Posted on 06/22/2024 7:22:43 AM PDT by libstripper
U.S. District Court Judge Aileen Cannon began hearing arguments Friday that U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland’s appointment of Jack Smith as special counsel is unconstitutional.
Cannon’s ruling potentially could invalidate Smith’s appointment, striking a critical blow to the Joe Biden Department of Justice’s case in Donald Trump’s classified documents case before Cannon, as well as DOJ’s case against Trump in Washington for alleged interference in the 2020 election.
Friday’s arguments in Cannon’s court featured three outside attorneys, with two arguing the Smith appointment is unconstitutional and a third insisting the court should uphold Garland’s appointment of Smith. Cannon’s rare decision to allow third party oral arguments is likely due to the untested legal questions before the court, including Smith’s appointment.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
Dawn right it is. Repubs never fight back and dems kill us. Ask the j6 political prisoner who left jail w stage 4 cancer and died. Dems will gleefully kill us. STOP giving them the benefit of the doubt. KILL THEM BACK.
Dawn = Damn
The Supremes have a chance — in this case and in a couple others — to reign in the federal bureaucracy and let people like Garland know that they cannot make laws all by themselves. Congress makes laws and civil servants do not. There are laws that define how a Special Counsel is created. Garland’s casual attempt to make a Special Counsel on a whim should not be allowed.
What’s also interesting is that Meese filed the amicus brief with SCOTUS in the case about the use of the Enron statute for the J6 prosecutions. I wonder if SCOTUS will rule on this in any manner before Cannon has to issue a ruling.
Jackboot Smith is an evil cretin. The End.
” Cannon pointedly asked the prosecution “Did the attorney general have any oversight role in seeking the indictment?”
James Pearce, attorney for the special counsel, declined to answer, citing policy. He resisted answering despite further probing by Cannon.”
This is the money quote that says it all. “Specia; counsel” is merely a fig leaf to cover the Biden justice department prosecuting his boss’ electoral political opponent in any number of cases preferably brought in forum friendly jurisdictions like DC to assure convictions. It went off the tracks when the docs case wound up in Florida...thank goodness.
For sure. Someone needs to clarify that there “policy.” It’s pretty convenient...
But I did hear Jonathan Turley say that this claim about Smith probably wouldn’t stand up and has been challenged and held up in precedents. Just the same, it may buy time. Who knows?
Now.... how about that DOJ peckerhead in New Yawk.
She has been very cautios to not act in a way that will provide grounds for appeal or removal from the case. THis will probably push that over the limit, and who knows what a higher court might decide? But in any case it seems likely that if they challenge her decision it will mean more delay, and that is to Trump’s advantage.
A cynic might say that’s been her gameplan all along - to run out the clock.
This challenge to Smiths authority isn’t a big piece either way. More important is chain of custody, defilement of evidence and authority of the president to declassify.
So Garland/DOJ directed someone who WAS an "officer of the United States" to resign to help a local/non-federal DA (Bragg) in his prosecution of Trump, and then appointed someone from outside the DOJ, who was NOT an "officer of the United States," (Smith) to lead the Federal prosecution of Trump.
That's just STRANGE.
Time to put Smitty’s glutus maximus in the unemployment line. The boy is worthless.
But it’s Trump.
Regardless of the scenario, precedents, Constitutionality and intuitively-obvious inherent unfairness, it will go down as another one in the ‘Lost’ column.
bump
“He resisted answering despite further probing by Cannon.”
That’d be contempt if things were reversed.
As a conversational question, and not advancing a theory, could the Supremes be waiting for Cannon to render a decision? If she does, and it leads to a dismissal of Smith and his case, the question of immunity for Trump may remain moot for now, and the Supremes can defer a decision for another time.
I think the point is that they they know this entire process is reversable BS But they would rather appoint some outside hack who has been overturned in the past by the SC than have someone competent like Coangelo damage his cred. I suspect they know Smith will inflict his damage but in the end will be overturned and they can then send him back to Brussels or the Hague to continue with his EU Extortions.
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.