1
- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- 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: Interesting situation down in Ft. Pierce
Posted on 9/25/26 at 8:17 am to SlowFlowPro
Posted on 9/25/26 at 8:17 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:Special counsel is "nothing more than a title"? A special counsel does not exercise regulatory independence from ordinary DOJ supervision?
Nothing more than a title
See, I did not know that.
I learn things from you lawyers all the time here.
Posted on 9/25/26 at 8:20 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:You mean, for example, like JDG resigning, and the DOJ simply picking up the mantle and moving forward with the case? That kind of thing?
Do you have anything to show the functional difference in his powers and subservience compared to Jack Smith's?
Posted on 9/25/26 at 8:29 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
A special counsel does not exercise regulatory independence from ordinary DOJ supervision?
It does not
That's an independent counsel
You're conflating the 2
Posted on 9/25/26 at 8:29 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
You mean, for example, like JDG resigning, and the DOJ simply picking up the mantle and moving forward with the case? That kind of thing?
Why do you assume anything would have been different with Jack Smith? Had he resigned? They would have just put another inferior officer in this place to resume the investigation
Posted on 9/25/26 at 8:39 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:28 CFR Part 600 -- General Powers of Special Counsel
It does not
That's an independent counsel
See, that's an oddity, because Garland's team continuously cited regulations which they claimed to have used to appoint Jack Smith, and to create his Office of Special Council. I believe the above regulation was one of those cited. But apparently the above regulation does not exist?
This post was edited on 9/25/26 at 8:46 am
Posted on 9/25/26 at 8:45 am to NC_Tigah
Did you read Section 600.6?
Posted on 9/25/26 at 8:47 am to boosiebadazz
The U S State Department literally tells the state prosecutor to apply for the 18 million dollar grant to enable her office to be able to afford to prosecute POTUS Trump. So she did!
That's A Lot of JACK!!
It's Happening!!
That's A Lot of JACK!!
quote:
They keep their secrets from us, even when the law says we're entitled to have them. But we won. And there are four really key revelations.
The first and most important is that Fannie Willis was working directly with the Justice Department, the Biden Justice Department, to coordinate how she would go about creating a second level of jeopardy, a second level of cost, a second level of persecution and prosecution for Donald Trump and 18 of his cohorts. Jack Smith was already planning to indict most of these folks on almost similar charges at the federal level. Fannie Willis's job was to get them and have a second case at the state level that would drain resources, drain attention, drain bandwidth, and drain their reputations.
And so the Justice Department's all in on that.
You've got the Biden White House, the Biden Justice Department, and the congressional Democrats on the J6 committee. And they're sending evidence even before their investigation's over through the Justice Department directly to Fannie Willis to give her the most resources, the best opposition research, anything she could have to make sure that they -
It's Happening!!
Posted on 9/25/26 at 8:48 am to boosiebadazz
quote:Sure.
Did you read Section 600.6?
Posted on 9/25/26 at 8:50 am to boosiebadazz
quote:But I guess the more salient question is, did you read Section 600.7, as SFP contends there was no difference in Jack Smith's Office, and JDG's position.
Did you read Section 600.6?
This post was edited on 9/25/26 at 8:54 am
Posted on 9/25/26 at 8:59 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Why do you assume anything would have been different with Jack Smith? Had he resigned? They would have just put another inferior officer in this place to resume the investigation
Typical jaywalking attorney. Puttingbdown someon else's assumptions by making an assumption.
Posted on 9/25/26 at 9:03 am to RohanGonzales
quote:
piece of shite lawyer does not like shoe on the other foot
In his defense, at least he's not as low as a discount divorce lawyer. That's real scum.
Posted on 9/25/26 at 9:04 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
literally litigated
Posted on 9/25/26 at 9:51 am to ChatGPT of LA
quote:Except in this instance his “assumption” is that a head of the Office of Special Counsel is no different than a employed DOJ prosecutor, which is a little crazy.
Puttingbdown someon else's assumptions by making an assumption.
This post was edited on 9/25/26 at 10:45 am
Posted on 9/25/26 at 10:06 am to boosiebadazz
One consistent failure of Trump's two terms is how pitiful his DOJ has been. It is especially bad right now.
Posted on 9/25/26 at 10:12 am to boosiebadazz
quote:
Jack Smith was appointed the same way Robert Hur was
Appointed the same way, but they have different backgrounds. Jack Smith had never been confirmed by the U.S.Senate for a U.S. Attorney position - Hur had been.
Posted on 9/25/26 at 10:14 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
How was Joe diGenova appointed?
Just like Robert Hur and unlike Jack Smith, diGenova had been confirmed by the U.S. Senate as a US Attorney.
Posted on 9/25/26 at 10:32 am to JimEverett
quote:
Just like Robert Hur and unlike Jack Smith, diGenova had been confirmed by the U.S. Senate as a US Attorney.
For his role in the Florida GJ case? Or many years prior?
Posted on 9/25/26 at 10:36 am to SlowFlowPro
Years prior.
But that is the argument: a person appointed to a position heading an Office of U.S. Attorney (or equivalent) must have been confirmed by U.S. Senate at a minimum. I am sure there are some who think the confirmation has to happen each time, but the argument for many is that it has to have happened at least once.
But that is the argument: a person appointed to a position heading an Office of U.S. Attorney (or equivalent) must have been confirmed by U.S. Senate at a minimum. I am sure there are some who think the confirmation has to happen each time, but the argument for many is that it has to have happened at least once.
Posted on 9/25/26 at 11:09 am to JimEverett
quote:
Appointment of a Special Counsel
While introduced legislation aimed to insulate a special counsel from executive control raises questions (addressed below) about the President’s ability to oversee the executive branch, some have questioned whether the appointment of a special counsel under the current regulations violates the Constitution.167 Such challenges have been unsuccessful, however, as exemplified by the D.C. Circuit’s recent ruling in In re: Grand Jury Investigation. 168 In that case, the recipient of multiple grand jury subpoenas issued by Special Counsel Robert Mueller moved to quash those subpoenas on the grounds that the appointment of the special counsel was unlawful under the Appointments Clause.169
The D.C. Circuit’s panel decision held that the Appointments Clause did not require Special Counsel to be nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate because the special counsel is not a principal officer.170 Applying the Supreme Court’s test in Edmond v. United States, 171 the D.C. Circuit ruled that, because he is subject to the control of a superior who was nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate (i.e., a principal officer), the special counsel is an inferior officer who may be appointed by a department head.172 While acknowledging that the special counsel regulations bestowed a measure of independence on the special counsel, the court reasoned that because the Attorney General could rescind these regulations at any time, the special counsel is an inferior officer who “effectively serves at the pleasure” of a principal officer.173
Additionally, the court rejected the argument that Congress had not “by law” granted the Attorney General the authority to appoint a special counsel as required by the Appointments Clause.174 In so doing, the panel relied on the Supreme Court’s opinion in United States v. Nixon, 175 in which the Court concluded that, because Congress had by statute vested general authority in the Attorney General to appoint subordinate officers, the Attorney General’s delegation of power to a special prosecutor was valid.176
Finally, the D.C. Circuit panel concluded that a department head properly appointed Special Counsel Mueller in accordance with the Appointments Clause, notwithstanding his appointment by Rod Rosenstein, the Deputy and Acting Attorney General.177 The panel observed that the relevant statutory scheme provided that, in the case of a “disability” of the Attorney General, the Deputy Attorney General “may exercise all the duties of that office.”178 The D.C. Circuit reasoned that when Attorney General Sessions recused himself from matters concerning presidential campaigns, he had a “disability” under the statute on that issue.179 Accordingly, Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein became the acting Attorney General—and was therefore the head of the Department of Justice—on such matters.180 Acting Attorney General Rosenstein’s appointment of Special Counsel Mueller, therefore, was an appointment by the head of a department.181
CRS
This post was edited on 9/25/26 at 11:10 am
Posted on 9/25/26 at 11:18 am to Decatur
Yes, and has been pointed out - the DC's scheme would enable a U.S. Attorney General to appoint a person, without U.S. Senate confirmation, to have all the powers of an office of U.S. Attorney and do so for every federal district in the U.S. and make a complete run around the Constitution.
What, in the DC Circuit's opinion, would stop such a scheme?
To be fair, the "weaker" view I was talking about earlier in response to Robert Hur's appointment would also lead to the absurd possibility, just limited by having to hire former U.S. Attorneys.
What, in the DC Circuit's opinion, would stop such a scheme?
To be fair, the "weaker" view I was talking about earlier in response to Robert Hur's appointment would also lead to the absurd possibility, just limited by having to hire former U.S. Attorneys.
Page 4 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News