Rep. Massie just ended

any prosecution of Trump by Jack Smith.

LOL... stupid Democrats never giving a shit about the rules.

Massie's a dipshit.

There ARE no rules, "sapper". Not as it pertains to this.

Massie's a dipshit.

There ARE no rules, "sapper". Not as it pertains to this. Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

And that says it all. The a statement quoted above is congruent with the rational that impelled the most aggressive Jan 6th "insurrectionists" to breach security lines and enter the Capitol building illegally.

Welcome to the ranks of treasonous insurrectionists as defined by progressive liberals.

Massie's a dipshit.

There ARE no rules, "sapper". Not as it pertains to this. Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

there are always rules. you follow them or you don't.

Jackass Smith has no authority. never did.


tell me ..what does this sound like? a "by the book" investigation of "Evil Lord Trump" by the "Virtuous DemonRat Party" or a sham political prosecution?


fyi the Democratic party will now be referred to as the VDP ...


Virtuous DemonRat Party

without any clear LEGAL mandate Smith is what he's always been .. a political hack and ...


wait for it ...





wait .........


a CRIMINAL for bringing an unauthorized prosecution


BAHHABAAHAAAAAAA


send his hackass butthole back to the Hague for prosecution for treason


BAHHHAAAAAA

Massie's a dipshit.

There ARE no rules, "sapper". Not as it pertains to this. Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Massie is a dipshit. But there are rules and procedures governing the use of the special counsel.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_counsel

In 1999, the Department of Justice under Attorney General Janet Reno promulgated regulations for the future appointment of special counsels. As of 2018, these regulations remain in effect in the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 28, part 600 (28 CFR §600).

Since the expiration of the independent counsel statute in 1999, there has been no federal statutory law governing the appointment of a special counsel. Upon the law's expiration in 1999, the Justice Department, under Attorney General Janet Reno, promulgated procedural regulations governing the appointment of special counsels.

In 1999, these regulations were used by Reno to appoint John Danforth special counsel to investigate the FBI's handling of the Waco siege.

In 2003, during the George W. Bush administration, Patrick Fitzgerald was appointed special counsel to investigate the Plame affair by Deputy Attorney General James Comey after the recusal of Attorney General John Ashcroft.

On May 17, 2017, former FBI Director Robert Mueller was appointed special counsel to take over the previous FBI investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein after the recusal of Attorney General Jeff Sessions.

In December 2020, Attorney General William Barr revealed to Congress that John Durham's investigation had been granted special counsel status on October 19.

On November 18, 2022, United States Attorney General Merrick Garland named Jack Smith special counsel to investigate Donald Trump's actions regarding the January 6 United States Capitol attack and handling of classified documents.

On January 12, 2023, Merrick Garland appointed Robert Hur special counsel to investigate Joe Biden's storage of classified materials.

On August 11, 2023 Merrick Garland appointed David C. Weiss special counsel to investigate Joe Biden's son Hunter Biden stemming from nearly five years of federal investigations into felony tax evasion, illegal foreign lobbying, money laundering, and other possible crimes. This development came shortly Republicans alleged that Hunter received a "sweet heart" deal in Delaware where he was facing several criminal charges relates to tax evasion and firearm offenses.

Massie is a dipshit. But there are rules and procedures governing the use of the special counsel.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_counsel

In 1999, the Department of Justice under Attorney General Janet Reno promulgated regulations for the future appointment of special counsels. As of 2018, these regulations remain in effect in the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 28, part 600 (28 CFR §600).

Since the expiration of the independent counsel statute in 1999, there has been no federal statutory law governing the appointment of a special counsel. Upon the law's expiration in 1999, the Justice Department, under Attorney General Janet Reno, promulgated procedural regulations governing the appointment of special counsels.

In 1999, these regulations were used by Reno to appoint John Danforth special counsel to investigate the FBI's handling of the Waco siege.

In 2003, during the George W. Bush administration, Patrick Fitzgerald was appointed special counsel to investigate the Plame affair by Deputy Attorney General James Comey after the recusal of Attorney General John Ashcroft.

On May 17, 2017, former FBI Director Robert Mueller was appointed special counsel to take over the previous FBI investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein after the recusal of Attorney General Jeff Sessions.

In December 2020, Attorney General William Barr revealed to Congress that John Durham's investigation had been granted special counsel status on October 19.

On November 18, 2022, United States Attorney General Merrick Garland named Jack Smith special counsel to investigate Donald Trump's actions regarding the January 6 United States Capitol attack and handling of classified documents.

On January 12, 2023, Merrick Garland appointed Robert Hur special counsel to investigate Joe Biden's storage of classified materials.

On August 11, 2023 Merrick Garland appointed David C. Weiss special counsel to investigate Joe Biden's son Hunter Biden stemming from nearly five years of federal investigations into felony tax evasion, illegal foreign lobbying, money laundering, and other possible crimes. This development came shortly Republicans alleged that Hunter received a "sweet heart" deal in Delaware where he was facing several criminal charges relates to tax evasion and firearm offenses. Originally Posted by txdot-guy

all irrelevant and off topic. this is the topic


Was It Legal To Appoint Jack Smith in the First Place?

https://www.heritage.org/crime-and-j...he-first-place


Was Special Counsel Jack Smith illegally appointed by Attorney General Merrick Garland and is his prosecution of former Pres. Donald Trump unlawful? That is the intriguing issue raised in an amicus brief filed in the Supreme Court by Schaerr Jaffe, LLP, on behalf of former Attorney General Ed Meese and two law professors, Steven Calabresi and Gary Lawson, in the case of U.S. v. Trump.


We won’t get an immediate answer to this question because on the Friday before Christmas, the Supreme Court issued a one-line order refusing to take up Smith’s request that the court review Trump’s claim of presidential immunity, which was denied by the trial court, in the federal prosecution being pursued by Smith in the District of Columbia. The special counsel had petitioned the court to take the case on an expedited basis, urging the justices to bypass review by the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.


The Supreme Court may still get the opportunity to consider this issue, though, either on appeal from a ruling on the immunity claim by the D.C. Circuit or if Trump is convicted and appeals the verdict.


The amicus brief raises serious and fundamental issues of whether Garland had the constitutional and statutory authority to appoint Smith as special counsel in the first place. Jack Smith, a private citizen, was appointed as a special counsel by Garland to investigate whether anyone violated the law in “efforts to interfere in the lawful transfer of power following the 2020 presidential election or the certification of the Electoral College vote held” on Jan. 6, 2021. In August of 2023, a grand jury directed by Smith indicted Trump for conspiring to defraud the U.S., disenfranchising voters, and obstructing an official proceeding on Jan. 6.



>>> Don’t Let Guilty Pleas in Trump Indictment in Georgia Fool You


But Meese, Calabresi, and Lawson argue that Garland lacked the power to appoint Smith because the attorney general has no authority to appoint a “private citizen to receive extraordinary criminal law enforcement power under the title of Special Counsel.”


First, they point out that there is no federal statute establishing an “Office of Special Counsel in DOJ.” Second, even if one ignores the absence of such a specific statute, there is also no statute authorizing the “Attorney General, rather than the President by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to appoint such a Special Counsel.”


The special counsel, they note, has more power that any of the 94 U.S. Attorneys who prosecute cases across the country. Their authority is limited to the jurisdictions in which they are appointed. Moreover, U.S. Attorneys are nominated by the president and have to be approved by the Senate under the Appointments Clause in Section 2 of Article II of the Constitution.


Yet Jack Smith has nationwide authority to pursue his prosecutions, and indeed has indicted Trump in two separate jurisdictions (D.C. and Florida), and was neither nominated by the president nor confirmed by the Senate. This, according to the amicus brief, violates basic constitutional requirements.


The former attorney general and his colleagues acknowledge “there are times when the appointment of a Special Counsel is appropriate.” But federal “statutes and the Constitution” only allow such appointments through “the use of existing United States Attorneys.” They cite the appointments as special counsels of Patrick Fitzgerald, Rod Rosenstein, John Huber, and John Durham, all of whom were Senate-confirmed U.S. Attorneys at the time of their appointments, as examples of valid and lawful appointments.


But what the law and the Constitution “do not allow,” argues the brief, “is for the Attorney General to appoint a private citizen, who has never been confirmed by the Senate, as a substitute United States Attorney under the title ‘Special Counsel.’” “Under the Appointments Clause, inferior officers can be appointed by department heads only if Congress so directs by statute,” and there is no such statute giving Attorney General Merrick Garland such authority to appoint an “inferior officer” like the special counsel.


Meese and the law professors argue that regulations that were promulgated by former Attorney General Janet Reno after the Independent Counsel law lapsed and was not renewed, which allow the appointment of someone who is not a federal employee as a special counsel, are unconstitutional and were beyond her power to create. The attorney general, they say, can appoint a private citizen to assist a U.S. Attorney acting as a special counsel, but not to replace him.


>>> The DOJ’s Latest Ploy To Get Biden Re-Elected: Get Trump in the Supreme Court


This issue was previously raised by Attorney Paul Kamenar in his representation of Andrew Miller, who was held in contempt for failing to comply with a grand jury subpoena served on him by Robert Mueller, who was also a private citizen when he was appointed as a special counsel to investigate the Russia/Trump collusion hoax. Kamenar made the same arguments, but a three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled against Miller. However, that decision was never appealed and the Supreme Court has never addressed the issue.



If the D.C. Circuit is wrong and the amicus brief is correct, then Jack Smith was unlawfully appointed and his investigation and prosecution of Trump, in two jurisdictions no less, was void from the start. But because the Supreme Court rejected Smith’s petition to immediately review the presidential immunity claim, we will not get an answer from the court anytime in the near future on the legality of his appointment as special counsel in this case. The amicus brief’s conclusion is quite harsh:

Not clothed in the authority of the federal government, Smith is a modern example of the naked emperor. Improperly appointed, he has no more authority to represent the United States in this Court than Bryce Harper, Taylor Swift, or Jeff Bezos. That fact is sufficient to sink Smith’s petition, and the Court should deny review.

While this important issue remains unresolved for now, it is lurking in the background, and the Supreme Court may well address it in the future should the opportunity present itself.

This piece originally appeared in the Daily Caller


Jack Shit is a bogus "special counsel"


babaahhaaa

all irrelevant and off topic. this is the topic


Was It Legal To Appoint Jack Smith in the First Place?

https://www.heritage.org/crime-and-j...he-first-place


Was Special Counsel Jack Smith illegally appointed by Attorney General Merrick Garland and is his prosecution of former Pres. Donald Trump unlawful? That is the intriguing issue raised in an amicus brief filed in the Supreme Court by Schaerr Jaffe, LLP, on behalf of former Attorney General Ed Meese and two law professors, Steven Calabresi and Gary Lawson, in the case of U.S. v. Trump.


We won’t get an immediate answer to this question because on the Friday before Christmas, the Supreme Court issued a one-line order refusing to take up Smith’s request that the court review Trump’s claim of presidential immunity, which was denied by the trial court, in the federal prosecution being pursued by Smith in the District of Columbia. The special counsel had petitioned the court to take the case on an expedited basis, urging the justices to bypass review by the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.


The Supreme Court may still get the opportunity to consider this issue, though, either on appeal from a ruling on the immunity claim by the D.C. Circuit or if Trump is convicted and appeals the verdict.


The amicus brief raises serious and fundamental issues of whether Garland had the constitutional and statutory authority to appoint Smith as special counsel in the first place. Jack Smith, a private citizen, was appointed as a special counsel by Garland to investigate whether anyone violated the law in “efforts to interfere in the lawful transfer of power following the 2020 presidential election or the certification of the Electoral College vote held” on Jan. 6, 2021. In August of 2023, a grand jury directed by Smith indicted Trump for conspiring to defraud the U.S., disenfranchising voters, and obstructing an official proceeding on Jan. 6.



>>> Don’t Let Guilty Pleas in Trump Indictment in Georgia Fool You


But Meese, Calabresi, and Lawson argue that Garland lacked the power to appoint Smith because the attorney general has no authority to appoint a “private citizen to receive extraordinary criminal law enforcement power under the title of Special Counsel.”


First, they point out that there is no federal statute establishing an “Office of Special Counsel in DOJ.” Second, even if one ignores the absence of such a specific statute, there is also no statute authorizing the “Attorney General, rather than the President by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to appoint such a Special Counsel.”


The special counsel, they note, has more power that any of the 94 U.S. Attorneys who prosecute cases across the country. Their authority is limited to the jurisdictions in which they are appointed. Moreover, U.S. Attorneys are nominated by the president and have to be approved by the Senate under the Appointments Clause in Section 2 of Article II of the Constitution.


Yet Jack Smith has nationwide authority to pursue his prosecutions, and indeed has indicted Trump in two separate jurisdictions (D.C. and Florida), and was neither nominated by the president nor confirmed by the Senate. This, according to the amicus brief, violates basic constitutional requirements.


The former attorney general and his colleagues acknowledge “there are times when the appointment of a Special Counsel is appropriate.” But federal “statutes and the Constitution” only allow such appointments through “the use of existing United States Attorneys.” They cite the appointments as special counsels of Patrick Fitzgerald, Rod Rosenstein, John Huber, and John Durham, all of whom were Senate-confirmed U.S. Attorneys at the time of their appointments, as examples of valid and lawful appointments.


But what the law and the Constitution “do not allow,” argues the brief, “is for the Attorney General to appoint a private citizen, who has never been confirmed by the Senate, as a substitute United States Attorney under the title ‘Special Counsel.’” “Under the Appointments Clause, inferior officers can be appointed by department heads only if Congress so directs by statute,” and there is no such statute giving Attorney General Merrick Garland such authority to appoint an “inferior officer” like the special counsel.


Meese and the law professors argue that regulations that were promulgated by former Attorney General Janet Reno after the Independent Counsel law lapsed and was not renewed, which allow the appointment of someone who is not a federal employee as a special counsel, are unconstitutional and were beyond her power to create. The attorney general, they say, can appoint a private citizen to assist a U.S. Attorney acting as a special counsel, but not to replace him.


>>> The DOJ’s Latest Ploy To Get Biden Re-Elected: Get Trump in the Supreme Court


This issue was previously raised by Attorney Paul Kamenar in his representation of Andrew Miller, who was held in contempt for failing to comply with a grand jury subpoena served on him by Robert Mueller, who was also a private citizen when he was appointed as a special counsel to investigate the Russia/Trump collusion hoax. Kamenar made the same arguments, but a three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled against Miller. However, that decision was never appealed and the Supreme Court has never addressed the issue.



If the D.C. Circuit is wrong and the amicus brief is correct, then Jack Smith was unlawfully appointed and his investigation and prosecution of Trump, in two jurisdictions no less, was void from the start. But because the Supreme Court rejected Smith’s petition to immediately review the presidential immunity claim, we will not get an answer from the court anytime in the near future on the legality of his appointment as special counsel in this case. The amicus brief’s conclusion is quite harsh:

Not clothed in the authority of the federal government, Smith is a modern example of the naked emperor. Improperly appointed, he has no more authority to represent the United States in this Court than Bryce Harper, Taylor Swift, or Jeff Bezos. That fact is sufficient to sink Smith’s petition, and the Court should deny review.

While this important issue remains unresolved for now, it is lurking in the background, and the Supreme Court may well address it in the future should the opportunity present itself.

This piece originally appeared in the Daily Caller


Jack Shit is a bogus "special counsel"


babaahhaaa Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

First of all let me say I appreciate the effort you put into your response. Unlike many others it was both complete and informative.

Both democratic and republican administrations have used the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 28, part 600 (28 CFR §600) to assign special counsels.

If the supreme court takes the case and finds that the executive branch exceeded its mandate by assigning a special counsel outside of congressional oversight then what happens to previous cases prosecuted under these rules?

IANAL but it seems to me to be a fairly technical issue to decide. My guess is that the court is going to ignore the issue. The ability to assign an unbiased prosecutor to investigate and prosecute a particular case seems like something that the attorney general should have the power to determine on their own specifically because congress is a purely partisan body. They should not have the power to scuttle an independent investigation.

First of all let me say I appreciate the effort you put into your response. Unlike many others it was both complete and informative.

Both democratic and republican administrations have used the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 28, part 600 (28 CFR §600) to assign special counsels.



and what if Title 28, part 600 (28 CFR §600) was not followed?


If the supreme court takes the case and finds that the executive branch exceeded its mandate by assigning a special counsel outside of congressional oversight then what happens to previous cases prosecuted under these rules?


nothing if those special counsels were properly appointed by Congress



IANAL but it seems to me to be a fairly technical issue to decide. My guess is that the court is going to ignore the issue. The ability to assign an unbiased prosecutor to investigate and prosecute a particular case seems like something that the attorney general should have the power to determine on their own specifically because congress is a purely partisan body. They should not have the power to scuttle an independent investigation. Originally Posted by txdot-guy

Ed Meese says so.



and Meese is a lawyer unlike you and me. he was also Attorney General.

kinda surprised to see that old geezer is still alive at 92


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwin_...torney_General


to be honest i thought he was dead


bahahhaa

First of all let me say I appreciate the effort you put into your response. Unlike many others it was both complete and informative.

Both democratic and republican administrations have used the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 28, part 600 (28 CFR §600) to assign special counsels.

If the supreme court takes the case and finds that the executive branch exceeded its mandate by assigning a special counsel outside of congressional oversight then what happens to previous cases prosecuted under these rules?

IANAL but it seems to me to be a fairly technical issue to decide. My guess is that the court is going to ignore the issue. The ability to assign an unbiased prosecutor to investigate and prosecute a particular case seems like something that the attorney general should have the power to determine on their own specifically because congress is a purely partisan body. They should not have the power to scuttle an independent investigation. Originally Posted by txdot-guy

... And yet the problem with yer argument is that
Jack Smith is NOT a unbiased prosecutour.

So THAT surely scuttles that... Especially when it can
be shown that Smith was co-ordinating things with
some o' the other cases against Trump.

#### Salty

It’s rigged?

Is that what yer sayin’ bud?

It’s rigged?

Is that what yer sayin’ bud? Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

it was an "Unconstitutional" appointment is what salty is saying. and me. and Ed Meese, an actual lawyer. and former Attorney General.

... And yet the problem with yer argument is that
Jack Smith is NOT a unbiased prosecutour.

So THAT surely scuttles that... Especially when it can
be shown that Smith was co-ordinating things with
some o' the other cases against Trump.

#### Salty Originally Posted by Salty Again

Not sure what you are thinking here. The entire point of a special counsel is specifically to be unbiased. Jack Smith is an independent. See his wikipedia page.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Smith_(lawyer)

If you find any real evidence of bias please let us know. Just because someone says so doesn’t count.

it was an "Unconstitutional" appointment is what salty is saying. and me. and Ed Meese, an actual lawyer. and former Attorney General. Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

That’s not what Salty said. That’s what you said. An argument can be made that the rules are unconstitutional. Only the Supreme court can decide that.

Not sure what you are thinking here. The entire point of a special counsel is specifically to be unbiased. Jack Smith is a n independent. See his wikipedia page.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Smith_(lawyer)

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

not the issue. who cares if he's a declared independent or not? he is a lawyer. with a track record of failure. but even that's not important ... what is .. is was Smith lawfully appointed by Congress as a "special counsel"?


prove he was.

not the issue. who cares if he's a declared independent or not? he is a lawyer. with a track record of failure. but even that's not important ... what is .. is was Smith lawfully appointed by Congress as a "special counsel"?


prove he was. Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

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

### Salty