Special Counsel Jack Smith wasn’t lawfully appointed

[ouch]

That's total bs, imo. Our US AG Garland appointed Jack Smith to fully prosecute DJT. Yet, this wet dream keeps popping up that it was illegally done.

Special counsel Jack Smith wasn’t lawfully appointed, can’t prosecute Trump, legal scholars say

Former President Ronald Reagan’s attorney general and two law professors who clerked for the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia are challenging special counsel Jack Smith’s authority to prosecute former President Donald Trump, saying a private citizen can’t bring criminal charges.

www.washingtontimes.com

Former Attorney General Edwin Meese and law professors Steven Calabresi and Gary Lawson, in a 25-page filing to the Supreme Court, say there’s no constitutional or statutory authority for Attorney General Merrick Garland‘s appointment of Mr. Smith to conduct the high-level criminal investigation of Mr. Trump because he was a private citizen and not confirmed by the Senate.

 

[Ishm]

One obvious thing that we should all recognize. Trump and his key legal supporters have given up trying to say that he is innocent and didn't commit the crimes. They are now focussed on trying to find procedural issues that might prevent the trials that will expose his criminality. Immunity and Jack Smiths status are the current favorites it seems.

 

[SNOWFLAKE]

WashingtonTimes is one of those Rightwing rags that wouldn't know a hole in the wall from good journalism.

 

[HumblePi]

There really is no place they won't reach, there's no low that's too low to sink for Republicans. The next few months are going to be well-spent by desperate men trying to distract, and take the public's attention for a day or two, away from Donald Trump's upcoming trials.

 

[Integrityrespec]

That's total bs, imo. Our US AG Garland appointed Jack Smith to fully prosecute DJT. Yet, this wet dream keeps popping up that it was illegally done.

Special counsel Jack Smith wasn’t lawfully appointed, can’t prosecute Trump, legal scholars say

Former President Ronald Reagan’s attorney general and two law professors who clerked for the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia are challenging special counsel Jack Smith’s authority to prosecute former President Donald Trump, saying a private citizen can’t bring criminal charges.

www.washingtontimes.com

Former Attorney General Edwin Meese and law professors Steven Calabresi and Gary Lawson, in a 25-page filing to the Supreme Court, say there’s no constitutional or statutory authority for Attorney General Merrick Garland‘s appointment of Mr. Smith to conduct the high-level criminal investigation of Mr. Trump because he was a private citizen and not confirmed by the Senate.

Obviously the question remains, is the claim that Smith isn't properly empowered true or not? What is the actual statute that says a special counsel must be this or that?

 

[upsideguy]

One obvious thing that we should all recognize. Trump and his key legal supporters have given up trying to say that he is innocent and didn't commit the crimes. They are now focussed on trying to find procedural issues that might prevent the trials that will expose his criminality. Immunity and Jack Smiths status are the current favorites it seems.

Yep. For all of the Trump outrage over "process crimes" in past, his only defense now is a "process defense". He has never officially denied doing what has been alleged. Even in the Colorado insurrection case, his attorney's never denied the allegations of insurrection, only the process of putting together the evidence. The attempted to try the J6 committee, without success

https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/02nd_Judicial_District/Denver_District_Court/11_17_2023 Final Order.pdf

The judge actually called them out for not denying the allegations (see paragraph 37 of above). Given that I am a believer that the SCOTUS could well disqualify him, they will look to the fact that he never challenged the allegations, if they do.

 

[Ishm]

Yep. For all of the Trump outrage over "process crimes" in past, his only defense now is a "process defense". He has never officially denied doing what has been alleged.

But he has pleaded the 5th, and a bad memory, 100's of times. I'm looking forward to seeing the election video montage of Trump saying that only criminals and mobsters plead the 5th followed by video of him pleading the 5th a few 100 times. Definitely going to be a LoL moment.

 

[Integrityrespec]

Yep. For all of the Trump outrage over "process crimes" in past, his only defense now is a "process defense". He has never officially denied doing what has been alleged.

Deny what, that he is an insurrectionist? Not charged with that. The rest of the case is pretty much nonexistent.

 

[Old 'N Chill]

 

[upsideguy]

Deny what, that he is an insurrectionist? Not charged with that. The rest of the case is pretty much nonexistent.

There was litigation around that issue in Colorado. It was the basis of denying him access to the Colorado ballot. The court determined he participated in the insurrection. His counsel never contested it, only the process. Read paragraph 37 and work backwards.

https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/02nd_Judicial_District/Denver_District_Court/11_17_2023%20Final%20Order.pdf

 

[HumblePi]

But he has pleaded the 5th, and a bad memory, 100's of times. I'm looking forward to seeing the election video montage of Trump saying that only criminals and mobsters plead the 5th followed by video of him pleading the 5th a few 100 times. Definitely going to be a LoL moment.

 

[Ishm]

And the 100's (?) of times he told the Mueller investigation that he couldn't remember well enough to answer their questions, after of course telling us that he has one of the greatest memories of all time. That would be another funny composite video. The man has zero shame and zero morals. You have to assume that those who love him so dearly are either the same, or of such low IQ that they can't recognize what Trump is.

 

[HumblePi]

And the 100's (?) of times he told the Mueller investigation that he couldn't remember well enough to answer their questions, after of course telling us that he has one of the greatest memories of all time. That would be another funny composite video. The man has zero shame and zero morals. You have to assume that those who love him so dearly are either the same, or of such low IQ that they can't recognize what Trump is.

There's an interesting video I just watched on YouTube, a former Trump supporter who became pretty well-known. She's been nicknamed "the J6 Grandma" because she was at the insurrection and spent a few months in prison. She explains what made her a 'MAGA'. I noticed one thing about the people that became Trump enthusiasts in 2016. None of them followed politics prior to Trump, and nearly all of them only knew him from The Apprentice.

She's wearing a scarf on her head because she's undergoing treatment for cancer.

 

[Ishm]

There's an interesting video I just watched on YouTube, a former Trump supporter who became pretty well-known. She's been nicknamed "the J6 Grandma" because she was at the insurrection and spent a few months in prison. She explains what made her a 'MAGA'. I noticed one thing about the people that became Trump enthusiasts in 2016. None of them followed politics prior to Trump, and nearly all of them only knew him from The Apprentice.

She's wearing a scarf on her head because she's undergoing treatment for cancer.

There are plenty of interviews with rabid Trumpers where they show zero understanding of politics, or even Trumps policies. You would think the reporters were interviewing Trump zombies given the obvious lack of brain power. It is obvious that for many of them they really have joined some form of cult rather than a normal political group. It's also scary how many are completely unaware of Trumps immorality because they only listen/watch/read media that portray Trump in a positive light. You have to ask how we became a nation containing so many willing fools.

 

[Bok Tuklo]

600.3 Qualifications of the Special Counsel.​

(a) An individual named as Special Counsel shall be a lawyer with a reputation for integrity and impartial decisionmaking, and with appropriate experience to ensure both that the investigation will be conducted ably, expeditiously and thoroughly, and that investigative and prosecutorial decisions will be supported by an informed understanding of the criminal law and Department of Justice policies. The Special Counsel shall be selected from outside the United States Government. Special Counsels shall agree that their responsibilities as Special Counsel shall take first precedence in their professional lives, and that it may be necessary to devote their full time to the investigation, depending on its complexity and the stage of the investigation.

The Link


I cannot find their brief.

Edit: found the brief. Their argument is not specific to Smith. Their argument is the Special Counsel itself is unconstitutional.

 

[Fearandloathing]

600.3 Qualifications of the Special Counsel.​

(a) An individual named as Special Counsel shall be a lawyer with a reputation for integrity and impartial decisionmaking, and with appropriate experience to ensure both that the investigation will be conducted ably, expeditiously and thoroughly, and that investigative and prosecutorial decisions will be supported by an informed understanding of the criminal law and Department of Justice policies. The Special Counsel shall be selected from outside the United States Government. Special Counsels shall agree that their responsibilities as Special Counsel shall take first precedence in their professional lives, and that it may be necessary to devote their full time to the investigation, depending on its complexity and the stage of the investigation.

The Link


I cannot find their brief.

Edit: found the brief. Their argument is not specific to Smith. Their argument is the Special Counsel itself is unconstitutional.

Using a BB gun to try to sink a submarine.

Trump = desperate

 

[Old 'N Chill]

The first video is a gem. Those trump suckers who either cannot see through his never ending rage, fake victimhood and bullshit, or bend over and accept it, are trash, just like he is. Send him your money, you worthless losers...he demands loyalty from his cult of fools.

 

[trixare4kids]

600.3 Qualifications of the Special Counsel.​

(a) An individual named as Special Counsel shall be a lawyer with a reputation for integrity and impartial decisionmaking, and with appropriate experience to ensure both that the investigation will be conducted ably, expeditiously and thoroughly, and that investigative and prosecutorial decisions will be supported by an informed understanding of the criminal law and Department of Justice policies. The Special Counsel shall be selected from outside the United States Government. Special Counsels shall agree that their responsibilities as Special Counsel shall take first precedence in their professional lives, and that it may be necessary to devote their full time to the investigation, depending on its complexity and the stage of the investigation.

The Link


I cannot find their brief.

Edit: found the brief. Their argument is not specific to Smith. Their argument is the Special Counsel itself is unconstitutional.

Nope. Here is what they are arguing to the court. A private citizen, Jack Smith was at the time of appointment, cannot act as a special counsel unless it is confirmed by the Senate. Smith wasn't legally confirmed.

 

[Bok Tuklo]

Nope. Here is what they are arguing to the SC. A private citizen cannot act as a special counsel unless it is confirmed by the Senate. Smith wasn't legally confirmed.

 

[trixare4kids]

View attachment 67487211

What you've cited doesn't disprove what Meese, and the other two legal scholars are arguing to the court.

 

[Bok Tuklo]

What you've cited doesn't disprove what Meese, and the other two legal scholars are arguing to the court.

I cited their brief. That is their argument.

 

[trixare4kids]

I cited their brief. That is their argument.

You left a lot out then because what you cited does not even resemble what they are actually arguing.

 

[Bok Tuklo]

You left a lot out then because what you cited does not even resemble what they are actually arguing.

You are telling me their argument is not what they are arguing? I am not sure what to do with that level of denial.

Trump folk can be very odd.

 

[trixare4kids]

You are telling me their argument is not what they are arguing? I am not sure what to do with that level of denial.

Trump folk can be very odd.

Read what you cited. You didn't cite their entire argument, especially the part mentioned in the O/P.

 

[ouch]

Obviously the question remains, is the claim that Smith isn't properly empowered true or not?

It's all good.

28 CFR § 600.1 - Grounds for appointing a Special Counsel.

www.law.cornell.edu

§ 600.1 Grounds for appointing a Special Counsel.
The Attorney General, or in cases in which the Attorney General is recused, the Acting Attorney General, will appoint a Special Counsel when he or she determines that criminal investigation of a person or matter is warranted and—

(a) That investigation or prosecution of that person or matter by a United States Attorney's Office or litigating Division of the Department of Justice would present a conflict of interest for the Department or other extraordinary circumstances;