- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Comey case will be dismissed b/c Halligan's appointment was unlawful
Posted on 11/24/25 at 5:35 pm to Thirteen
Posted on 11/24/25 at 5:35 pm to Thirteen
quote:
In layman's terms, what crime did Comey commit?
In THIS case, Comey was accused of lying to Congress in September of 2020 and obstructing Congress based on that lie.
0
Posted on 11/24/25 at 5:36 pm to Decatur
quote:No reasonable prosecutor ...
He upset Trump.
would post "8647"
Posted on 11/24/25 at 5:39 pm to antibarner
quote:
Jack Beria Smith clearly overreached and we hear more and more about his megalomania every day.
I believe his question was less abt Jack's performance and more abt the legality of his appointment.
Posted on 11/24/25 at 5:49 pm to JimEverett
quote:
We really do not know what Alito said outside of some quotes found here: LINK and perhaps elsewhere.
Thanks, Jim. I have seen it elsewhere...but maybe they were all quoting your original cite.
What did you think about the Court's reasoning?
Court's Memorandum
Posted on 11/24/25 at 5:55 pm to IvoryBillMatt
FWIW, I think there's ZERO chance that the 4th Circuit reverses Judge Currie on this. Of ALL the district judges under the Fourth Circuit, they respected her enough to bring her in from South Carolina to decide this issue.
Posted on 11/24/25 at 5:58 pm to boosiebadazz
quote:IMO, both have/had basis. I don't see this as a partisan hack ruling
Did you feel the same way when Aileen Cannon dismissed the case brought by Jack Smith?
Posted on 11/24/25 at 6:40 pm to Decatur
quote:
quote:
In layman's terms, what crime did Comey commit?
He upset Trump
Oh lawd..... you are totally dishonest, ignorant, a paid schill, or a bot. Whichever, your fricking pathetic. Just like other "legal minds" on here, your willing to compromise yourself in order to push your personal narrative.
Except SFP. He/she stands for nothing.
This post was edited on 11/24/25 at 6:41 pm
Posted on 11/24/25 at 6:44 pm to IvoryBillMatt
I don't think the argument is particularly strong. She is arguing tha the government's reading makes the statute " superfluous in all but the most unusual circumstances." Yet the DC just appointed an attorney in the same district back in May.
She relies on the word "an" in subsection (d) an appointment expires] to make the argument that once a court appointed U.S. attorney resigns the court retains the authority to appoint. I guess ignoring what appears to be an equally important article "a" [the district court for such district may appoint a United States attorney] Notice it does not say anything indicating the court can appoint numerous attorneys - just "a" U.S. attorney. Why does the "an" operate as a limitation on the U.S. Attorney General but the "a" does not operate as a limitation on the court. The only argument I see is that the limitation on the court makes the subsection "superfluous" - but it clearly is not.
The statute makes clear to me that if there is a vacancy the USAG may appoint an attorney. Period.
On a slightly different take - there is potentially an argument to be made that the statute is unconstitutional. Allowing the judiciary to appoint an Executive Branch officer seems very troubling separation of powers issue.
She relies on the word "an" in subsection (d) an appointment expires] to make the argument that once a court appointed U.S. attorney resigns the court retains the authority to appoint. I guess ignoring what appears to be an equally important article "a" [the district court for such district may appoint a United States attorney] Notice it does not say anything indicating the court can appoint numerous attorneys - just "a" U.S. attorney. Why does the "an" operate as a limitation on the U.S. Attorney General but the "a" does not operate as a limitation on the court. The only argument I see is that the limitation on the court makes the subsection "superfluous" - but it clearly is not.
The statute makes clear to me that if there is a vacancy the USAG may appoint an attorney. Period.
On a slightly different take - there is potentially an argument to be made that the statute is unconstitutional. Allowing the judiciary to appoint an Executive Branch officer seems very troubling separation of powers issue.
Posted on 11/24/25 at 6:49 pm to JimEverett
quote:
On a slightly different take - there is potentially an argument to be made that the statute is unconstitutional. Allowing the judiciary to appoint an Executive Branch officer seems very troubling separation of powers issue.
And a workaround on the checks and balances of the advice and consent of the Senate. I’m just a simple bumpkin lawyer, but this wolf seems to come as a wolf.
This post was edited on 11/24/25 at 6:53 pm
Posted on 11/24/25 at 6:58 pm to JimEverett
quote:
On a slightly different take - there is potentially an argument to be made that the statute is unconstitutional. Allowing the judiciary to appoint an Executive Branch officer seems very troubling separation of powers issue.
Thanks for the thorough response. I agree with your meta analysis. Basically we have two constitutional themes clashing: the necessity of "advise and consent" versus the Executive being able to select its officers.
Posted on 11/24/25 at 7:04 pm to IvoryBillMatt
These are some great times for armchair lawyers
This post was edited on 11/24/25 at 7:07 pm
Posted on 11/24/25 at 7:06 pm to JimEverett
"Unchartered territory" indeed.
Posted on 11/24/25 at 7:12 pm to JimEverett
quote:
These are some great times for armchair lawyers??
At the end of the day, non lawyers like me want the merits of the cases to be brought to a bipartisan court/judge as the evidence has been public knowledge. Technicalities do not change the fact that crimes were or were not committed. If they are found guilty or innocent (again a bipartisan situation) is what the public wants and the legal system is supposed to provide.
This post was edited on 11/24/25 at 7:22 pm
Posted on 11/24/25 at 7:22 pm to Warboo
quote:
At the end of the day, non lawyers like me want the merits of the cases to be brought to a bipartisan court/judge as the evidence has been public knowledge. If they are found guilty or innocent (again a bipartisan situation) is what the public wants.
Lawyers want the same thing. We're just discussing what is likely to happen.
Posted on 11/24/25 at 7:27 pm to IvoryBillMatt
quote:
Lawyers want the same thing. We're just discussing what is likely to happen.
I appreciate you and several others input on how this case/cases may materialize. I was just speaking to the thoughts of the non lawyers here and probably the majority of citizens. Kudos to you and some others input
Posted on 11/24/25 at 7:34 pm to Warboo
quote:
I was just speaking to the thoughts of the non lawyers here and probably the majority of citizens. Kudos to you and some others input
Thanks, and I appreciate your observations. Lawyers get just as frustrated as others about legal outcomes that don't reflect the truth (OJ, Trump's New York cases, etc.)...maybe we have just come to expect them.
Posted on 11/24/25 at 7:45 pm to IvoryBillMatt
quote:
etc.)...maybe we have just come to expect them.
That is huge reason why the public in general have lost faith in our government and especially the judicial branch.
Posted on 11/24/25 at 8:04 pm to Warboo
quote:
That is huge reason why the public in general have lost faith in our government and especially the judicial branch.
I don't disagree. I have helped file an ethics complaint against a judge. Not surprisingly, it didn't go far.
Posted on 11/24/25 at 8:21 pm to Warboo
quote:
That is huge reason why the public in general have lost faith in our government and especially the judicial branch.
Takes talent to distinguish trash from trash from trash.
Posted on 11/24/25 at 8:25 pm to Warboo
quote:
At the end of the day, non lawyers like me want the merits of the cases to be brought to a bipartisan court/judge as the evidence has been public knowledge.
Then do things properly. It isn’t hard, but neither Trump administration has taken any care in following legal formalities, so everything they do gets hung up or shut down on technicalities. They’re trying the bull in a china shop approach and that is just never going to work with the federal judicial system. A second year law student could tell you that, but they do it anyway.
quote:
Technicalities do not change the fact that crimes were or were not committed. If they are found guilty or innocent (again a bipartisan situation) is what the public wants and the legal system is supposed to provide.
Correct. But the cases have to get to court on the merits, and there are rules for that, none of which are difficult to abide by.
This post was edited on 11/24/25 at 8:26 pm
Page 9 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News