|
Post by meateater on Jul 15, 2024 13:58:38 GMT -5
yea me too, then after bullfrogs thought out opinion we can read the big dummies rebuttal. cads emoji should be aunt esther.
|
|
|
Post by meateater on Jul 15, 2024 14:01:11 GMT -5
Would love to hear your opinion if you get around to reading it. Special councils have been around a while, with many courts upholding the constitutionality. I’ll have to tear into the opinion this evening. She could be either challenging special counsel in general or specifically Smith’s appointment only. I don’t know Jack Smith. I can read him a mile away though. He’s sharp and driven. The kind of trial attorney that would eat my lunch if I went against him with anything less than meticulous preparation of the legal issues and the evidence. That kind doesn’t take losing well. This is not likely a good day for him or a jovial day to be in his office. he would never eat your lunch, he looks like a vegan to me.
|
|
|
Post by cadman on Jul 15, 2024 14:10:33 GMT -5
I’ll have to tear into the opinion this evening. She could be either challenging special counsel in general or specifically Smith’s appointment only. I don’t know Jack Smith. I can read him a mile away though. He’s sharp and driven. The kind of trial attorney that would eat my lunch if I went against him with anything less than meticulous preparation of the legal issues and the evidence. That kind doesn’t take losing well. This is not likely a good day for him or a jovial day to be in his office. he would never eat your lunch, he looks like a vegan to me. There ain't no man that is a vegan. There are men who want their vegan girlfriends or wives to think they are, but they sneaking Whoppers and big Macs as soon as they are out of sight. The only males who are real vegans, don't like women.
|
|
|
Post by osprey11 on Jul 15, 2024 14:14:08 GMT -5
He needs to be removed from this forum. JS84 I copied and pasted the original comment to Josh before I deleted it. I took out that trash the other day!!!!!!!!!!
|
|
|
Post by throttle on Jul 15, 2024 17:00:33 GMT -5
Next stop for Judge Cannon will be SCOTUS. Better her than an illiterate retard rubber stamp for democrat judicial activism like the "wise Latina".
|
|
|
Post by osprey11 on Jul 15, 2024 18:21:06 GMT -5
Next stop for Judge Cannon will be SCOTUS. Better her than an illiterate retard rubber stamp for democrat judicial activism like the "wise Latina". Or the one who doesn't know what a woman is.
|
|
|
Post by resinhead on Jul 15, 2024 18:22:07 GMT -5
It was a joke before it started.
|
|
|
Post by bullfrog on Jul 15, 2024 20:20:51 GMT -5
I'm reading the opinion now. I'll offer running commentary as I read.
The Introduction is cringe. Not because of any legal substance. It's just poorly written.
The Factual Background seems ok. It's as if two different people wrote the Introduction and Factual Background sections.
|
|
|
Post by bullfrog on Jul 15, 2024 20:38:18 GMT -5
The special counsel investigation has cost nearly $13,000,000. That's more than the budget of some entire State Attorney's offices in Florida for funding all of their prosecutors for an entire year for all the cases they handle.
|
|
|
Post by bullfrog on Jul 15, 2024 20:50:36 GMT -5
Her argument seems to be prefaced on the following:
1. A special counsel is an "officer" under the Appointment clause of the Constitution.
2. There are 2 kinds of officers under the Appointment clause, those that must be nominated by the president and approved by the Senate, and those that can be appointment by department heads (or the President or Judges). However, the kind that can be appointed by department heads (or the President or judges) can only be appointed if Congress passes a law that allows for the department head et al to appoint them.
3. If a special counsel is of the kind that have to be approved by the Senate, then obviously that didn't happen here.
4. if the special counsel is of the kind that can be appointed by a department head (in this case, the Attorney General for the Department of Justice), there has to be a law passed by Congress that allows it.
5. There was once a Federal statute that allowed for the Attorney General to appoint special counsels, but it lapsed in 1999 on the recommendation of Janet Reno. Reno wanted instead for special counsels to be appointed by DOJ regulation. Since then, special counsels have been appointed by DOJ regulation and not statute.
6. The Constitution does not give DOJ or any department authority to appoint a special counsel without a statute passed by Congress. Because the special counsel statute lapsed in 1999, DOJ cannot appoint special counsels against until that law or a similar is passed again.
That's where I'm at with her argument at the moment. Not yet commenting on the validity.
|
|
|
Post by bullfrog on Jul 15, 2024 20:53:49 GMT -5
I'm finding more cringy stylistic choices in her writing style. Could be her. Could be her clerk. But she signed her name to it so she owns it. Doesn't affect her legal argument. Just makes it ....ugh.
|
|
|
Post by Tarponator on Jul 15, 2024 21:09:54 GMT -5
Her argument seems to be prefaced on the following: 1. A special counsel is an "officer" under the Appointment clause of the Constitution. 2. There are 2 kinds of officers under the Appointment clause, those that must be nominated by the president and approved by the Senate, and those that can be appointment by department heads (or the President or Judges). However, the kind that can be appointed by department heads (or the President or judges) can only be appointed if Congress passes a law that allows for the department head et al to appoint them. 3. If a special counsel is of the kind that have to be approved by the Senate, then obviously that didn't happen here. 4. if the special counsel is of the kind that can be appointed by a department head (in this case, the Attorney General for the Department of Justice), there has to be a law passed by Congress that allows it. 5. There was once a Federal statute that allowed for the Attorney General to appoint special counsels, but it lapsed in 1999 on the recommendation of Janet Reno. Reno wanted instead for special counsels to be appointed by DOJ regulation. Since then, special counsels have been appointed by DOJ regulation and not statute. 6. The Constitution does not give DOJ or any department authority to appoint a special counsel without a statute passed by Congress. Because the special counsel statute lapsed in 1999, DOJ cannot appoint special counsels against until that law or a similar is passed again. That's where I'm at with her argument at the moment. Not yet commenting on the validity. On #5 and & 6, might one argue that all Special Counsels appointed by a department head are invalid as are their resulting cases?
In any event, it seems to me Canon is running right down the path mowed by Thomas.
Looking forward to your future comments & appreciate you sharing them.
|
|
|
Post by biminitwisted on Jul 15, 2024 21:11:21 GMT -5
So was the Hur appointment improper as well?
|
|
|
Post by bullfrog on Jul 15, 2024 21:13:57 GMT -5
I don't think those points 1-6 are in dispute. The question is whether there actually are some Congressional statutes still in effect that allow DOJ to appoint a special counsel.
She holds there are not. Smith cites the following Federal statutes as Congressional authority DOJ to appoint an independent special counsel:
28 U.S.C. 509, 510, 515, 533.
I'm going to quote each one:
509:All functions of other officers of the Department of Justice and all functions of agencies and employees of the Department of Justice are vested in the Attorney General except the functions— (1) vested by subchapter II of chapter 5 of title 5 in administrative law judges employed by the Department of Justice; (2) of the Federal Prison Industries, Inc.; and (3) of the Board of Directors and officers of the Federal Prison Industries, Inc.
BF Commentary: Agreed, nothing there allows for the appointment of a special counsel.
510: The Attorney General may from time to time make such provisions as he considers appropriate authorizing the performance by any other officer, employee, or agency of the Department of Justice of any function of the Attorney General.
Agreed. The special counsel isn't "of" the Department of Justice for the purpose of the special appointment. He's supposed to stand outside of DOJ to be truly independent. Therefore I think I can follow her argument.
515:(a) The Attorney General or any other officer of the Department of Justice, or any attorney specially appointed by the Attorney General under law, may, when specifically directed by the Attorney General, conduct any kind of legal proceeding, civil or criminal, including grand jury proceedings and proceedings before committing magistrate judges, which United States attorneys are authorized by law to conduct, whether or not he is a resident of the district in which the proceeding is brought. (b) Each attorney specially retained under authority of the Department of Justice shall be commissioned as special assistant to the Attorney General or special attorney, and shall take the oath required by law. Foreign counsel employed in special cases are not required to take the oath. The Attorney General shall fix the annual salary of a special assistant or special attorney.
This one is more complicated. Judge's argument is that a special counsel like Jack Smith isn't under this provision because 1) he wasn't appointed under law by the attorney general, because the law for special counsels expired in 1999, 2) can't be directed by the Attorney General to do anything because Jack Smith doesn't answer to the attorney general.
533:The Attorney General may appoint officials— (1) to detect and prosecute crimes against the United States; (2) to assist in the protection of the person of the President; and [1] (3) to assist in the protection of the person of the Attorney General.[2] (4) to conduct such other investigations regarding official matters under the control of the Department of Justice and the Department of State as may be directed by the Attorney General. This section does not limit the authority of departments and agencies to investigate crimes against the United States when investigative jurisdiction has been assigned by law to such departments and agencies.
This one should be the hardest for her to explain. I haven't read her explanation yet. (1) seems generic. It isn't specifically discussing special counsel but it is so generic, I would think it could be constructed as being statutory authority to appoint a special counsel that doesn't answer to the attorney general or anyone else. The question would be if (4) controls the interpretation of (1). (4) discusses "other" investigations under the authorty of the Attorney General. Does that mean that someone generically appointed under (1) remains under the authority of the Attorney General? If so, that means that Jack Smith couldn't be appointed under this section.
|
|
|
Post by bullfrog on Jul 15, 2024 21:14:51 GMT -5
Her argument seems to be prefaced on the following: 1. A special counsel is an "officer" under the Appointment clause of the Constitution. 2. There are 2 kinds of officers under the Appointment clause, those that must be nominated by the president and approved by the Senate, and those that can be appointment by department heads (or the President or Judges). However, the kind that can be appointed by department heads (or the President or judges) can only be appointed if Congress passes a law that allows for the department head et al to appoint them. 3. If a special counsel is of the kind that have to be approved by the Senate, then obviously that didn't happen here. 4. if the special counsel is of the kind that can be appointed by a department head (in this case, the Attorney General for the Department of Justice), there has to be a law passed by Congress that allows it. 5. There was once a Federal statute that allowed for the Attorney General to appoint special counsels, but it lapsed in 1999 on the recommendation of Janet Reno. Reno wanted instead for special counsels to be appointed by DOJ regulation. Since then, special counsels have been appointed by DOJ regulation and not statute. 6. The Constitution does not give DOJ or any department authority to appoint a special counsel without a statute passed by Congress. Because the special counsel statute lapsed in 1999, DOJ cannot appoint special counsels against until that law or a similar is passed again. That's where I'm at with her argument at the moment. Not yet commenting on the validity. On #5 and & 6, might one argue that all Special Counsels appointed by a department head are invalid as are their resulting cases? In any event, it seems to me Canon is running right down the path mowed by Thomas. Looking forward to your future comments & appreciate you sharing them.
She's definitely arguing against all of the major special counsels that have been appointed since 1999, because they all function outside of and independent of the attorney general.
|
|