Rep. Massie just ended

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. Originally Posted by texassapper

It’s a question alright and an absurd one at that. The special counsel acts under the authority of the Attorney General. Any prosecution resulting is done at the discretion of the attorney general. We know this because not only does the attorney general have the power to deny any prosecution but also any decision of the special counsel as well as the power to fire them.

https://apnews.com/article/special-c...6be1d7ac4d43ac

Though they’re not subject to the day-to-day supervision of the Justice Department, special counsels must still comply with department regulations, policies and procedures. They also technically report to the attorney general — the one government official who can fire them.

The attorney general is entitled to seek explanations from a special counsel about any requested investigative or prosecutorial step, but under the regulations is also expected to give great weight to the special counsel’s views. In the event the attorney general rejects a move the special counsel wants to make, the Justice Department is to notify Congress at the end of the investigation.

If the special counsel was truly independent and had the power to prosecute without the approval of the attorney general then you would be correct. But the special counsel is only able to operate under the purview of the attorney general and by extension congress.

It’s a question alright and an absurd one at that. The special counsel acts under the authority of the Attorney General. Any prosecution resulting is done at the discretion of the attorney general.blah blah blah Originally Posted by txdot-guy

The appointments clause requires all federal offices “not otherwise provided for” in the Constitution to be established by law.

There is no statute establishing the Office of Special Counsel within the U.S. Department of Justice.

Nor is there a statute allowing the attorney general to appoint an inferior officer special counsel with the powers given to Smith.

Inferior officers, in any event, must be controlled by a superior officer, but Garland doesn’t have that power over Smith under DOJ regulations.

The appointments clause makes clear that the “default mode” of appointment for all officers is presidential nomination, Senate confirmation and presidential appointment.

Enjoy your beliefs... not appointed by the President, not confirmed by the Senate... so not vested with the power to prosecute.

SCOTUS will show you the way.

The appointments clause requires all federal offices “not otherwise provided for” in the Constitution to be established by law.

There is no statute establishing the Office of Special Counsel within the U.S. Department of Justice.

Nor is there a statute allowing the attorney general to appoint an inferior officer special counsel with the powers given to Smith.

Inferior officers, in any event, must be controlled by a superior officer, but Garland doesn’t have that power over Smith under DOJ regulations.

The appointments clause makes clear that the “default mode” of appointment for all officers is presidential nomination, Senate confirmation and presidential appointment.

Enjoy your beliefs... not appointed by the President, not confirmed by the Senate... so not vested with the power to prosecute.

SCOTUS will show you the way. Originally Posted by texassapper

Of course there is.

Legal authority
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).[6] The regulations restrict the power to fire the special counsel into the hands of the attorney general alone, and they forbid the firing of the special counsel without good cause. They are internal Department of Justice regulations deriving their power from various acts of Congress, such as U.S. Code, Title 28, section 510 (28 U.S.C. 510).[24] Congress has the power to directly limit the firing of special counsels or to delegate that power to the Attorney General. An agency regulation promulgated within the authority granted by statute has the force and effect of law, is binding upon the body that issues it, and can't be arbitrarily revoked.


The special counsel is an employee of the attorney general and not an officer of the united states. That’s because there is no office of the Special Counsel.

Read up on the federal regulations regarding the special counsel and be better informed.

The special counsel is an employee of the attorney general and not an officer of the united states. Originally Posted by txdot-guy

who has equal powers of the Attorney general and cannot be fired by him without "good cause".

the SC also has jurisdiction over the entire US territories.. ie greater authority than the States Attorney Generals of the US...

The AG doesn't have the authority to vest the SC with the power to prosecute.

That’s because there is no office of the Special Counsel. Originally Posted by txdot-guy

Thanks for making Massies point.

who has equal powers of the Attorney general and cannot be fired by him without "good cause".

the SC also has jurisdiction over the entire US territories.. ie greater authority than the States Attorney Generals of the US...

The AG doesn't have the authority to vest the SC with the power to prosecute.
Thanks for making Massies point. Originally Posted by texassapper

You are just wrong on this point. I’ll be proven correct if the Supreme Court ever rules on this matter.

Until then.

Rep. Massie just ended

I have to admit, that was a hopeful thread title for a second. 🥲

Rep. Massie just ended

I have to admit, that was a hopeful thread title for a second. 🥲 Originally Posted by Diligaf

... Can't win 'em all! ...

... We can surely barney over who's right or who's wrong
on this issue until the camels run away... But let's see
just what the court decides... Massie and the Congress
have a good point - but maybe Garland will prevail.

#### Salty

... Can't win 'em all! ...

... We can surely barney over who's right or who's wrong
on this issue until the camels run away... But let's see
just what the court decides... Massie and the Congress
have a good point - but maybe Garland will prevail.

#### Salty Originally Posted by Salty Again

I’ll concede that Massie and Congress have a point. It’s just not a very good one.

Surely all this will eventually come before the Sujpreme Court?

Surely all this will eventually come before the Sujpreme Court? Originally Posted by ICU 812

That depends on whether Trump wins the election. If he does then he will appoint a new Attorney General or more likely he’ll fire Merrick Garland and put in an acting Attorney General. By doing so he can avoid a Senate confirmation hearing.

At that point the acting Attorney General will fire the special counsel and drop both the insurrection and classified documents cases.

No need to get a ruling from the court if the cases goes away.

It will also prove my point because the special counsel can be fired. Not an independent officer under the constitution.

It will also prove my point because the special counsel can be fired. Not an independent officer under the constitution. Originally Posted by txdot-guy

He can only be fired for cause. But not being a valid officer would be sufficient. Thus proving he's not in a Constitutionally valid office.