Trump classified documents case dismissed. Jack Smith loses again.

[Care4all]

No, they were all confirmed by the Senate.

Some were appointed by the President as US Attorneys, and the Senate had to approve all 50 plus US Attorneys the President picked because they were considered principle officers in the president's administration. The 4500 Federal Prosecutors across the United States who run investigations, bring cases before grand juries and also trial courts are considered inferior officers and are not appointed by presidents.

Previously, the Supreme Court ruled that special councel, independent prosecutors, special prosecutors, independent councils are Inferior officers similar to Federal Prosecutors and are NOT part of the president's administration needing appointment by presidents and senate confirmation.

Now, Thomas wants to reverse another supreme court precedent and worked with Cannon to get this precedent reversed.

This is the MOST radical politically charged Supreme Court in our History!!!

What you are saying is that Special and Independent councils hired to investigate criminal wrong doing in the present or past administration ...including investigating presidents, must be part of the presidential Administration or a previous administration, and not independent or not an independent Federal Civil Service Career Prosecutor. That defeats the purpose of being independent imo.

 

[Marener]

Nominate someone

Never was necessary before. Conservative judges change the rules whenever they want.

 

[Care4all]

Nominate someone

Who nominates?

 

[jbander]

Wow!

 

[Nostra]

Has Jerk Smith ever had a case that wasn't eventually thrown out?

 

[struth]

Has Jerk Smith ever had a case that wasn't eventually thrown out?

that is a good question. It seems the Demafascsit only use him because he is willing to abuse his office engage in political prosecutions.

This time it appears he went a little to far with his illegal prosecution

 

[Faun]

US Attorneys have always need confirmation. No the court had never ruled otherwises, you’ve been lied to

Wait, what? You think if someone is confirmed by the Senate, they don't have to be confirmed again years later?

 

[Leviticus]

The decision will likely be overturned by the the 11th circuit given that there is clear precedent of the AG having the authority to appoint special councils.

 

[Roy C]

That's a shame.


































.

 

[para bellum]

Stay ignorant then. No skin off my back.

Federal regulations are not statutes. You are the one displaying the ignorance.

 

[westwall]

The decision will likely be overturned by the the 11th circuit given that there is clear precedent of the AG having the authority to appoint special councils.

Oh? Name them.

 

[para bellum]

Previously, the Supreme Court ruled that special councel, independent prosecutors, special prosecutors, independent councils are Inferior officers similar to Federal Prosecutors and are NOT part of the president's administration needing appointment by presidents and senate confirmation.

That was because there was an office created by the Congress for that purpose. The law that established that office was allowed to expire in 1999 (called the "ethics in government act" or something like that).

An AG does not have the authority under the Constitution to create an office equal to a US Attorney in authority. The label doesn't matter, it's the authority of the Officer that counts.

 

[Faun]

Federal regulations are not statutes. You are the one displaying the ignorance.

Imbecile, 28 CFR § 600.4 is still not expired. You're confusing Special Counsels with Independent Councels.

 

[para bellum]

Imbecile, 28 CFR § 600.4 is still not expired. You're confusing Special Counsels with Independent Councels.

CFR Code of Federal Regulations.

That is not law, dumbass.

 

[sparky]

For all we know it could have been a roll of old newspapers

~S~

 

[Faun]

That was because there was an office created by the Congress for that purpose. The law that established that office was allowed to expire in 1999 (called the "ethics in government act" or something like that).

LOL

Again, you prove you don't know the difference between an Independent Counsel from a Special Counsel.

It was Independent Counsels, not Special Counsels that were terminated...

28 U.S. Code § 599 - Termination of effect of chapter

This chapter shall cease to be effective five years after the date of the enactment of the Independent Counsel Reauthorization Act of 1994, except that this chapter shall continue in effect with respect to then pending matters before an independent counsel that in the judgment of such counsel require such continuation until that independent counsel determines such matters have been completed.​

[emphasis mine to highlight your ignorance]

 

[Faun]

CFR Code of Federal Regulations.

That is not law, dumbass.

They're the same federal regulations which have allowed every Special Counsel to be appointed.

 

[para bellum]

They're the same federal regulations which have allowed every Special Counsel to be appointed.

Oh just shut the **** up. You don't know what you're talking about. It does not matter if you call him a "special prosecutor" or an "independent counsel" or a "special Counsel". It is the powers granted to the person that matters.

The AG has not had the authority to appoint such a person since 1999.

He can take a US Attorney and assign him to an investigation- that US Attorney exists as a Congressionally created Officer who has been confirmed by the Senate and he is subordinate to the AG.

He can do that under Agency regulations- the CFR's.

He cannot go outside the DOJ, and create an office with the power of a US Attorney, without the Congress first creating the Office and delegating the authority to the AG to appoint.

You would allow the AG to create his own independent army of prosecutors that could go after anyone they wanted to. The Congress created US Attorneys to be the enforcers of Federal Laws, it is not the purview of the Executive Branch to create those Offices.

 

[Faun]

Oh just shut the **** up. You don't know what you're talking about. It does not matter if you call him a "special prosecutor" or an "independent counsel" or a "special Counsel". It is the powers granted to the person that matters.

The AG has not had the authority to appoint such a person since 1999.

He can take a US Attorney and assign him to an investigation- that US Attorney exists as a Congressionally created Officer who has been confirmed by the Senate and he is subordinate to the AG.

He can do that under Agency regulations- the CFR's.

He cannot go outside the DOJ, and create an office with the power of a US Attorney, without the Congress first creating the Office and delegating the authority to the AG to appoint.

You would allow the AG to create his own independent army of prosecutors that could go after anyone they wanted to. The Congress created US Attorneys to be the enforcers of Federal Laws, it is not the purview of the Executive Branch to create those Offices.

LOL

Yes, the difference matters. I don't care how fucked in the head you are.

All you've proven is you don't know the difference between an Independent Counsel from a Special Counsel.

And by the way, Attorneys General have been appointing Special Counsels for well over a century now.

 

[struth]

Wait, what? You think if someone is confirmed by the Senate, they don't have to be confirmed again years later?

Not if they don’t resign from the job