Liberal Forum
Archive
‹
Political Chat Rooms
‹
No Holds Barred Political Forum
‹
Seems Jack Smith was not legitimately placed as special prosecutor
Seems Jack Smith was not legitimately placed as special prosecutor
By FredH
22 Dec 2023 7:33 pm in No Holds Barred Political Forum
22 Dec 2023 7:33 pm
https://reason.com/volokh/2023/12/20/sp ... itutional/
Since 1999, when the Independent Counsel provisions of the Ethics in Government Act expired, the Department of Justice ("DOJ") has had in place regulations providing for the appointment of private citizens as Special Counsels who possess "the full power and independent authority to exercise all investigative and prosecutorial functions of any United States Attorney." Unlike a U.S. Attorney, however, private citizen Jack Smith has not been nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate for the particular office of Special Counsel, which he now holds. This is blatantly unconstitutional and renders Jack Smith powerless to seek a writ of certiorari before judgment from the Supreme Court, as he is trying to do at the moment.
Since 1999, when the Independent Counsel provisions of the Ethics in Government Act expired, the Department of Justice ("DOJ") has had in place regulations providing for the appointment of private citizens as Special Counsels who possess "the full power and independent authority to exercise all investigative and prosecutorial functions of any United States Attorney." Unlike a U.S. Attorney, however, private citizen Jack Smith has not been nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate for the particular office of Special Counsel, which he now holds. This is blatantly unconstitutional and renders Jack Smith powerless to seek a writ of certiorari before judgment from the Supreme Court, as he is trying to do at the moment.
23 Dec 2023 6:16 am
That's a bunch of ****.FredH » 22 Dec 2023, 8:33 pm » wrote: ↑ https://reason.com/volokh/2023/12/20/sp ... itutional/
Since 1999, when the Independent Counsel provisions of the Ethics in Government Act expired, the Department of Justice ("DOJ") has had in place regulations providing for the appointment of private citizens as Special Counsels who possess "the full power and independent authority to exercise all investigative and prosecutorial functions of any United States Attorney." Unlike a U.S. Attorney, however, private citizen Jack Smith has not been nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate for the particular office of Special Counsel, which he now holds. This is blatantly unconstitutional and renders Jack Smith powerless to seek a writ of certiorari before judgment from the Supreme Court, as he is trying to do at the moment.
23 Dec 2023 6:58 am
Poor Freddie.FredH » 22 Dec 2023, 8:33 pm » wrote: ↑ https://reason.com/volokh/2023/12/20/sp ... itutional/
Since 1999, when the Independent Counsel provisions of the Ethics in Government Act expired, the Department of Justice ("DOJ") has had in place regulations providing for the appointment of private citizens as Special Counsels who possess "the full power and independent authority to exercise all investigative and prosecutorial functions of any United States Attorney." Unlike a U.S. Attorney, however, private citizen Jack Smith has not been nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate for the particular office of Special Counsel, which he now holds. This is blatantly unconstitutional and renders Jack Smith powerless to seek a writ of certiorari before judgment from the Supreme Court, as he is trying to do at the moment.
Try again. You're embarrassing yourself.
23 Dec 2023 7:32 am
Not according to the Amercian Bar Association, ****...
Was Jack Smith's appointment unconstitutional? He has no more authority than Taylor Swift, amicus brief argues (abajournal.com)
23 Dec 2023 7:42 am
Buffalo » 23 Dec 2023, 8:32 am » wrote: ↑ Not according to the Amercian Bar Association, ****...
Was Jack Smith's appointment unconstitutional? He has no more authority than Taylor Swift, amicus brief argues (abajournal.com)
Wait a second... He SAID that it's a bunch of ****.
What does it take to convince you?!
Please seat yourself.
I like the very things you hate.
I like the very things you hate.
23 Dec 2023 7:45 am
Was Jack Smith's appointment unconstitutional? He has no more authority than Taylor Swift, amicus brief argues
It's just an argue.ent brought by attorneys. The bar has not ruled on it yet. Lol
But But But.
It's just an argue.ent brought by attorneys. The bar has not ruled on it yet. Lol
But But But.
23 Dec 2023 7:46 am
23 Dec 2023 7:47 am
23 Dec 2023 7:48 am
DeezerShoove » 23 Dec 2023, 8:42 am » wrote: ↑ Wait a second... He SAID that it's a bunch of ****.
What does it take to convince you?!
want to bet he sticks around and this goes no where fast.
23 Dec 2023 7:49 am
You want to make a bet its ****. Come on.DeezerShoove » 23 Dec 2023, 8:42 am » wrote: ↑ Wait a second... He SAID that it's a bunch of ****.
What does it take to convince you?!
23 Dec 2023 7:51 am
You didn't even **** read it.Buffalo » 23 Dec 2023, 8:32 am » wrote: ↑ Not according to the Amercian Bar Association, ****...
Was Jack Smith's appointment unconstitutional? He has no more authority than Taylor Swift, amicus brief argues (abajournal.com)
23 Dec 2023 8:34 am
careful BFC, your mental midgetry is peaking...
“Show me the man and I’ll find you the crime”
LAVRENTIY BERIA
"Try to get past your passionate ignorance and learn to accept what actually happened."
brown's unheeded words of wisdom 
23 Dec 2023 8:35 am
Yes I did, asshole!!! Meese and 2 other LAW professors wrote the amicus brief!!! You probably don't know who Meese is and what position he held.
23 Dec 2023 8:37 am
It sure did, the Supreme Court refused to take it up...LOL!!!Bidencrimefamily » 23 Dec 2023, 8:46 am » wrote: ↑ Does anybody want to bet this goes nowhere fast. Anybody want to bet?
23 Dec 2023 9:06 am
Held not hold.Buffalo » 23 Dec 2023, 9:35 am » wrote: ↑ Yes I did, asshole!!! Meese and 2 other LAW professors wrote the amicus brief!!! You probably don't know who Meese is and what position he held.
. Try again Buffy.
Now you're embarrassing yourself too.
31 Dec 2023 12:00 pm
Care to say why? Or prove otherwise?
1 Jan 2024 7:39 am
It's already gone.Bidencrimefamily » 23 Dec 2023, 8:46 am » wrote: ↑ Does anybody want to bet this goes nowhere fast. Anybody want to bet?
Poor Fraud loves getting his *** handed to him.
1 Jan 2024 7:45 am
This is made clear by an examination of the DOJ's organic statute, 28 U.S. C. Sections 509, 510, 515-519, 533, and, most importantly, Section 543. This latter statute, 28 U.S.C. Section 543
Liberals are spoiled children, miserable, unsatisfied, demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic & useless. Liberalism is a philosophy of sniveling brats ~O'Rourke
The Democratic Party seems intransigent on their position of keeping the party ‘woke,’ detached, exclusionary, and totally insane.
The Democratic Party seems intransigent on their position of keeping the party ‘woke,’ detached, exclusionary, and totally insane.
1 Jan 2024 7:46 am
The LAWS didn't magically change because a DEMOCRAT PIECE OF **** is in office, *******!!Squatchman » 23 Dec 2023, 10:06 am » wrote: ↑ Held not hold.
. Try again Buffy.
Now you're embarrassing yourself too.
This is made clear by an examination of the DOJ's organic statute, 28 U.S. C. Sections 509, 510, 515-519, 533, and, most importantly, Section 543. This latter statute, 28 U.S.C. Section 543
Liberals are spoiled children, miserable, unsatisfied, demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic & useless. Liberalism is a philosophy of sniveling brats ~O'Rourke
The Democratic Party seems intransigent on their position of keeping the party ‘woke,’ detached, exclusionary, and totally insane.
The Democratic Party seems intransigent on their position of keeping the party ‘woke,’ detached, exclusionary, and totally insane.
1 Jan 2024 7:59 am
You talking about your posting ability.....how much?Bidencrimefamily » 23 Dec 2023, 8:48 am » wrote: ↑ want to bet he sticks around and this goes no where fast.
Who is online
In total there are 2834 users online :: 9 registered, 13 bots, and 2812 guests
Registered users: Johnny You, Blackvegetable, Zeets2, ROG62, Beekeeper, Cannonpointer, nefarious101, Huey, Fuelman
Bots: MicroMessenger, NING, ADmantX, Disco, CriteoBot, Googlebot, proximic, YandexBot, facebookexternalhit, curl/7, Applebot, Mediapartners-Google, bingbot