Trump classified documents case dismissed. Jack Smith loses again.

[Care4all]

Yep he has oversight and supervision, additionally unlike in Mueller case he’s also prosecuting case in the court room.

Making him a principal, and akin to a US Attorney, hence why confirmation was required

Nope!

 

[struth]

Nope!

take it up with the legal experts....a judge and justice disagree with you

 

[Care4all]

Yep he has oversight and supervision, additionally unlike in Mueller case he’s also prosecuting case in the court room.

Making him a principal, and akin to a US Attorney, hence why confirmation was required

Congress gave attorney generals the power to hire prosecutors to work for him whenever he needs, without additional Senate approval.

The law has already given permission.

 

[Care4all]

take it up with the legal experts....a judge and justice disagree with you

And a thousand and one other legal eagles disagree with the two.

 

[struth]

Congress gave attorney generals the power to hire prosecutors to work for him whenever he needs, without additional Senate approval.

The law has already given permission.

hahah that's not true, all US Attorneys have to get confirmed. You are wrong.

 

[struth]

And a thousand and one other legal eagles disagree with the two.

who?

 

[Care4all]

hahah that's not true, all US Attorneys have to get confirmed. You are wrong.

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artII-S2-C2-3-1/ALDE_00013092/

The Appointments Clause requires that Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States be appointed by the President subject to the advice and consent of the Senate, although Congress may vest the appointment of inferior officers in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.1 The Supreme Court has interpreted these requirements as distinguishing between two types of officers: (1) principal officers who must be appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate to their position, and (2) inferior officers, whose appointment Congress may place with the President, judiciary, or department heads.2 These constitutional provisions are instrumental in ensuring the separation of powers, as the Framers of the Constitution deliberately separated Congress’s power to create offices in the federal government from the President’s authority to nominate officers to fill those positions.3 At the same time, placing the power to appoint principal officers with the President alone ensures a measure of accountability for his choices in staffing important government positions.

 

[Care4all]

Special prosecutors, special councils, independent prosecutors etc ....hired on a temporary basis, have been considered inferior officers....not principle officers in the President's Administration for 4 years.... that reflect the President's policies.

 

[MagicMike]

You went full Dem pervert, never go full Dem pervert.

Stay away from the butt play talk in the future ok?
This is not a dating site. They are not hard to find though if you want to talk about shoving things up each other's asses.
To each his own.

 

[Rawley]

Was he confirmed by the Senate as special counsel????

Appointments clause doesn't require that.

 

[Care4all]

Appointments clause doesn't require that.

Nor does it require it for inferior officers, such as temporary special prosecutors, special counsels, independent counsels or whatever you want to call them.... they have been considered over our decades, as inferior officers when appointed temporarily by a department head, not a principle officer.

It says under the appointment clause, inferior officers can be a presidential appointment or a department head appointment, or a court appointments for civil or criminal cases such as an independent magistrate...

There is a Special Council office within the administration with a principle officer position for this permanent office....its function is different than when a special prosecutor etc. is temporarily hired to have some independence from the administration and DOJ....

I think the argument of inferior officer vs. principle officer on this is simply a delay tactic, likely with no legs... But that's just my opinion, not necessarily fact, or non factual, as of yet.


https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artII-S2-C2-3-1/ALDE_00013092/

The Appointments Clause requires that Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States be appointed by the President subject to the advice and consent of the Senate, although Congress may vest the appointment of inferior officers in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.1 The Supreme Court has interpreted these requirements as distinguishing between two types of officers: (1) principal officers who must be appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate to their position, and (2) inferior officers, whose appointment Congress may place with the President, judiciary, or department heads.2 These constitutional provisions are instrumental in ensuring the separation of powers, as the Framers of the Constitution deliberately separated Congress’s power to create offices in the federal government from the President’s authority to nominate officers to fill those positions.3 At the same time, placing the power to appoint principal officers with the President alone ensures a measure of accountability for his choices in staffing important government positions.

 

[Rawley]

Nor does it require it for inferior officers, such as temporary special prosecutors, special counsels, independent counsels or whatever you want to call them.... they have been considered over our decades, as inferior officers when appointed temporarily by a department head, not a principle officer.

It says under the appointment clause, inferior officers can be a presidential appointment or a department head appointment, or a court appointments for civil or criminal cases such as an independent magistrate...

There is a Special Council office within the administration with a principle officer position for this permanent office....its function is different than when a special prosecutor etc. is temporarily hired to have some independence from the administration and DOJ....

I think the argument of inferior officer vs. principle officer on this is simply a delay tactic, likely with no legs... But that's just my opinion, not necessarily fact, or non factual, as of yet.


https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artII-S2-C2-3-1/ALDE_00013092/

The Appointments Clause requires that Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States be appointed by the President subject to the advice and consent of the Senate, although Congress may vest the appointment of inferior officers in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.1 The Supreme Court has interpreted these requirements as distinguishing between two types of officers: (1) principal officers who must be appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate to their position, and (2) inferior officers, whose appointment Congress may place with the President, judiciary, or department heads.2 These constitutional provisions are instrumental in ensuring the separation of powers, as the Framers of the Constitution deliberately separated Congress’s power to create offices in the federal government from the President’s authority to nominate officers to fill those positions.3 At the same time, placing the power to appoint principal officers with the President alone ensures a measure of accountability for his choices in staffing important government positions.

So why do US Attorneys require appointment and confirmation? Are they inferior officers? Garland gave Smith every power of a US Attorney, arguably more. Strongest argument that special counsels require appointment and Senate confirmation. Check and balance that an administration doesn't hire a hyperpartisan asshole like SMith.

 

[Care4all]

It seems counter intuitive to require a Special Counsel temporarily hired to independently investigate a president be appointed by that president, and approved by the Senate as a full time appointment position in the administration and under only the President's control....

 

[Rawley]

Appointments clause doesn't require that.

Checking on this. I haen't read the whole opinion yet

 

[Care4all]

So why do US Attorneys require appointment and confirmation? Are they inferior officers? Garland gave Smith every power of a US Attorney, arguably more. Strongest argument that special counsels require appointment and Senate confirmation. Check and balance that an administration doesn't hire a hyperpartisan asshole like SMith.

US attorneys do, but NOT all U.S. Prosecutors...Jack Smith was a U.S. Prosecutor previously, and not appointed, as with other US Prosecutors

 

[Rawley]

And a thousand and one other legal eagles disagree with the two.

But they don't count, do they?

 

[Rawley]

It seems counter intuitive to require a Special Counsel temporarily hired to independently investigate a president be appointed by that president, and approved by the Senate as a full time appointment position in the administration and under only the President's control....

It's the "independent" aspect that cautions more towards COngressional oversight.

 

[Care4all]

But they don't count, do they?

Neither does the judge nor Thomas, who had no other Justices concurring with his opinion.

 

[Rawley]

Neither does the judge nor Thomas, who had no other Justices concurring with his opinion.

?? Judge Cannon dismissed the case. It's dead. If Garland chooses to appeal, it may get to the SC and Thomas' opinion will certainly count.