|
|
Post by Billy John Davy on Jun 5, 2024 15:11:07 GMT -6
So the Florida trial is off the books for a while.
Id like to see her rule Special Council Unconstitutional; just to finally get the SC to address it.
|
|
|
|
Post by captbudman on Jun 5, 2024 15:22:25 GMT -6
So the Florida trial is off the books for a while. Id like to see her rule Special Council Unconstitutional; just to finally get the SC to address it. Here's the entire order she issued. Judge Cannon postponed 3 days of hearings on scope of prosecution team. This is when evidence of collusion between the Biden White House (general counsel, COS), NARA, and DOJ would be presented in court. Judge Cannon gave time for the Amicus Brief authors to make their own oral arguments, followed up by Defendants and Deranged Jack Smith over his unconstitutional appointment (Smith was not appointed by the President nor was he confirmed by the Senate). Like you, I hope she rules his appointment unconstitutional, as that will not only lead to the SCOTUS to review the matter, but would (should) end his persecution in Washington DC at the same time. The appeal of her ruling would go through the 11th Circuit, not the DC Court of Appeals that is loaded with Obama appointees before heading to the Supreme Court.  |
|
|
|
Post by Starbuck on Jun 5, 2024 18:15:39 GMT -6
Article II, Section 2, Clause 2:
He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
The language is unambiguous.
As is the sole relevant question.
Is there is an active statute, which was passed by congress, and signed by a president, which specifically empowers the AG to appoint a federal prosecutor without that prosecutor being confirmed?
If so, the appointment is fine.
If not, the appointment is clearly illegal.
|
|
|
|
Post by captbudman on Jun 5, 2024 18:55:13 GMT -6
Article II, Section 2, Clause 2: He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments. The language is unambiguous. As is the sole relevant question. Is there is an active statute, which was passed by congress, and signed by a president, which specifically empowers the AG to appoint a federal prosecutor without that prosecutor being confirmed? If so, the appointment is fine. If not, the appointment is clearly illegal. The Special Prosecutor law (or Independent Counsel law) originated in the outgrowth of Nixon and Watergate. Congress passed it in 1981 and renewed it multiple times. Democrats (who controlled Congress for the most part) loved the law when Republicans were targeted. After Bill Clinton became the target, they agreed to let the law expire. After the law expired, Janet Reno's DOJ created the Independent Counsel via regulation. The law funding the original Special Prosecutor law is still on the books -- only the office that Congress authorized the funds to be spent on doesn't exist. Hence, there is no office of "Special Prosecutor" created by Congress. The "special prosecutor" who investigated Biden was a US Asst Attorney General and approved by the Senate, giving him the power to prosecute people for crimes in the USA. Jack Smith is a private citizen, not nominated by the President, nor was he approved by the Senate (AG Garland just testified to that), so he's not authorized by US Law to prosecute Trump nor is his office authorized by law to receive tax dollars. Here's Ed Meese et al's Amici Curiae in support of Trump's Motion to Dismiss in the Florida Documents case. Ed Meese and/or the lawyers involved in this case will be making oral arguments supporting their theory. |
|
|
|
Post by Starbuck on Jun 5, 2024 19:55:27 GMT -6
Article II, Section 2, Clause 2: He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments. The language is unambiguous. As is the sole relevant question. Is there is an active statute, which was passed by congress, and signed by a president, which specifically empowers the AG to appoint a federal prosecutor without that prosecutor being confirmed? If so, the appointment is fine. If not, the appointment is clearly illegal. The Special Prosecutor law (or Independent Counsel law) originated in the outgrowth of Nixon and Watergate. Congress passed it in 1981 and renewed it multiple times. Democrats (who controlled Congress for the most part) loved the law when Republicans were targeted. After Bill Clinton became the target, they agreed to let the law expire. After the law expired, Janet Reno's DOJ created the Independent Counsel via regulation. The law funding the original Special Prosecutor law is still on the books -- only the office that Congress authorized the funds to be spent on doesn't exist. Hence, there is no office of "Special Prosecutor" created by Congress. The "special prosecutor" who investigated Biden was a US Asst Attorney General and approved by the Senate, giving him the power to prosecute people for crimes in the USA. Jack Smith is a private citizen, not nominated by the President, nor was he approved by the Senate (AG Garland just testified to that), so he's not authorized by US Law to prosecute Trump nor is his office authorized by law to receive tax dollars. Here's Ed Meese et al's Amici Curiae in support of Trump's Motion to Dismiss in the Florida Documents case. Ed Meese and/or the lawyers involved in this case will be making oral arguments supporting their theory. You are correct. And I am fully aware of the points you made. It is clear the prior authorization has long since expired and equally clear that Reno had no legal basis for writing her own regulation. The question is whether the attorney's for the administration can locate some other legislation which might appear to give the AG such authority. Which, from what I have read, is the argument they will be putting forth. I doubt they can make their case, but we shall see. |
|
|
|
Post by captbudman on Jun 5, 2024 20:14:23 GMT -6
The Special Prosecutor law (or Independent Counsel law) originated in the outgrowth of Nixon and Watergate. Congress passed it in 1981 and renewed it multiple times. Democrats (who controlled Congress for the most part) loved the law when Republicans were targeted. After Bill Clinton became the target, they agreed to let the law expire. After the law expired, Janet Reno's DOJ created the Independent Counsel via regulation. The law funding the original Special Prosecutor law is still on the books -- only the office that Congress authorized the funds to be spent on doesn't exist. Hence, there is no office of "Special Prosecutor" created by Congress. The "special prosecutor" who investigated Biden was a US Asst Attorney General and approved by the Senate, giving him the power to prosecute people for crimes in the USA. Jack Smith is a private citizen, not nominated by the President, nor was he approved by the Senate (AG Garland just testified to that), so he's not authorized by US Law to prosecute Trump nor is his office authorized by law to receive tax dollars. Here's Ed Meese et al's Amici Curiae in support of Trump's Motion to Dismiss in the Florida Documents case. Ed Meese and/or the lawyers involved in this case will be making oral arguments supporting their theory. You are correct. And I am fully aware of the points you made. It is clear the prior authorization has long since expired and equally clear that Reno had no legal basis for writing her own regulation. The question is whether the attorney's for the administration can locate some other legislation which might appear to give the AG such authority. Which, from what I have read, is the argument they will be putting forth. I doubt they can make their case, but we shall see. From what I recall of Jack Smith's brief to Judge Cannon (opposing Trump's motion to dismiss), they simply dismiss the fact that Reno created the office via regulation. The argument that he makes, which is what AG Garland has stated in testimony, is basically "well, we've been doing it this way since the 1990s and no one has complained before, so it must be legal." That type of argument flies in the face of the the face of Supreme Court ruling in their W. Virginia vs EPA when the SCOTUS struck down the EPA's regulations because the EPA tried to usurp Congress's authority. I'm looking forward to the arguments being presented, as I think Judge Cannon is likely to rule his appointment is unconstitutional. Between Cannon's hearings and the upcoming SCOTUS rulings, I suspect Jack Smith isn't going to be having a happy summer... |
|
|
|
Post by Starbuck on Jun 5, 2024 21:27:00 GMT -6
You are correct. And I am fully aware of the points you made. It is clear the prior authorization has long since expired and equally clear that Reno had no legal basis for writing her own regulation. The question is whether the attorney's for the administration can locate some other legislation which might appear to give the AG such authority. Which, from what I have read, is the argument they will be putting forth. I doubt they can make their case, but we shall see. From what I recall of Jack Smith's brief to Judge Cannon (opposing Trump's motion to dismiss), they simply dismiss the fact that Reno created the office via regulation. The argument that he makes, which is what AG Garland has stated in testimony, is basically "well, we've been doing it this way since the 1990s and no one has complained before, so it must be legal." That type of argument flies in the face of the the face of Supreme Court ruling in their W. Virginia vs EPA when the SCOTUS struck down the EPA's regulations because the EPA tried to usurp Congress's authority. I'm looking forward to the arguments being presented, as I think Judge Cannon is likely to rule his appointment is unconstitutional. Between Cannon's hearings and the upcoming SCOTUS rulings, I suspect Jack Smith isn't going to be having a happy summer... I believe they will, in part, argue that the federal code allows an AG to delegate his authority to someone else for a specific named purpose - such as when Sessions announced that he would not oversee the Russian collusion hoax and named Rosenstein to do so (which would also solve the issue of the role not having been funded by congress). Of course, Rosenstein had been appointed and confirmed as an Asst. Attorney General. In Jack Smith's case, he was not an employee of the justice department at the time Garland named him to investigate Trump. He had been appointed and confirmed as a U.S. attorney previously - but had resigned to enter the private sector. I do agree with you, based on what I have read, that his appointment is almost certainly unconstitutional. I also agree that Cannon could rule so. But I do not believe it is a slam dunk. |
|
|
|
Post by Billy John Davy on Jun 6, 2024 14:30:05 GMT -6
You are correct. And I am fully aware of the points you made. It is clear the prior authorization has long since expired and equally clear that Reno had no legal basis for writing her own regulation. The question is whether the attorney's for the administration can locate some other legislation which might appear to give the AG such authority. Which, from what I have read, is the argument they will be putting forth. I doubt they can make their case, but we shall see. From what I recall of Jack Smith's brief to Judge Cannon (opposing Trump's motion to dismiss), they simply dismiss the fact that Reno created the office via regulation. The argument that he makes, which is what AG Garland has stated in testimony, is basically "well, we've been doing it this way since the 1990s and no one has complained before, so it must be legal." and if/when she rules against Smif's appointment, commie dems will increase pressure on the Supreme Court not to "upend the legal community" |
|
