[Mariner]

This is nonsense.

The AG can hire a lawyer and have him work under the auspices of the DOJ without POTUS appointment or Congressional approval.

He’s simply a prosecutor.

[Mariner]

A prosecutor who is outside the confines of the “Special Counsel” statute.

[Qwapisking]

so then, you’ve read WITH comprehension all of the statutes associated with the Smith appointment and determined that his appointment is constitutional and lawful? Will you be personally informing the Supreme Court that you will be taking over as a chief justice and impose your remedy so they need not bother with any adjudication of their own?

[jpp113]

He was temporarily hired as a Special Prosecutor, a de facto US Attorney (USA’s must be appointed and confirmed by the Senate) with jurisdiction over the whole United States. USA’s only have jurisdiction in the State or portion of the State they are appointed to. However, only a Presidential appointee with Senate confirmation can have such sweeping National jurisdiction.

[bort]

This is nonsense.

The AG can hire a lawyer and have him work under the auspices of the DOJ without POTUS appointment or Congressional approval.

He’s simply a prosecutor.
————————————————-

Not that simple. Assistant U.S. Attorneys are authorized by Congress. There are also Special Assistant U.S. Attorneys that work at the direction and under the control oh U.S. Attorneys. Smith was named an Independent Counsel without being appointed y the President and with no authorization from Congress. This is a legitimate issue. Read the amicus brief.

[pepsi_junkie]

Per the statue he must be a private citizen but also once appointed has the powers and authority of a US Attorney. Yet US Attorney's are appointed by the President and approved by the Senate. Most (all?) special counsel's have been US Attorney's in the past so you can say they went through that process. Smith never has, he was never a US Attorney and now he is one without ever having been subjected to Senatorial review. Note: for a short duration he was an acting US Attorney (a few months) but never went before the Senate for confirmation, so one could argue he wielded the power without a Senate confirmation once before, how is this different?

Anyway the argument can be made that he isn't eligible to wield such power without Senate approving him for it at some point and that argument just has been made. But to get a court to overturn everything he's doing? That's far from a sure thing in my opinion.