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 ...
Garland was too cute by half in that questioning. He referred to rules, not law. Then, he changed tact and talked briefly about DoJ employees becoming Special Counsels, which Jacko is not. My take away from Garland is he is smart enough to know he is caught on this. He danced around some internal DoJ rules which cannot Constitutionally create a new office by referring to assigning DoJ employees, which as stated Jacko is not.
One does not need a law degree to understand the very simple and straight forward logic involved. Yes, DoJ could take an existing employee who has been nominated and Senate approved, like a US Attorney and reassign that person to a position with the title of Special Counsel. The AG has no authority whatsoever to make private citizen Jacko the equivalent of a super-empowered US Attorney, That is illegal.
Therefore, Jacko be dismissed immediately. All fruits of his actions are illegal also because they are fruits from a poisoned tree, imho. Anything Jacko touched is poison fruit because he himself is illegally involved.
What should happen is Jacko immediately dismissed. All evidence he has collected is poison and cannot be used. All indictments, search warrants, filings of any kind are dismissed and forbidden from future use because they are illegally derived.
I think it’s all over for Smith, except his recurring paycheck will run until year end.
At twice what they are worth.
So what’s happening in Biden’s classified documents case? Asking for a friend.
Yes
Clarence Thomas asked the question - are you challenging the appointment - during the Colorado ballot Supreme Court hearing and the Trump lawyer was cagey, answering basically "Not at this time." That was my first clue that it was coming.
The best arguments are from Ed Meese:
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/24734848-meese-led-brief
Yeah, I recall the same logic from the public statement of Ed Meese and others.
In their closing, they said Jack Smith had as much authority to prosecute PDJT as Taylor Swift.
Big LOL!
BEFORE THE LACK OF CONFIRMATION:
HE WAS NOT A FEDERAL EMPLOYEE
Wow, that is impressive. It is dated March 25th... I sure hope Meese and the others signers are going to be at the hearing in June.
Didn’t Smith’s appointment by Garland by pass the Senate?
How convenient.
5.56mm
I think you meant legislative process. Departments and government agencies like DOJ write regulations. Some regulations exceed legislative authority and are often challenged. West Virginia won a case against the EPA for clean water regulations that exceeded legislative intent under the clean water act.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
AMEN agreeing with you in prayer!
I had assumed she’s taken a cue from the Supreme Court.
What I meant was that an agency cannot give itself powers through a regulatory action that were not granted to it by Congress. Even then there is a constitutional limit that Congress imposes, whether it poses a major questions doctrine - some powers Congress cannot give away.
It wasn’t just a dumb error. The fact that Jack Smith was not properly placed as SC, was pointed out at the time he took the job.
They didn’t care.
The democrat party is running roughshod over this country, ignoring laws and rules as they go. They must be stopped and held accountable.
Supreme Court rules Biden doesn’t have the authority to “forgive” student loans....he does it anyway. They don’t care.
did the Trump team delay raising this issue so any replacement would not be able to get things up and running before the election?
“did the Trump team delay raising this issue so any replacement would not be able to get things up and running before the election?”
It’s actually law professors and attorneys who are not a party to the case who are pushing the issue regarding the legality of Smith’s appointment. They have filed “friend of the court” briefs setting out case law and prior court decisions arguing that Smith’s appointment is not legal. They have a legitimate argument.
Some of those briefs were filed pretty early in the case, so it is the Court that’s setting the time schedule and not Trump at all.
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.