Rep. Massie just ended

... Because the Congress is saying he was NOT.

### Salty Originally Posted by Salty Again

no actually Garland said before Congress Smith was never appointed.

close enough


bahahahaaaaaaaaaa

no actually Garland said before Congress Smith was never appointed.

close enough


bahahahaaaaaaaaaa Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

You are being deliberately misleading. Just like Massie did. The special counsel was appointed by Merrick Garland using the authority granted to the sitting Attorney General of the United States. Just like Attorney General’s have been doing since 1999.

No one seemed to mind the process much until the January 6th and the Classified documents prosecutions of Donald Trump. Only now do people have a problem? That’s got to be the best reason to keep Special Counsel appointments out of the hands of congress that i’ve ever heard.

... Because the Congress is saying he was NOT.

### Salty Originally Posted by Salty Again

That’s the argument that the defense is making. That the appointment of a special counsel can only be made by congress. But the Supreme court has not taken up that argument. Maybe they will and maybe they won’t. Until they do or until congress changes the law then Jack Smith is the special counsel whether congress likes it or not.

You are being deliberately misleading. Just like Massie did. The special counsel was appointed by Merrick Garland using the authority granted to the sitting Attorney General of the United States. Just like Attorney General’s have been doing since 1999.

No one seemed to mind the process much until the January 6th and the Classified documents prosecutions of Donald Trump. Only now do people have a problem? That’s got to be the best reason to keep Special Counsel appointments out of the hands of congress that i’ve ever heard. Originally Posted by txdot-guy

except according to Massey and Ed Meese Congress must appoint a special counsel. and yet Garland himself admitted Congress DID NOT


if Garland had the authority to act why does a congressman say he didn't without Congressional approval? Garland said Smith had no authority by Congress



better still .. where are the Democrats claiming Smith was appointed legitimately?

except according to Massey and Ed Meese Congress must appoint a special counsel. and yet Garland himself admitted Congress DID NOT


if Garland had the authority to act why does a congressman say he didn't without Congressional approval? Garland said Smith had no authority by Congress



better still .. where are the Democrats claiming Smith was appointed legitimately? Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

Read up on special counsel history here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_counsel

Congress only got involved with special counsel’s after watergate by creating rules for appointing a special counsel. Before and after that special counsels were either appointed by the President or by the Attorney General. Congress has never given itself the power to appoint a special counsel. Congress has always been able to investigate on their own and have never needed to do so.

So Massie and Meese are bullshitting the public with their claims. Until the Supreme Court rules on the issue their opinion on this matter is moot.

I maintain Massie is a dipshit.

One of the throng of dipshits who follow the Scheissfuhrer.

Ed Meese says so.



and Meese is a lawyer unlike you and me. he was also Attorney General....
Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

This is absolutely UNFUCKING BELIEVABLE.

Really??!! Yer citing Ed Meese?

Holy fuck.

You do know that he fucking RESIGNED in disgrace over the Wedtech scandal right? Which he did right after....a report out by an Independent Prosecutor! (oh...the irony!)

I mean...he said he resigned after the counsel "cleared his name" and "recommended no legal action." But that was bullshit. As the LA Times said in announcing the move" "Meese’s tenure at the Justice Department has been marked by repeated controversy surrounding his conduct and marred by resignations by senior personnel." The Counsel's report also recommended "further investigation of Meese's role in that scandal and other" (the report is actually still classified, supposedly).

This place gets nuttier by the friggin minute..

.

If you find any real evidence of bias please let us know. Just because someone says so doesn’t count. Originally Posted by txdot-guy

The Attorney General has the ability to appoint a special counsel to assist an existing ATTORNEY GENERAL. It cannot appoint one to REPLACE or ACT as one because all Attorney generals are nominated and approved by the Senate. Without that, they have no power VESTED in them.

I love it when Democrats step on a rake.

So Massie and Meese are bullshitting the public with their claims. Until the Supreme Court rules on the issue their opinion on this matter is moot. Originally Posted by txdot-guy

But the Supreme Court WILL have to rule on it, so I guess Massie and Meese ARE smarter than all the democrats who forgot to read the Constitution.

It's clear that Garland the traitor did not have the AUTHORITY to appoint a private citizen to act as an Attorney General.

hee hee...

But the Supreme Court WILL have to rule on it, so I guess Massie and Meese ARE smarter than all the democrats who forgot to read the Constitution.

It's clear that Garland the traitor did not have the AUTHORITY to appoint a private citizen to act as an Attorney General.

hee hee... Originally Posted by texassapper

Garland the traitor?

OK, it's obvious you've got an open mind here, buddy. And a finely honed legal mind.

Maybe you could run for Congress in Kentucky. Then you could go after everybody who doesn't agree with the MAGA point of view, which is to say, lunacy.

The Attorney General has the ability to appoint a special counsel to assist an existing ATTORNEY GENERAL. It cannot appoint one to REPLACE or ACT as one because all Attorney generals are nominated and approved by the Senate. Without that, they have no power VESTED in them.

I love it when Democrats step on a rake. Originally Posted by texassapper

More obfuscation and misinformation from the Sap. What makes you think that Jack Smith isn’t assisting the Attorney General by prosecuting these cases? Just because the defense lawyers say so. Well of course they do. That doesn’t make them right. It just makes you gullible when you repeat their bullshit.

More obfuscation and misinformation from the Sap. What makes you think that Jack Smith isn’t assisting the Attorney General by prosecuting these cases? Originally Posted by txdot-guy

LOL.... no, silly, Order No. 5559-2022 which specifically states: "The Special Counsel is authorized to prosecute federal crimes arising from the investigation of these matters."

That's simply not something that Garland has the authority to do. Only the President with the approval of the Senate can do that...

LOL.... no, silly, Order No. 5559-2022 which specifically states: "The Special Counsel is authorized to prosecute federal crimes arising from the investigation of these matters."

That's simply not something that Garland has the authority to do. Only the President with the approval of the Senate can do that... Originally Posted by texassapper

And yet you don’t appear to have read the order or to understand the text.

It says:
APPOfNTMENT OF JOHN L. SMITH AS SPECIAL COUNSEL
By virtue of the authority vested in the Attorney General, including 28 U.S.C. §§ 509, 510, 515, and 533, in order to discharge my responsibility to provide supervision and management of the Department of Justice, and to ensure a full and thorough investigation of certain matters, I hereby order as follows:

a) John L. Smith is appointed to serve as Special Counsel for the United States Department ofJustice.

The text appears clear and compelling to me. You and the defense team are living in fantasy land if you think that this particular defense has any credibility.

And yet you don’t appear to have read the order or to understand the text.

It says:
APPOfNTMENT OF JOHN L. SMITH AS SPECIAL COUNSEL
By virtue of the authority vested in the Attorney General, ... Originally Posted by txdot-guy

The USAG may well have the authority to appoint a special counsel, but he doesn't have the authority to vest that SC with the ability to prosecute Federal crimes... that would require the President to appoint and the Senate to approve.

This is a clear cut question... and SCOTUS will shoot this SC appointment down when the questions comes before it. That's why Massie MADE that douche bag Garland go on record stating it.

Sadly amusing that Biden appointees also do not understand their jobs.