Letitia James receives SUBPOENA from the DOJ for violating President Trumps' civil rights.

[Marener]

The AG’s authority to appoint an inferior officer as a special attorney comes from:
Constitution: Appointments Clause
Statutes: Mainly 28 U.S.C. §§ 509, 515, 516, and 533
Regulations: 28 C.F.R. Part 600 for special counsels
Case law: Morrison v. Olson, Edmond v. United States confirming they’re inferior officers.

In order to appoint an inferior officer, Congress needs to have given the AG authority to do so.

None of these statutes create an office for which the AG can place an inferior officer.

 

[Marener]

I backed up my claim.

You’ve posted no statutory authority. So no. Your claim is not backed up.

Nor have you explained why the AI search result outweighed Cannon’s decision.

 

[Blisterfinger]

He's
Trolling
You

He's trolling himself. I have much more positive feedback then he does. I have beaten him he just cannot get it through his thick autistic skull.

 

[Blisterfinger]

order to appoint an inferior officer, Congress needs to have given the AG authority to do so.

Not true, stop lying.

 

[Marener]

He's trolling himself. I have much more positive feedback than he does. I have beaten him he just cannot get it through his thick autistic skull.

You don’t understand what trolling means. I’m just trying to get you to actually back up your statements.

Trolling is resorting to petty insults like calling someone autistic.

 

[Blisterfinger]

You’ve posted no statutory authority. So no. Your claim is not backed up.

Nor have you explained why the AI search result outweighed Cannon’s decision.

Apples and oranges. Your specious argument again! Already proven incorrect. I have proven you wrong many many times now. How severe is your autism?

 

[Marener]

Not true, stop lying.

Constitution says so. It’s in the appointments clause.

It says:
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.

It says clearly that Congress has to pass a law to vest the appointment of an inferior officer to the AG.

 

[Marener]

Apples and oranges. Your specious argument again!

So you claim, but you refuse to back that up too.

 

[Blisterfinger]

You don’t understand what trolling means. I’m just trying to get you to actually back up your statements.

Trolling is resorting to petty insults like calling someone autistic.

What about the appointments clause don't you understand??
My insults are result of your thick head not believing that I have proven my point, over and over, which I have dumbass.

 

[Blisterfinger]

So you claim, but you refuse to back that up too.

Backed up, much better than you have done. Show me specifically where it says that AG cannot appoint a special attorney.

 

[Marener]

Backed up, much better than you have done. Show me specifically where it says that AG cannot appoint a special attorney.

The AG can’t appoint a special attorney unless Congress authorizes them to do so.

Since we have no authorization in law, they can’t.

 

[Marener]

Backed up, much better than you have done

Nope. You just claim they’re different but have never said what makes them different.

They’re both inferior officers. They operate under supervision of the AG and had the authority to conduct court proceedings.

 

[Papageorgio]

In order to appoint an inferior officer, Congress needs to have given the AG authority to do so.

None of these statutes create an office for which the AG can place an inferior officer.

Congress has already approved it.
28 U.S.C. § 515, 28 U.S.C. § 533 and 28 U.S.C. § 509.

These laws are already given the Attorney General permission to appoint. You are grasping at straws. The laws are quite clear.

This has been done many times in the past. Rothenstein appointed Mueller.

Barr appointed Durham.

Garland appointed Smith.

All three used existing laws and powers given to them by Congress.

 

[Marener]

Garland appointed Smith.

Smith’s appointment was struck down by Aileen Cannon and the charges were thrown out.

No one else had their appointment challenged in court.

 

[Blisterfinger]

The AG can’t appoint a special attorney unless Congress authorizes them to do so.

Since we have no authorization in law, they can’t.

The Constitution authorizes her to do it. What about that don't you understand?

 

[Marener]

The Constitution authorizes her to do it.

I already showed you that the Constitution does no such thing. Only Congress can authorize her to do it.

They didn’t.

 

[Blisterfinger]

Smith’s appointment was struck down by Aileen Cannon and the charges were thrown out.

No one else had their appointment challenged in court.

So challenge bondy's new appointment. Unfortunately the Constitution is not on your side

 

[Blisterfinger]

I already showed you that the Constitution does no such thing. Only Congress can authorize her to do it.

They didn’t.

I already showed you the Constitution does allow her to do it. Autism much?

 

[Marener]

So challenge bondy's new appointment. Unfortunately the Constitution is not on your side

Again, it’s not about the constitution. It’s about Congress.

How did Cannon get it so wrong?

 

[Marener]

I already showed you the Constitution does allow her to do it. Autism much?

It specifically says Congress has to vest the authority in the AG.

When did it do that?