• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Split Thread Trump Document indictment (as opposed to other indictments)

Resume said:
As I said above . . . But it's truly mind boggling how lucky this asswipe is.
Click to expand...

He’s not lucky. We now have 100% certainty that “Judge” Cannon owes the Russian mob a favor or two.

Only way to deal with mobsters was laid out in “The Untouchables”.

Only way to deal with republicans is the same thing
 
On the Law and Chaos podcast, they assert that even stipulating that Cannon’s reading of the law is correct, and that Smith was improperly appointed, dismissing the case is still not the proper remedy. That the injured party would be Congress, with the appointment of Smith circumventing what she sees as their powers to advise and consent on such appointments. NOT Trump or the other two defendants, who have in fact received due process regardless of the appointment itself being questionable.

Or something like that - I find myself getting a bit lost in the minutiae of Cannon’s ruling and what it means going forward.
 
Professor Kaytal's rebuttal

Professor Neal Katyal drafted the special counsel regulations in 1999. He wrote, "“Acting pursuant to those statutes,” the Supreme Court continued, the attorney general “has delegated the authority to represent the United States in these particular matters to a special prosecutor with unique authority and tenure.”

Judge Cannon tried to dismiss those words as “dicta,” meaning that they were not part of the holding of the case, and thus did not constitute a precedent. In fact, they were critical to the court’s holding (and a lot more critical than Justice Thomas’s one-justice concurrence in the Trump immunity case, which she cited several times). Decades have elapsed since the Nixon decision and yet Congress never once altered these laws."
 
JayUtah said:
I’m confused. Are you making hay out of that or not?
Click to expand...

I'm pointing out that no court rulings contradicting Cannon have been cited by anyone, including the DOJ. There are all these claims that she's breaking precedent, but it's not much of a precedent if there are no rulings on the topic.
 
Chris_Halkides said:
Decades have elapsed since the Nixon decision and yet Congress never once altered these laws.
Click to expand...

That's not true. The Nixon decision was in 1974. The Ethics in Government Act was passed in 1978, in direct response to that entire mess. And it directly created the Office of Special Counsel by legislative act. So Congress very much altered the law.

That part of the act expired in 1999, which is why regulations were drafted in 1999 regarding special counsels. But those regulations were not specifically authorized by legislation, which is why appointments of special counsel under the act are not equivalent to appointments made outside the act.
 
Fast Eddie B said:
On the Law and Chaos podcast, they assert that even stipulating that Cannon’s reading of the law is correct, and that Smith was improperly appointed, dismissing the case is still not the proper remedy. That the injured party would be Congress, with the appointment of Smith circumventing what she sees as their powers to advise and consent on such appointments. NOT Trump or the other two defendants, who have in fact received due process regardless of the appointment itself being questionable.

Or something like that - I find myself getting a bit lost in the minutiae of Cannon’s ruling and what it means going forward.
Click to expand...

If Smith has no authority to bring charges, then Trump is absolutely a wronged party. How could he not be? Having to answer charges in a court of law is unquestionably a burden, and it's a transparently obvious due process violation if the charges are brought by someone who isn't empowered to bring charges. I can't bring charges against you, for example, because I have no such authority. And likewise you cannot bring charges against me. Can you imagine the chaos that would ensue if this were permitted? Do you really not get why that's a problem?
 
Ziggurat said:
I'm pointing out that no court rulings contradicting Cannon have been cited by anyone, including the DOJ. There are all these claims that she's breaking precedent, but it's not much of a precedent if there are no rulings on the topic.
Click to expand...

Is the DOJ required to cite cases in a press release?
 
Last edited:
515 and 533

Ziggurat said:
That's not true. The Nixon decision was in 1974. The Ethics in Government Act was passed in 1978, in direct response to that entire mess. And it directly created the Office of Special Counsel by legislative act. So Congress very much altered the law.

That part of the act expired in 1999, which is why regulations were drafted in 1999 regarding special counsels. But those regulations were not specifically authorized by legislation, which is why appointments of special counsel under the act are not equivalent to appointments made outside the act.
Click to expand...

The author of the 1999 regulations, Professor Katyal, wrote, "Eight separate judges had already rejected the claim that Judge Cannon has now endorsed (including, by the way, the judge presiding over Hunter Biden’s criminal case)...And what laws did the [1973 Supreme] court cite? The very same statutes, Sections 515 and 533, that Mr. Garland cited when appointing Mr. Smith."
 
Let’s keep this in perspective. Meese acknowledges that the Nixon court covers this. So does Calabresi. So does Thomas. And consequently so does Cannon. The argument percolating through the conservative legal jungle is based on a law review article that got zero traction in the Supreme Court. It’s Justice Thomas’ legal activism. Therefore the full-court press from our conservatives here to impose a burden of proof on everyone else to support precedent.
 
Chris_Halkides said:
The author of the 1999 regulations, Professor Katyal, wrote, "Eight separate judges had already rejected the claim that Judge Cannon has now endorsed (including, by the way, the judge presiding over Hunter Biden’s criminal case)
Click to expand...

Katyal is wrong. First off, I don't recall there being any challenge in the Hunter Biden case to the validity of David Weiss's appointment, so I simply don't believe that the judge has ruled on the matter at all.

Second, I've already explained how that case is different. Weiss was already a US Attorney, and he was already appointed by a President and confirmed by the Senate to that job when he was selected as special counsel. So using Cannon's argument, he's an officer of the United States, and his role as special counsel doesn't violate the Appointments clause of the constitution. This is such a basic mistake that it makes me question everything else Katyal claims.

...And what laws did the [1973 Supreme] court cite? The very same statutes, Sections 515 and 533, that Mr. Garland cited when appointing Mr. Smith."
Click to expand...

Show me the actual text of their ruling. Because I don't think that case even involved whether or not the appointment itself was constitutionally valid. I don't think that question was ever raised or addressed in the Nixon case.
 
JayUtah said:
Therefore the full-court press from our conservatives here to impose a burden of proof on everyone else to support precedent.
Click to expand...

Honesty, it's sorta given me the impression of someone who is in a bad spot in a game like Monopoly just dumping a large pizza onto the board and their cronies arguing things on par with "there's nothing in the rules against it, so what are you all complaining about?" in defense of that move.
 
Last edited:
Aridas said:
Honesty, it's sorta given me the impression of someone who is in a bad spot in a game like Monopoly just dumping a large pizza onto the board and their cronies arguing things on par with "there's nothing in the rules against it, so what are you all complaining about" in defense of that move.
Click to expand...


There is zero chance Trump will prevail on the merits in this case. It’s open and shut. That’s why it’s vitally important that Trump’s judicial allies torpedo this on procedural grounds. Hence Judge Cannon’s need to play the card.
 
It is extremely revealing that throughout the Case, Cannon insisted on having Briefings on pretty much everything ... except on the Question is actually ended up ruling on.
 
not dictum

Charlie Savage reported, "Other special prosecutors have been appointed from outside the government, including Leon Jaworski in the Watergate scandal, Lawrence E. Walsh in the Iran-contra affair and Robert S. Mueller III in the inquiry into the Trump campaign’s ties to Russia. Courts nevertheless consistently said their appointments were lawful...It [the Appeals Court] added, “The Supreme Court’s quoted statement regarding the attorney general’s power to appoint subordinate officers is, therefore, not dictum.”"
 
Chris_Halkides said:
Charlie Savage reported
Click to expand...

I keep seeing quotes of other people saying the court ruled on this before. But I never seem to find quotes of an actual court itself making such a ruling. And the longer that goes on, the more I suspect that no such ruling exists.

And Walsh was appointed special counsel under the Ethics in Government Act Title VI, which is now expired. Under Cannon's ruling, his appointment is not equivalent to Smith's, so the validity of his appointment does not indicate that Smith's is valid.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom