes Garland used to justify Smith's appointment and not having any authority to request certiorari.

I'm guessing SCOTUS keeps the SC law but adioses the certiorari. ?

[G Larry]

"XFKAT"

We can't keep spelling out "X Formerly Known As Twitter"!

[chiller]

DC appeals surprises, but a lost appeal there means more delays before the SC gets it.

[Candor7]

INCOMING !!!!!!!!

[PGR88]

So then Biden will just appoint Smith (and then it’s legal).

More than that. Meese's argument is that the DOJ is creating the office of "special counsel" out of nothing - that nothing gives Garland and the DOJ power to appoint someone outside the government, to do such work. To do so, they must follow the "appointments clause" of the Constitution, which means appointment by the President, AND confirmation by Senate. He cites investigations by Fitzgerald of the Plame Affair, and Huber and Durham in the "Russia-gate" Affair, who WERE approved by the Senate. Meese points out that Mueller was not approved by the Senate, so had no right to conduct an investigation.

His argument is here: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cadc.40415/gov.uscourts.cadc.40415.1208584119.0_1.pdf