Posted on 06/05/2024 12:27:46 PM PDT by CFW
Judge Aileen M. Cannon who is overseeing former President Trump’s criminal case over allegedly mishandling classified documents after his term in the White House set a hearing for June 21 over the legality of special counsel Jack Smith’s appointment.
[snip]
Cannon said legal scholars would be able to appear on June 21 to present their arguments over Trump's legal team's motion to dismiss the case.
(Excerpt) Read more at justthenews.com ...
He wasn’t confirmed by Congress, as required.
Case closed.
Thomas Massie managed to pull it out of Merrick Garland yesterday. Funny how now today a hearing is being set. Almost like it was planned. 🤔
PRAYERS FOR THE JUDGE!
Good. Now if not valid, what next? Case dismissed or sent to DOJ to fix? What if Garland just appoint any DOJ attorney?
He wasn't appointed by the President, nor confirmed by the Senate.
There is also no existing "special counsel" law passed by Congress. The Nixon-era one expired in 1999, and Janet Reno simply replaced it with an internal DOJ "guideline"
All other DOJ Federal Attorneys/Prosecutors are appointed and confirmed by the Senate, making them "legal agents" of the US Govt.
So what does that make Jack Smith?
A clown-actor in a Democrat-produced farce.
If it was “planned”, I say what took so long!
The Special Counsel statute is clear: when a non-DOJ prosecutor is appointed, it MUST be done by nomination by the AG [or superior officer including the Prez] and confirmation by the Senate. Neither was done.
PDJT couldn’t staff his cabinet because the RINOs and Dems refused hearings and refused to adjourn to allow recess appointments. Did he appoint anyway? Y’know, like a dictator would? Nope. Only the dems do that.
If it was “planned”, I say what took so long!
By design by the good guys. The drip, drip, drip of Gonorrhoea has infected these treasonous cretins and been exposed for all to see.
In addition to what you wrote, Jack Smith isn’t a US Attorney. If he was, this wouldn’t be an issue. I hope we win on this technicality, which was just a dumb error on the part of the Democrats/communists.
Fruit of the poisoned tree. Even the grand jury indictment should be tossed. It was a DC grand jury for a Florida case. Odd.
I don’t think the DOJ wants to start all over on this. Plus, it should put the other Smith cases in the crapper.
EC
It’s more than a technicality. It is wrapped up in the out of control administrative state. An agency cannot just give itself powers not granted by Congress through a regulatory action.
Actually the special prosecutor has to be nominated by the Prez and confirmed by the senate. This illegal appointment has been out there for all to see since the get go. If you’re wondering why nobody questioned it til now ask Donald J Trump. He’s running the show.
Its just like 3.5 years later Washington DC is still a ghost town but nobody ever asks why. 😏
Not to be petty - but its not a "technicality," not.even.close
The Constitution has a clear definition of "agents" of the Federal Gov't and their appointment process. All other Gov't attornies follow this - Why not Merrick Garland with Jack Smith? Because the Senate would never had agreed and his corrupt headline-generating machine would have stalled from the start. Its a huge Constitutional issue.
It literally is NO different from Trump in 2017, appointing me, a private citizen, to go and prosecute Barack Obama, except that DOJ is paying Smith's expenses.
Everyone is DC is so busy sucking-up to the collected power of the unelected deep-state and America's KGB (the DOJ/FBI) it took months for anyone (Ed Meese finally) to even ask this question.
1. All officers of the United States, principal and inferior, must hold permanent or continuing positions. Prior to Mr. Smith's "appointment" as Special Counsel, he was not already holding another "officer of the United States" position. Mr. Smith's position as Special Counsel was not a secondment or transfer from some other post in the government. Unlike other United States Attorneys who have been appointed as special counsels, Mr. Smith was not already a senate-confirmed principal "officer of the United States" to which new duties were merely added.
2. More importantly, the Special Counsel's position is not a permanent or continuing position. It is a temporary or ad hoc position. When that single "case" is over, the Special Counsel's position ceases-as such, the Special Counsel's position cannot be characterized as a permanent or continuing one. Under Lucia v. SEC and other Supreme Court binding precedent, such a temporary or ad hoc position cannot be characterized either as a principal officer of the United States or as an inferior officer of the United States. Such a temporary or ad hoc position is, at most, a mere employee of the United States. See Buckley, 424 U.S. at 126 n.162. And as, at most, a mere employee of the United States, such a position cannot be endowed with the powers that the Special Counsel exercises. The Special Counsel only argues that his position is properly characterized as an inferior officer of the United States. However, post-Lucia, the Special Counsel's legal position is a non-starter.
3. Finally, the primary purpose of the Special Counsel regulations, which were modeled on the Independent Counsel statute, was to avoid conflicts of interest when the Executive Branch investigates itself. But here, Attorney General Garland appointed Mr. Smith not to investigate someone connected to the United States Department of Justice, the President, or the Biden Administration—as was the case with Hunter Biden—but to investigate the Biden Administration's leading political opponent. Mr. Smith's appointment was not made to eliminate any internal conflict of interest. Quite the opposite. Mr. Smith was appointed to shield the Attorney General, the Department of Justice, the President, and the Biden administration, from the political accountability associated with investigating and prosecuting a political rival. These dynamics further demonstrate why Smith's appointment is inconsistent with the separation of powers and political accountability. The appointment of a special counsel in the face of internal conflicts makes the government more accountable to the American people. The appointment of a special counsel to investigate and prosecute a political rival makes the government less accountable to the American people.
Garland spoke to this when questioned by Massie, pooh-poohing the whole thing. i got confused by his answers so look forard to hearing Trump’s legal arguments.
*forward
The CORRUPT DOJ doesn't even PRETEND to be the purveyor of blind justice and truth anymore.
People brought this up when he was “appointed,” but nothing ever came of it at the time.
Fingers crossed.
There’s an opportunity here.
If the DOJ made a few hundred thousand homeless people into Special Counsels, we could put a dent in the poverty problem.
Is that for the hearing she scheduled for June 21?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.