Liberal Forum

Fuelman » 23 Oct 2025, 3:04 pm » wrote: ↑

23 Oct 2025, 3:04 pm

Now all you need is a legally appointed special prosecutor.

---------------------------------------
Does a special prosecutor have to be approved by Congress?

Since the expiration of the independent counsel provisions in the Ethics in Government Act in 1999, as was the case before 1978, neither Congress nor the courts have any official role in the appointment of a special counsel; however, Congress can use other powers to pressure an administration into appointing a special ...

Fuelman » 23 Oct 2025, 3:04 pm » wrote: ↑

23 Oct 2025, 3:04 pm

Now all you need is a legally appointed special prosecutor.

---------------------------------------


Arguments supporting the appointment

• Smith was appointed by Attorney General Merrick Garland under a Justice Department regulation that has been in place since 1999 and is substantively similar to regulations used for previous special counsels, such as Leon Jaworski during the Watergate case, says Syracuse University Today. 

• The Supreme Court upheld the legality of a special counsel appointment under this regulation in United States v. Nixon. 

• Other legal experts argue that the Attorney General has the statutory authority to hire and delegate authority to investigate criminal cases, and that the appointment is constitutional, explains Just Security. 

jerrab » 23 Oct 2025, 3:13 pm » wrote: ↑

23 Oct 2025, 3:13 pm

---------------------------------------

Arguments supporting the appointment

• Smith was appointed by Attorney General Merrick Garland under a Justice Department regulation that has been in place since 1999 and is substantively similar to regulations used for previous special counsels, such as Leon Jaworski during the Watergate case, says Syracuse University Today. 

• The Supreme Court upheld the legality of a special counsel appointment under this regulation in United States v. Nixon. 

• Other legal experts argue that the Attorney General has the statutory authority to hire and delegate authority to investigate criminal cases, and that the appointment is constitutional, explains Just Security. 

As it stands at this moment, the appointment was unconstitutional according to Judge Cannon.

Appeals Court may find differently.

Judge dismisses Trump classified docs case : NPR https://share.google/KB0C9LEMbyroOiajZ
 

Fuelman » 23 Oct 2025, 3:04 pm » wrote: ↑

23 Oct 2025, 3:04 pm

Now all you need is a legally appointed special prosecutor.

https://www.justsecurity.org/104488/tru ... authority/

Fuelman » 23 Oct 2025, 3:04 pm » wrote: ↑

23 Oct 2025, 3:04 pm

Now all you need is a legally appointed special prosecutor.

https://news.syr.edu/2024/07/16/the-tru ... -law-prof/   By Gregory Germain, Professor of Law, Syracuse University College of LawDonald Trump and his associates were charged with stealing, mishandling, concealing, and lying about classified government documents taken by Trump on his way out of the White House.  Judge Eileen Cannon dismissed the case, claiming that Special Prosecutor Jack Smith’s appointment was unconstitutional.  Cannon may well be right in holding that Smith’s appointment was unconstitutional, but she was not right to dismiss the case.

 Jack Smith was appointed to be Special Prosecutor by Attorney General Merrick Garland under a Justice Department regulation that has been in effect since 1999, and is substantively identical to regulations that were in effect for decades and during the Nixon Watergate case, which was prosecuted by outside Special Prosecutor Leon Jaworski.  The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s decision in United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 694 (1974), noting that Jaworski had been appointed under the DOJ’s regulation.  No prior court has taken seriously a challenge to a special counsel’s appointment under the special counsel regulations.


 

Fuelman » 23 Oct 2025, 3:21 pm » wrote: ↑

23 Oct 2025, 3:21 pm

As it stands at this moment, the appointment was unconstitutional according to Judge Cannon.

Appeals Court may find differently.

Judge dismisses Trump classified docs case : NPR https://share.google/KB0C9LEMbyroOiajZ

---------------------------------------------
https://www.politico.com/news/2024/06/2 ... l-00164368


The claim is a far-fetched bid by Trump to scuttle the case altogether. Numerous courts have rejected nearly identical constitutional challenges to other special counsels.And in a case that has moved like molasses for a year, Cannon’s decision to devote substantial time and resources to the argument is just the latest, and perhaps most blatant, example of her unusual approach. Her management of the case has frustrated the special counsel’s team and prompted critics to accuse her of being in the tank for Trump, who appointed her to the bench during his final year in office.

---------------------------------------

judges are to recuse themelves if their partiality interferes with their judgement.
 

Fuelman » 23 Oct 2025, 3:21 pm » wrote: ↑

23 Oct 2025, 3:21 pm

As it stands at this moment, the appointment was unconstitutional according to Judge Cannon.

Appeals Court may find differently.

Judge dismisses Trump classified docs case : NPR https://share.google/KB0C9LEMbyroOiajZ

-----------------------------------------------------

https://www.propublica.org/article/judg ... jack-smith



Judge Aileen M. Cannon has shown bias in handling criminal charges against former President Donald Trump and should be reversed and removed from the case to “preserve the appearance of justice,” a public interest group argued in a legal filing on Tuesday.The brief filed by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington and joined by a retired federal judge and two constitutional lawyers is a direct legal assault on Cannon’s decision to throw out special counsel Jack Smith’s prosecution of Trump for alleged mishandling of classified documents. CREW is a nonpartisan open-government advocacy group that has been at the vanguard of fighting Trump in various legal battles.The brief argues that Cannon’s decision “hinged on ignoring the plain text of four federal statutes,” dismissing “a landmark Supreme Court opinion confirming the Attorney General’s power to appoint a Special Counsel.”CREW writes that “a reasonable member of the public could conclude, as many have, that the dismissal was the culmination of Judge Cannon’s many efforts to undermine and derail the prosecution of this case.”
 

ROG62 » 23 Oct 2025, 2:36 pm » wrote: ↑

23 Oct 2025, 2:36 pm

https://www.forbes.com/sites/brianbusha ... ves-finds/

you've been neutered...

Grifty wasn't charged with simple "mishandling".

He refused to surrender material subject to a subpoena, and lied about having them



 

Fuelman » 23 Oct 2025, 3:21 pm » wrote: ↑

23 Oct 2025, 3:21 pm

As it stands at this moment, the appointment was unconstitutional according to Judge Cannon.

Appeals Court may find differently.

Judge dismisses Trump classified docs case : NPR https://share.google/KB0C9LEMbyroOiajZ

Doesn't change the facts...

Fuelman » 23 Oct 2025, 3:21 pm » wrote: ↑

23 Oct 2025, 3:21 pm

As it stands at this moment, the appointment was unconstitutional according to Judge Cannon.

Appeals Court may find differently.

Judge dismisses Trump classified docs case : NPR https://share.google/KB0C9LEMbyroOiajZ

-------------------------------

AI Overview
Judges must be fair and impartial, which often requires them to recuse themselves—or step aside—from a case if their impartiality might be questioned. This occurs when there is a potential conflict of interest, such as a close relationship with a party, a financial interest in the outcome, or personal bias. Ensuring recusal is crucial for maintaining public trust and upholding the constitutional right to a fair trial. 

jerrab » 23 Oct 2025, 3:28 pm » wrote: ↑

23 Oct 2025, 3:28 pm

https://news.syr.edu/2024/07/16/the-tru ... -law-prof/   By Gregory Germain, Professor of Law, Syracuse University College of LawDonald Trump and his associates were charged with stealing, mishandling, concealing, and lying about classified government documents taken by Trump on his way out of the White House.  Judge Eileen Cannon dismissed the case, claiming that Special Prosecutor Jack Smith’s appointment was unconstitutional.  Cannon may well be right in holding that Smith’s appointment was unconstitutional, but she was not right to dismiss the case.

 Jack Smith was appointed to be Special Prosecutor by Attorney General Merrick Garland under a Justice Department regulation that has been in effect since 1999, and is substantively identical to regulations that were in effect for decades and during the Nixon Watergate case, which was prosecuted by outside Special Prosecutor Leon Jaworski.  The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s decision in United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 694 (1974), noting that Jaworski had been appointed under the DOJ’s regulation.  No prior court has taken seriously a challenge to a special counsel’s appointment under the special counsel regulations.

Even your own source states the same. That's why I asked the question. If his appointment was unconstitutional, what effect does that have on the Grand Jury. He didn't have the authority to bring charges.


 

Fuelman » 23 Oct 2025, 3:21 pm » wrote: ↑

23 Oct 2025, 3:21 pm

As it stands at this moment, the appointment was unconstitutional according to Judge Cannon.

Appeals Court may find differently.

Judge dismisses Trump classified docs case : NPR https://share.google/KB0C9LEMbyroOiajZ

https://www.brennancenter.org/issues/st ... cs-recusal

Blackvegetable » 23 Oct 2025, 3:51 pm » wrote: ↑

23 Oct 2025, 3:51 pm

Doesn't change the facts...

So go get Trump.
Again,
And again,
And again.

Talk about epic failure to put down the most corrupt person in history as Democrats believe.


 

Fuelman » 23 Oct 2025, 4:00 pm » wrote: ↑

23 Oct 2025, 4:00 pm

So go get Trump.
Again,
And again,
And again.

Talk about epic failure to put down the most corrupt person in history as Democrats believe.

he got elected at that time. 

jerrab » 23 Oct 2025, 4:02 pm » wrote: ↑

23 Oct 2025, 4:02 pm

he got elected at that time.

Guess you will have to wait.
 

Fuelman » 23 Oct 2025, 4:00 pm » wrote: ↑

23 Oct 2025, 4:00 pm

So go get Trump.
Again,
And again,
And again.

Talk about epic failure to put down the most corrupt person in history as Democrats believe.

this is one of the reasons trump has asked for gerrymandering.

• Appeal: 
  The special counsel's office has appealed this decision to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. 
• Potential outcome: 
  If the appeals court upholds the dismissal, the case is over. If the appeals court reverses the dismissal, the case could be sent back to the original judge or a new judge, and a trial could then be scheduled. 

--------------------------------------------------

HOWEVER HE IS GUILTY and should not ask for 250 million dollars from american tax payers.

jerrab » 23 Oct 2025, 4:09 pm » wrote: ↑

23 Oct 2025, 4:09 pm

this is one of the reasons trump has asked for gerrymandering.

• Appeal: 
  The special counsel's office has appealed this decision to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. 
• Potential outcome: 
  If the appeals court upholds the dismissal, the case is over. If the appeals court reverses the dismissal, the case could be sent back to the original judge or a new judge, and a trial could then be scheduled. 

--------------------------------------------------

HOWEVER HE IS GUILTY and should not ask for 250 million dollars from american tax payers.

"King Trump" may not be going anywhere!

Patience.
 

Fuelman » 23 Oct 2025, 4:00 pm » wrote: ↑

23 Oct 2025, 4:00 pm

So go get Trump.
Again,
And again,
And again.

Talk about epic failure to put down the most corrupt person in history as Democrats believe.

Do you understand what Cum on Aileen did to get the felon off the hook?

Blackvegetable » 23 Oct 2025, 4:21 pm » wrote: ↑

23 Oct 2025, 4:21 pm

Do you understand what Cum on Aileen did to get the felon off the hook?

Appeals Court, wait for it.
 

Fuelman » 23 Oct 2025, 4:29 pm » wrote: ↑

23 Oct 2025, 4:29 pm

Appeals Court, wait for it.

Is that a Yes or a No?