Skip to comments.
Breaking! Ed Meese’s amicus brief has been accepted in the Trump appeal (challenging Smith’s standing), and the court has directed the parties to be prepared to argue the issues raised by the Amicus Brief
Foia Fan on Twitter X ^
| January 2, 2024
| FoiaFan
Posted on 01/02/2024 5:42:44 PM PST by Macho MAGA Man
FoiaFan🇮🇱 @15poundstogo
Cool. Ed Meese’s amicus brief has been accepted in the Trump appeal (challenging Smith’s standing), and the court has directed the parties to be prepared to argue the issues raised by the amici.
(Excerpt) Read more at twitter.com ...
TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: doj; edmeese; fanniwillis; jacksmith; judgechutkan; lawfare; merrickgarland; specialcounsel; trump; trumppersecution; uscourtofappeals
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-55 next last
To: Gahanna Bob
Okay a question. What’s the difference between Barr appointing John Durham vs Garland appointing Jack Smith?
21
posted on
01/02/2024 6:22:24 PM PST
by
Macho MAGA Man
(The last two weren't balloons. One was a cylindrical objects Trump is being given the Alex Jones tr)
To: Baldwin; roving
I have received two replies as to which court this was.
One was The DC court of Appeals, the other was The Supreme Court.
22
posted on
01/02/2024 6:22:42 PM PST
by
Repeal The 17th
(Get out of the matrix and get a real life.'s orbit.)
To: Macho MAGA Man
Durham was a US Attorney.
To: Macho MAGA Man
Durham was already a federal attorney, properly appointed, and under the purview of the Justice Dept.; Jack Smith was an assistant attorney, never properly appointed, and operating independent of the Justice Dept.
Not permissible by law. Extra-judicial appointments must be approved by Congress. He was operating outside his authority.
To: Repeal The 17th
To: Macho MAGA Man
26
posted on
01/02/2024 6:37:26 PM PST
by
Chode
(there is no fall back position, there's no rally point, there is no LZ... we're on our own. #FJB)
To: Macho MAGA Man
>>What’s the difference…Barr appointing John Durham…
Under law, Barr was authorizing investigation (CYA) of his subordinates FIB.
27
posted on
01/02/2024 6:37:27 PM PST
by
Deaf Smith
(When a Texan takes his chances, chances will be taken that's for sure.)
To: for-q-clinton
"Biden will just appoint Smith (and then it’s legal). "Biden doesn't have the authority. It must be approved by congress. .,p .
28
posted on
01/02/2024 6:37:59 PM PST
by
norwaypinesavage
(The power of the press is not in what it includes, rather, it's in that which is omitted.)
To: TennesseeProfessor
Yes, it should not be necessary.
29
posted on
01/02/2024 6:39:52 PM PST
by
Repeal The 17th
(Get out of the matrix and get a real life.'s orbit.)
To: norwaypinesavage
>>It must be approved by congress
**Approved by Senate.
30
posted on
01/02/2024 6:41:50 PM PST
by
Deaf Smith
(When a Texan takes his chances, chances will be taken that's for sure.)
To: Macho MAGA Man
The Conclusions are even written in plain understandable English....
~~~~~~~~~~~~
“Not properly clothed in the authority of the federal government, Smith is a modern example of the naked emperor. Illegally appointed, he has no more authority to represent the United States in this Court, or in the underlying prosecution, than Tom Brady, Warren Buffett, or Beyoncé. That fact is sufficient to sink Smith’s prosecution of Defendant, and the Court should vacate the decision below and order that the prosecution be dismissed. We express no views on the substantive issues addressed in the parties’ briefs.”
31
posted on
01/02/2024 6:42:14 PM PST
by
hecticskeptic
(Q. What’s the difference between a conspiracy theory and the truth? A. About 6 months....)
To: AdmSmith; AnonymousConservative; Arthur Wildfire! March; Berosus; Bockscar; BraveMan; cardinal4; ...
32
posted on
01/02/2024 6:51:27 PM PST
by
SunkenCiv
(Putin should skip ahead to where he kills himself in the bunker.)
To: jonrick46
I’d argue the Reagan administration was the last one tied to the Constitution.
Although as Reagan admitted. amnasty was a bad idea.
To: norwaypinesavage
“Biden doesn’t have the authority. It must be approved by congress.”
Biden could nominate. Majority vote in senate required to complete appointment. No approval by house is required.
34
posted on
01/02/2024 7:22:25 PM PST
by
mouske
To: TheWriterTX
35
posted on
01/02/2024 7:41:38 PM PST
by
Macho MAGA Man
(The last two weren't balloons. One was a cylindrical objects Trump is being given the Alex Jones tr)
To: Macho MAGA Man
that's a good question but not relevant in this particular brief.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-624/293864/20231220140217967_US%20v.%20Trump%20amicus%20final.pdf Meese's brief is narrow in focus:
"This Court should reject Mr. Smith’s request for certiorari before judgment for the simple reason that he lacks authority to ask for it. Nor does he have authority to conduct the underlying prosecution. Those actions can be taken only by persons properly appointed as federal officers to properly created federal offices. Neither Smith nor the position of Special Counsel under which he purportedly acts meets those criteria."https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/28/600.1§ 600.1 Grounds for appointing a Special Counsel.
The Attorney General, or in cases in which the Attorney General is recused, the Acting Attorney General, will appoint a Special Counsel when he or she determines that criminal investigation of a person or matter is warranted and—
(a) That investigation or prosecution of that person or matter by a United States Attorney's Office or litigating Division of the Department of Justice would present a conflict of interest for the Department or other extraordinary circumstances; and
(b) That under the circumstances, it would be in the public interest to appoint an outside Special Counsel to assume responsibility for the matter. Danforth, Mueller, Smith, Hur, Weiss were not part of DOJ when appointed.
Fitzgerald, and Durham were part of the DOJ.
Generally, they go outside the FEDs to get the SC to avoid an appearance of a conflict of interest...part (b) of the law.
This issue is about Smith not being eligible under statutes Garland used to justify Smith's appointment and not having any authority to request certiorari.
I'm guessing SCOTUS keeps the SC law but adioses the certiorari. ?
36
posted on
01/02/2024 8:04:24 PM PST
by
stylin19a
(If I offer to wash your back in the shower, just yes\no. Not "Who are you-how did you get in here"?)
To: Macho MAGA Man
"XFKAT"
We can't keep spelling out "X Formerly Known As Twitter"!
37
posted on
01/02/2024 8:36:30 PM PST
by
G Larry
("XFKAT" We can't keep spelling out "X Formerly Known As Twitter"!)
To: Baldwin
DC appeals surprises, but a lost appeal there means more delays before the SC gets it.
38
posted on
01/02/2024 9:01:11 PM PST
by
chiller
(Davey Crockett said: "Be sure you're right. Then go ahead'. I'll go ahead.)
To: Macho MAGA Man
INCOMING !!!!!!!!
39
posted on
01/02/2024 9:15:34 PM PST
by
Candor7
(Ask not for whom Trump Trolls,He trolls for thee!)<img src="" width=500</img>,<a href="">tag</a>)
To: for-q-clinton; Macho MAGA Man; vrwc1
So then Biden will just appoint Smith (and then it’s legal). More than that. Meese's argument is that the DOJ is creating the office of "special counsel" out of nothing - that nothing gives Garland and the DOJ power to appoint someone outside the government, to do such work. To do so, they must follow the "appointments clause" of the Constitution, which means appointment by the President, AND confirmation by Senate. He cites investigations by Fitzgerald of the Plame Affair, and Huber and Durham in the "Russia-gate" Affair, who WERE approved by the Senate. Meese points out that Mueller was not approved by the Senate, so had no right to conduct an investigation.
His argument is here: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cadc.40415/gov.uscourts.cadc.40415.1208584119.0_1.pdf
40
posted on
01/02/2024 9:45:25 PM PST
by
PGR88
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-55 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson