Posted on 06/05/2024 11:35:05 AM PDT by Kevin in California
Take that Jack!
Good as far as it goes, but who decides if the evidence will be acted upon with real consequences?
She seems to be doing everything carefully by the book. Not overstepping or giving a reason for appeal, just deciding things against the prosecution.
Exactly like Mercan has been doing, but on the other side.
If he isn’t legally in the position he claims to be in, is that like “impersonating an officer”?
If I walked around pretending to be an officer of the court, I bet they’d arrest me.
She should be Trump’s first SCOTUS nominee
Whatever she decides will not be final - so it seems to me Cannon is simply lighting a fire under the butts of SCOTUS to bring this issue into the open, and make a definitive decision on this.
What exactly is the problem with the appointment?..................
If I went around saying I was Emperor because some watery tart lobbed a scimitar at me, they’d put me away!
Besides everything...... not much
He was not confirmed according to the law.
Thank God!
Exactly like Mercan has been doing
I think you left out a "not." Mercan didn't do things by the book. He cheated at every opportunity.
NO. Its not exactly what Merchan has been doing, just opposite. Merchan is stretching judicial norms to their breaking point, or manufacturing new ones, according to his political whim. Cannon is pulling back a reckless prosecution, forcing them to follow long-held standard judicial norms and procedures.
JerkOff Smith wasn’t a federal employee when we assigned SC. Apparently, congress has to approve I believe. Someone correct me if I’m wrong
Would this also hold true for the DC case he is charge of persecuting?
Yet Jack Smith has nationwide authority to pursue his prosecutions, and indeed has indicted Trump in two separate jurisdictions (D.C. and Florida), and was neither nominated by the president nor confirmed by the Senate. This, according to the amicus brief, violates basic constitutional requirements.
The former attorney general and his colleagues acknowledge “there are times when the appointment of a Special Counsel is appropriate.” But federal “statutes and the Constitution” only allow such appointments through “the use of existing United States Attorneys.” They cite the appointments as special counsels of Patrick Fitzgerald, Rod Rosenstein, John Huber, and John Durham, all of whom were Senate-confirmed U.S. Attorneys at the time of their appointments, as examples of valid and lawful appointments.
"But what the law and the Constitution “do not allow,” argues the brief, “is for the Attorney General to appoint a private citizen, who has never been confirmed by the Senate, as a substitute United States Attorney under the title ‘Special Counsel.’” “Under the Appointments Clause, inferior officers can be appointed by department heads only if Congress so directs by statute,” and there is no such statute giving Attorney General Merrick Garland such authority to appoint an “inferior officer” like the special counsel.
The Senate is supposed to confirm the appt. That never happened.
I don't think Biden appointed him.
He certainly wasn't confirmed by the Senate.
He's just a hitman picked by Merrick Garland. He's not really a Special Counsel at all.
Has a nice ring to it.
“If I walked around pretending to be an officer of the court, I bet they’d arrest me.”
**************
Without a doubt.
Only a Democrat could get away with it.
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.