Good; criminalization of cannabis is dumb and wasteful.POTUS says: Yo, dudes need to chillax.
A Deeply Fractured US
- Thread starter BeyondTheNow
- Start date
- Status
But he isn’t being investigated for all the things Trump did (allegedly) so foul on the play and tears on the field.
Brad Sallows
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 8,738
- Points
- 1,040
So, what's missing is a DoJ investigation into bribery and influence peddling by the Biden family and associates, including Joe Biden. A congressional investigation isn't a DoJ investigation. A DoJ investigation into Hunter's likely firearm and tax evasion crimes isn't an investigation into bribery and influence peddling. Narrowly focused investigations aren't the same as broad investigations looking into Biden, his family, and his associates. Instead, the DoJ actively works to frustrate the congressional investigation, has managed to let statutes of limitation run out on straightforward matters, and at one point was poised to make a very generous plea offer to Hunter.
The evidence which suggests bribery and influence peddling is stronger than the evidence which was deemed pretext for broad and deep investigations into "Russian Collusion". This double standard won't do.
Brad Sallows
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 8,738
- Points
- 1,040
It's the strength of the pretexts for investigation that is the issue - the low standards people think sufficient in one case, versus the high standards they demand in another.
A salacious campaign-funded "research" document consisting mostly of lies, that people knew or ought reasonably to have known was lies, and absolutely knew was campaign funded? What Downer told the US that he thought Papadopolous told him (getting important details wrong in the third-hand hearsay)? Conversations of an incoming NSA with a Russian ambassador, that the FBI director said straight to the faces of the president and VP was legit (information which the president passed to the acting AG)?
- Reaction score
- 6,071
- Points
- 1,160
Ahhhh, the smell of desperation.POTUS says: Yo, dudes need to chillax.
- Reaction score
- 2,479
- Points
- 1,190
What? How's this desperate?Ahhhh, the smell of desperation.
- Reaction score
- 2,479
- Points
- 1,190
You're right.
The cases against Trump have extemely strong pretext, with tons of verified and damning evidence already provided for the public to see, while the constant investigations into Hunter and Joe are weak and desperate.
- Reaction score
- 6,071
- Points
- 1,160
Oooops! This is going to make some people's day suck big time.
The Supreme Court has denied special counsel Jack Smith's bid to fast-track a dispute about whether former President Donald Trump should enjoy absolute immunity from prosecution for misconduct during his time in the White House.
The Supreme Court will not fast-track the request to review Trump's immunity
The Supreme Court has denied special counsel Jack Smith's bid to fast-track a dispute about whether former President Donald Trump should enjoy absolute immunity from prosecution for misconduct during his time in the White House.
Brad Sallows
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 8,738
- Points
- 1,040
Conventionally, investigators regard large sums of money pouring into family members with no discernable signs of meriting it, a sign of corruption. Conventionally, investigators regard complex webs of companies as opportunities for money laundering. That's according to what people who investigate and charge these kinds of things in the US have written articles about.
But carry on with your gaslighting.
[Add: to be clear, you're 100% correct that cases against Trump have strong pretexts. Now. But I was discussing the past, which you didn't bother to address at all. Weak attempt at misdirection noted.]
- Reaction score
- 6,071
- Points
- 1,160
And another possible problem for Smith.
reason.com
On November 18, 2022, Attorney General Merrick Garland purported to appoint private citizen Jack L. Smith to be a Special Counsel with the power of one of the 93 U.S. Attorneys but with nationwide jurisdiction. This makes Jack Smith more powerful than any of the 93 U.S. Attorneys even though they have been Senate-confirmed to their particular offices, and Jack Smith has not been Senate confirmed for the particular office, which he now claims to hold. A close examination of the Justice Department's (DOJ's) organic statute makes it clear that, unlike at least four other Heads of Cabinet Departments, the Head of the Justice Department has not "in, the words of the Appointments Clause, been "by Law" *** vested" with the power to appoint inferior officers like Jack Smith who have more power than any of the 93 Senate-confirmed U.S. Attorneys. This is made clear by an examination of the DOJ's organic statute, 28 U.S. C. Sections 509, 510, 515-519, 533, and, most importantly, Section 543.
More at link
Special Counsel Jack Smith's Appointment Is Unconstitutional
On November 18, 2022, Attorney General Merrick Garland purported to appoint private citizen Jack L. Smith to be a Special Counsel with the power of one of
reason.com
Special Counsel Jack Smith's Appointment Is Unconstitutional
Everything he has done since Nov. 2022 is null and void.
STEVEN CALABRESI | 12.20.2023 3:00 PMOn November 18, 2022, Attorney General Merrick Garland purported to appoint private citizen Jack L. Smith to be a Special Counsel with the power of one of the 93 U.S. Attorneys but with nationwide jurisdiction. This makes Jack Smith more powerful than any of the 93 U.S. Attorneys even though they have been Senate-confirmed to their particular offices, and Jack Smith has not been Senate confirmed for the particular office, which he now claims to hold. A close examination of the Justice Department's (DOJ's) organic statute makes it clear that, unlike at least four other Heads of Cabinet Departments, the Head of the Justice Department has not "in, the words of the Appointments Clause, been "by Law" *** vested" with the power to appoint inferior officers like Jack Smith who have more power than any of the 93 Senate-confirmed U.S. Attorneys. This is made clear by an examination of the DOJ's organic statute, 28 U.S. C. Sections 509, 510, 515-519, 533, and, most importantly, Section 543.
More at link
Brad Sallows
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 8,738
- Points
- 1,040
It's interesting, but don't hang much hope onto rigorous application of process.And another possible problem for Smith.
Special Counsel Jack Smith's Appointment Is Unconstitutional
On November 18, 2022, Attorney General Merrick Garland purported to appoint private citizen Jack L. Smith to be a Special Counsel with the power of one of
Special Counsel Jack Smith's Appointment Is Unconstitutional
Everything he has done since Nov. 2022 is null and void.
STEVEN CALABRESI | 12.20.2023 3:00 PM
On November 18, 2022, Attorney General Merrick Garland purported to appoint private citizen Jack L. Smith to be a Special Counsel with the power of one of the 93 U.S. Attorneys but with nationwide jurisdiction. This makes Jack Smith more powerful than any of the 93 U.S. Attorneys even though they have been Senate-confirmed to their particular offices, and Jack Smith has not been Senate confirmed for the particular office, which he now claims to hold. A close examination of the Justice Department's (DOJ's) organic statute makes it clear that, unlike at least four other Heads of Cabinet Departments, the Head of the Justice Department has not "in, the words of the Appointments Clause, been "by Law" *** vested" with the power to appoint inferior officers like Jack Smith who have more power than any of the 93 Senate-confirmed U.S. Attorneys. This is made clear by an examination of the DOJ's organic statute, 28 U.S. C. Sections 509, 510, 515-519, 533, and, most importantly, Section 543.
Not really; that application directly to SCOTUS was a hedge against a slow DC Court of Appeal, and was filed before the DCCA agreed to expedite and set a very fast briefing schedule. The final of three briefings on that appeal is due Jan 2nd, so this is still moving quickly.
- Reaction score
- 6,071
- Points
- 1,160
I'm not taking a stance. Just reporting what I saw. I'm done trying to discern US law and legalese. I have to expect that the author's bonafides are sufficient enough, that as a constitutional lawyer and professor of the same, at Yale, his info comes from a place of education and practice. Is he right? I don't know. I would need to see an argument against his stance, by someone, at least as qualified in the sections and procedures cited in the original article. My total interest is 'will it work/ not work.'
It may be telling that Trump’s lawyers have not to this point argued against Smith’s legal ability to act as special prosecutor in any of their pleadings. They may not be able to raise it as a new issue on appeal either, if they didn’t argue it at the initial level. Doesn’t seem likely that they think this carries weight.
- Reaction score
- 21,937
- Points
- 1,260
I don’t think that Kenneth Starr or other special prosecutors had this either — I think that’s the point of ‘special’
kkwd
Sr. Member
- Reaction score
- 149
- Points
- 730
Brad Sallows
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 8,738
- Points
- 1,040
We live in an era of pursuit of novel legal theories.
A ruling that a senate-confirmed appointment is required would certainly dampen the enthusiasm for special appointments.
Dunno, it’s not a rabbit hole I’m gonna dive into. It seems to make the claims, but I don’t believe SCOTUS actually ruled on that, they simply denied cert, which is unsurprising given how fast DCCA is moving- the hearing is on Jan 9th.
If there’s any merit to this particular argument, I’m sure we’ll hear about it in a decision… But I would have expected to long before this point.
- Reaction score
- 21,937
- Points
- 1,260
But should it. I didn’t see any outrage when they where looking into the Clintons…
We need to accept justice and its pursuit regardless of what party is accused.
- Reaction score
- 1,512
- Points
- 1,260
- Status
Similar threads
