Now we’re talking…
Time to get on it.
Appeals today please.
1 Like
There is no new law. The statute authorizing special prosecutors expired and was never replaced
there is no this one
And it has been challenged before.
where do you get your wrong ideas?
If the appelate court disagrees it goes to SCOTUS, if they disagree it is remanded back to her
2 Likes
This should halt the other frivolous lawsuits against Trump.
“None of the statutes cited as legal authority for the appointment…gives the Attorney General broad inferior-officer appointing power or bestows upon him the right to appoint a federal officer with the kind of prosecutorial power wielded by Special Counsel Smith," Cannon wrote. "Nor do the Special Counsel’s strained statutory arguments, appeals to inconsistent history, or reliance on out-of-circuit authority persuade otherwise.”
Her opinion closely tracked the reasoning outlined by conservative Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas in a recent concurrence in a separate case against Trump.
Hunter Biden had a special prosecutor. Toss his case as well?
not since the law expired, and not with this SCOTUS
1 Like
yes
5char
As we knew it would.
2 Likes
Not if the Circuit removes her, and she has been on a razor’s edge since the very beginning. This is disqualifying, she won’t be given the case back. Now, if the Circuit and SCOTUS agree with her, it’s over. But I don’t see any way this isn’t reversed.
That would be fruitless It would never get past the Supreme Court.
Hoped it would.
You never know these days.
Right it was done via regs and the regs were never challenged. I shouldn’t have said law.
I was wrong.
LOL… fever dreams
3 Likes
its not even regs, its DoJ policies
You should be more accepting of unexpected consequences.
No it’s cfr 600. Its regs
The circuit court is not removing her.
Special Prosecutors are legal, they have been challenged over and over again and they are always backed by SCOTUS and Appeals Circuit courts. They are appointed in cases where there is fear of bias due to politically sensitive matters, such as the Son of the President, or a Former President, or a current Politician/Judge. There is nothing unethical about them, they are appointed to ensure ethical proceedings. They are given independence for those reasons, so that the AG cannot put his/her thumb on the scale.
Cannon lacks experience and has been slow walking motions for months upon months, failing to even establish a date for trial. She simply never wanted this trial to happen, for whatever reason. But she didn’t want to give Smith enough ammunition to get her dismissed from the case. Today, she gave him that gift.
