Trump classified documents case dismissed. Jack Smith loses again.

[Care4all]

Yes, US Attorneys serve at the pleasure of the President...same with the AG....the Speical Cousnel is appointed by the AG....so they can be fired at will to.

As Cannon addressed in her Order, Congress could, and maybe should create a Independent Counsel Stat, like they did after Watergate, and the Dems let expire in 1999

So if President Biden appointed a special counsel, say Eric Holder, to investigate his political rival in his re-election, Mr. Trump, and the majority Democratic Senate gave consent...

That would be okay?

In Cannon's world and yours, that would satisfy the Appearance of impropriety that a Special Counsel is allegedly needed for in the first place...eh?

Really?

https://www.factcheck.org/2018/06/was-muellers-appointment-unconstitutional/

 

[Faun]

No prosecutors did that, in court

Nope. Mueller prosecuted him and then Manafort accepted a plea deal. I already showed you the true bill Mueller signed, indicting Manafort.

 

[Care4all]

No prosecutors did that, in court

of course they did.

 

[Care4all]

No prosecutors did that, in court

All plea deals are a court process too!

 

[para bellum]

What office did the AG create? None! He appointed a federal prosecutor, who does not need to be nominated by the Senate because he is not a U.S. Attorney being appointed to oversee one of the federal judicial districts created in each state. He is considered an inferior officer, like all Federal prosecutors who investigate criminals and bring federal trials throughout all 50 plus states and districts ...and inferior officers do not need appointing by the President, with the Senate advice and consent, is what was determined by previous S.C.s.

He created the Office of the Special Counsel, and appointed someone who has all the power of a US Attorney- IOW, he can issue National Security Letters and Subpoenas, he can empanel a Grand Jury and bring indictments, he can hire prosecutors and try cases in Federal courts.

There is nothing in the Constitution that gives the Executive Branch the authority to create such an office. Only the Congress can do that, and the Senate has to confirm the appointments.

This is not a new thing- it has been debated for decades, and is the reason why the Congress passed the Independent Counsel law after Watergate. The fact that they allowed the law to expire means they did not want to leave that power with the DOJ unchecked.

The fact that the SCOTUS has not ruled on the Constitutionality does not make it legitimate. It is one thing to take a serving US Attorney and assign him to a special investigation- it is another thing entirely to create an office subordinate to the AG with the power of a US Attorney without Congressional authorization.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

This is not a new thing

Correct. It has passed muster in the courts many times, with the lone, anomalous decision otherwise belonging to Judge Cannon.

Making it a fairly safe bet her decision is overturned.

 

[struth]

All plea deals are a court process too!

what plea deals?

 

[para bellum]

Correct. It has passed muster in the courts many times, with the lone, anomalous decision otherwise belonging to Judge Cannon.

Making it a fairly safe bet her decision is overturned.

AFAIK the only times they have passed USSC scrutiny is when they were appointed pursuant to statute.

The Amicus brief from the former AG's and Thomas's separate concurrence in the immunity case laid it out clearly, and that is what Cannon was obviously relying on.

Smith can appeal, and maybe he will. The Regulation may or may not survive scrutiny if it makes it to the SCOTUS.

Or the DOJ can take the loss, and leave the regulation intact for another bite at the apple some other time. No one can predict...

 

[struth]

of course they did.

Yes, not Mueller

 

[struth]

Nope. Mueller prosecuted him and then Manafort accepted a plea deal. I already showed you the true bill Mueller signed, indicting Manafort.

Show me when Mueller showed up to court of Manafort's case.

You can't, cause it was actually Andrew Weissmann that got the plea deal and prosecuted him. Mueller just lead the investigation

 

[struth]

So if President Biden appointed a special counsel, say Eric Holder, to investigate his political rival in his re-election, Mr. Trump, and the majority Democratic Senate gave consent...

That would be okay?

In Cannon's world and yours, that would satisfy the Appearance of impropriety that a Special Counsel is allegedly needed for in the first place...eh?

Really?

https://www.factcheck.org/2018/06/was-muellers-appointment-unconstitutional/

Well Holder would be legally appointed at that point....unlike Smith

 

[Faun]

what plea deals?

Manafort's plea deal, for one.

 

[struth]

Manafort's plea deal, for one.

Once again you fail....Mueller didn't get Manafort's plea deal, that was Andrew Weissmann

 

[Faun]

Yes, not Mueller

The only thing that went to court was Manafort entering is guilty plea and subsequent sentencing. A successful prosecution by Mueller.

 

[Faun]

Show me when Mueller showed up to court of Manafort's case.

You can't, cause it was actually Andrew Weissmann that got the plea deal and prosecuted him. Mueller just lead the investigation

False. The plea deal was the result of the indictment, which Mueller secured.

 

[struth]

The only thing that went to court was Manafort entering is guilty plea and subsequent sentencing. A successful prosecution by Mueller.

what the F are you talking about? First there was a weeks long trial, then a plea deal, that Weismann entered along with Manafort and his attorneys

 

[struth]

False. The plea deal was the result of the indictment, which Mueller secured.

agreed, a lot of FBI agents and police officers are able to secure an indictment. Then US Attorneys, or AUSAs, folks like Andrew Weissman, got into Court

 

[para bellum]

Once again you fail....Mueller didn't get Manafort's plea deal, that was Andrew Weissmann

Weissmann was working for Mueller, and the prosecution was brought under the auspices of the Office of Special Counsel, and should have been challenged on Constitutional grounds.

And besides that, Mueller's entire investigation was a fraud and everything that sprang from it is fruit of the poisonous tree.

 

[struth]

Weissmann was working for Mueller, and the prosecution was brought under the auspices of the Office of Special Counsel, and should have been challenged on Constitutional grounds.

And besides that, Mueller's entire investigation was a fraud and everything that sprang from it is fruit of the poisonous tree.

yep, nothing wrong with them working together on a case.

 

[Faun]

what the F are you talking about? First there was a weeks long trial, then a plea deal, that Weismann entered along with Manafort and his attorneys

The plea deal had nothing to do with that. That was a separate indictment.