Jack Smith
- Thread starter TigerGrowls
- Start date
Judge Cannon is Now Considering Whether Jack Smith's Appointment as Special Counsel is 'Valid'
Judge Aileen Cannon, the judge presiding over Donald Trump's classified documents case, is expanding court hearings to determine whether Jack Smith's appointment as Special Counsel is legally valid.
The federal court is allowing three legal experts to make their cases on the complicating issue on June 21.
President Trump's legal team is arguing Smith's appointment is illegal because he was not employed by the federal government when he was made Special Counsel.
Trump's attorney Christopher Kise argued in a motion that Smith should be removed from the case.
"The Appointments Clause does not permit the attorney general to appoint, without Senate confirmation, a private citizen and like-minded political ally to wield the prosecutorial power of the United States. As such, Jack Smith lacks the authority to prosecute this action."
Read em and weep suckas.
Judge Cannon Holds Hearing on Validity of Jack Smith’s Special Counsel Appointment – Here Are the Details
www.thegatewaypundit.com
Judge Cannon Holds Hearing on Validity of Jack Smith’s Special Counsel Appointment – Here Are the Details
Judge Cannon Holds Hearing on Validity of Jack Smith's Special Counsel Appointment - Here Are the Details | The Gateway Pundit | by Cristina Laila
Judge Aileen Cannon on Friday heard challenges to Jack Smith’s special counsel appointment.
www.thegatewaypundit.com
From FLA courthouse: Debate over constitutionality of Jack Smith's appointment just concluded after a full day Friday and this morning.
A weedy discussion about which statutory/regulatory authority permits Smith's appointment. Judge Cannon again pressed both sides to make their case with some discussion about independence v oversight of special counsel's team as well as superior v inferior officer--DOJ claims Smith is the latter.
This clearly is another example of Congress falling down on the job (!) by not tightening up special/independent counsel regs and exercising appropriation oversight.
But IMO the most revealing part of the hearing related to funding for Smith's office.
The special counsel has not released a financial report since Sept 2023 in violation of the 6-month reporting requirements.
Cannon asked James Pearce, representing DOJ this morning, about the status of the report. Pearce said the report was completed in March 2024 but is undergoing some sort of review process.
Cannon: "We are now in June."
She drilled down--or attempted to--on what she described as the "permanent and indefinite" appropriation for Smith's office. She noted the funding is "limitless" and not subject to any cap.
Pearce came up with 2 examples (I have to go back and read) in the law that permits this sort of spigot of public funding. When Cannon suggested his vague examples might not survive the court challenge, Pearce quickly responded that DOJ would find an "alternative" funding source.
He emphatically stated that the DOJ "will fund this prosecution."
Cannon was not impressed, expressing concern at "the ease with which the DOJ can find another funding source."
(Not sure Pearce's quip helps bolster his argument that Smith's appointment and appropriations for the dual prosecutions is as cut-and-dry and the DOJ insists.)
Emil Bove, representing Donald Trump, continued to push for specific answers as to how much oversight AG Merrick Garland has over Smith. DOJ basically admitted there is some but not "day to day."
Bove argued Smith's operation requires "interaction between Congress" but it is "nonexistent."
"There is no oversight by Congress for the extraordinary and unprecedented things that are happening in this case."
Bove closed the hearing by asking a question related to this afternoon's hearing--Smith's proposed partial gag order on Trump banning him from making critical statements about law enforcement officials involved in the documents case and FBI raid of Mar-a-Lago.
Bove: Smith's proposal is a "truly extraordinary effort to gag [Trump] speech on the debate stage and the campaign trail."
"Did the Attorney General approve this?"
We might get a straight answer during next hearing set for 3pm. I anticipate many 🎇
BREAKING: Justice Clarence Thomas has called special counsel Jack Smith’s appointment into question in a concurring opinion.
“If this unprecedented prosecution is to proceed, it must be conducted by someone duly authorized to do so by the American people.
The lower courts should thus answer these essential questions concerning the Special Counsel’s appointment before proceeding.”
Goodbye Jack Smith
Your ass is grass
Trump is winning
He has Tiger Blood
or better yet a TIGER BLOODBATH in the making
LOL
Your ass is grass
Trump is winning
He has Tiger Blood
or better yet a TIGER BLOODBATH in the making
LOL
Would love to see what’s under theg robes LOL
LOL. Meathead will not stop. We need Archie Bunker back to put him in line.
Last edited:
For those of us who barely give a shit, are all trump’s cases are dropped now?
Everybody knows he was hired to go after Biden's political opponent. They decided to go after Trump as soon as he said he was running again.
As more time goes on, the truth will come out and those that used our government and justice system to take down a political opponent should face serious consequences.
This is stuff you see in third world regimes and it needs to stop. There has to be accountability.
As more time goes on, the truth will come out and those that used our government and justice system to take down a political opponent should face serious consequences.
This is stuff you see in third world regimes and it needs to stop. There has to be accountability.
Wait, so we should give a pass to President's who tell outrageous lies about elections they lose, create fake elector schemes, fire AGs who won't do their corrupt bidding, strongarm secretaries of state to find non-existent votes, invite thousands of enraged followers to DC to attack the Capitol in order to stop the count, which injures 150 policemen, including deaths and don't apologize for any of it? THAT'S the kind of shit you see in third world regimes - first world regimes hold those people accountable.
We should just shrug it off and look the other way???
Just think about what you've become and what that says about our country now.
The 2020 election was not legitimate. You do realize you are in the minority right? Majority of Americans voted for the guy you say is the devil. Maybe you are misguided?
The majority of Americans do NOT believe the election was illegitimate and there has never been any evidence that supports it either, so if you believe it, that also says something about you and what we've become as a country. We understand that you have to believe it in order to assuage the guilt you feel for your undying devotion, but in first world countries, even if it were all true, that is not the way you challenge an election you think was stolen. Do you think he would have gotten away with this in any other country or would he be in jail? You know the answer...
Just because the devil won doesn't make him right, after all, uneducated whites were his biggest voting block for a reason.
"uneducated whites" get a vote just like everyone else.
Maybe the Democrats should try listening to them.
We're open to it but you need to stop breaking their brains with propaganda that make them believe things that aren't true. Take some responsibilty for that since you're one of the biggest purveyors of misinformation.
“Even if you look at Republicans, the percentage that claim that the election was stolen is not as high as Trump claims,” McLennan said in an email.
Available data shows that Trump’s claim is “absurd,” Alexander Theodoridis, co-director of the UMass Amherst Poll at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, said in an email.
A January Umass Amherst Poll found that 30% of respondents believed Biden’s win was illegitimate.
Theodoridis noted that even among former Republican members of Congress — who were involved in government and could access detailed information about elections — more than 80% said Biden’s victory was legitimate.
Polling groups have surveyed Americans multiple times about the 2020 presidential election’s legitimacy and none of their findings support Trump’s claim. Here’s a smattering of poll findings since we last examined this issue.
- A Washington Post-University of Maryland poll from December found that 36% of respondents viewed Biden’s win as illegitimate.
- An August poll by The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research found that about 70% of respondents believed Biden was legitimately elected. Among Republicans, the number was 57%.
- A June Monmouth University poll found that 30% of respondents believe Biden won the 2020 election because of voter fraud. Among Republicans, the number was 68% — still lower than Trump claimed. That result “has been a nearly constant percentage in Monmouth’s polling since the November 2020 election,” Monmouth noted in its report.
Thirty-one percent of the poll’s respondents said they believed the 2020 presidential election was stolen from Trump — but the number was much higher for respondents who consumed conservative media. Among Republicans who claimed they trust Fox News more than any other outlet, 82% said they believed the election was stolen.
Polling results consistently show a partisan divide over the election’s legitimacy, said Alejandra Campos, a Latino Studies professor in the University of Arkansas’ political science department. Still, “the available data does not support the claim that a majority of Americans thought the 2020 election was rigged,” Campos said."
Fact check: Trump says 82% of Americans think 2020 election was 'rigged'
At a Greensboro, North Carolina, rally, former President Donald Trump, referring to 2020, said "82% of the country understands that it was a rigged election. Poll results and polling experts say the claim is way off base.
www.wral.com
