Is Jack Smith's Appointment Illegal?

DeClassified ^ | 6/18/24 | Julie Kelly

[cuz1961]

well,,, if johnson had done what he promised....imsurejack wouldnt work for free.... \/ the left wouldnt be all... .

[cuz1961]

[OldGoatCPO]

Not being an attorney, have observations and questions: 1. Seems to me that regardless of how Cannon rules this goes to appeal. 2. Seems to me, SCOTUS wants this case in their court. At least some justices do. This “regulation” created by Reno may be something they have hoped to eventually see before SCOTUS. Since it has never been challenged to SCOTUS they have had to sit on the sideline and watch what may be an unconstitutional rule be abused. 3. Seems to me even if she rules for Smith, it goes to appeal and would still delay the DC Jan 6th trial. You cannot try someone if it turns out the prosecutor who brought the case is not legally appointed. If I read this correctly the J6 case would be tossed if SCOTUS rules Smith did not have the power to bring it,

First question I have, could the Chevron case impact Smith's appointment. Reno made a regulation or rule that was not within her authority to create. Since she appears to have created this regulation out of whole cloth without Senate approval.

If Justice Thomas inserts a comment regarding the brief from Messe into the Immunity case, questioning the constitutionality of the Reno rule, could that be used by Cannon in this case?

Which makes me ask, is Cannon a whole lot smarter than people think by scheduling this hearing to coincide with the findings of cases from SCOTUS that could impact her case? She has to know however she rules there will be an appeal, unless she has rulings from SCOTUS that favor her position.

This question is off topic but germane to this case. Presidents do not have immunity. The constitution lays out the process by which a President who has committed a crime while in office is punished. It is called impeachment. Trump was impeached for J6, but not convicted. After the Senate failed to impeach Trump, how is waiting three years, then charging him with basically the same crimes not a form of double jeopardy? Could SCOTUS in a narrow ruling state in this case the proper method to address Presidential immunity was taken against Trump and failed, therefore courts cannot come back once a President is out of office and revisit those same charges?

If SCOTUS rules against Presidential immunity could that comeback to haunt the RAT congress critters, Fed agents and prosecutors? If the holder of the highest office in the land does not have immunity, then no federal office holder does. Am I wrong on that?

[cuz1961]

i knew horshak was a maroon dem.

/-)

[Roadrunner383]

Clarence Thomas asked about this during arguments before the SCOTUS about immunity. He also asked why Trump’s lawyers hadn’t mentioned it in arugments. The fact Trump’s lawyers hadn’t brought it up made them look kind of dumb.

[Texas Fossil]

“Jack Smith” or whatever his name is,

“Jack A(??) Smith” or whatever his name is,

Hee_Haww! Hee_Haww! Hee_Haww!

[The_Media_never_lie]

Or, a political justice system.

[Bookshelf]

Fischer and Putzi? You’ve got to be kidding. There is only one Putzi: https://www.harvardmagazine.com/2004/09/controversial-reunioner-html
Controversial Reunioner | Harvard Magazine
WEBThe urbane Ernst “Putzi” Hanfstaengl ‘09 was Hitler’s crony and foreign press chief during the Führer’s ascendancy, and played the piano for him soothingly.

[Starboard]

Excellent post, especially your question re Cannon and SCOTUS rulings.

[usconservative]

A good article here on whether or not the appointment of Jack Smith as Special Counsel is legal.

It's NOT legal. No Congressional approval was sought nor given.

End of story. This should be an open and shut case for the good Judge.

[frogjerk]

Presidents do not have immunity. The constitution lays out the process by which a President who has committed a crime while in office is punished. It is called impeachment. Trump was impeached for J6, but not convicted.

I disagree with your immunity claim. In order for a chief executive to operate while chief executive they require immunity. Because there is process where he can be charged, convicted and removed doesn't change the fact the chief executive has immunity. Otherwise he could be charged and convicted in any state or county or municipal court in the country and tied up from performing his duties. It would be the easiest method for the opposition party to make them impotent.

My feeling, theory, or understanding, or whatever you want to call it is that The President of the United States is that the founders set up the chief executive of the United State just like a King except for the impeachment, conviction, and removal clauses and other limitations in the US Constitution. Just like congressman and senators have immunity when going to the Capitol to vote (Their single most important job as elected by the people and the states) and cannot be arrested or even detained at that time the president of the United States has immunity, limited in some explicit cases, from prosecution. Why, because the duly elected chief executive elected by the people would not be able to lead effectively without a broad immunity save checks and balances.

[OldGoatCPO]

I am not saying he does not have immunity the Constitution says it. Suggest you read Section 4 of Article 2 of the Constitution. If the President commits high crimes and misdemeanors, the remedy is impeachment therefore he is not immune to prosecution while in office. Trump was impeached over J6, the impeachment trial ended without his removal from office. He was charged, tried and not removed, my question is would trying him again 3 years later constitute double jeopardy. Would it even be legal to wait for him to leave office before charging him. I guess SCOTUS will decide that. But as far as my claim he does not have total immunity the Constitution agrees with me.

[tsomer]

I thought I’d pipe up with another suggestion as to why the framers intended that presidents enjoy immunity against prosecution after they leave office:
so that they will leave.