Trump Indictment ( includes NY AG and Fed documents case ) (3 Viewers)

[SteveSBrickNJ]

Former President D. Trump has been indicted by a New York Grand Jury. There will be much to talk about on this topic because this is just the first step in a lengthy process.
Possibly it is worthy of its own thread here rather than posting about Trump's indictment in already existing threads?
*
This 3/31/23 story might get the ball rolling....
*

Manhattan’s DA wanted a Friday Trump arrest. Trump’s team said no.

Secret Service needed more time to prepare, according to the ex-president’s legal team.

www.yahoo.com

 

[MT15]

AG Garland should cut and run on this. The government has the documents. If this case evaporates then there’ll be no constitutional challenge to the PRA. Just give him back the Kim love letters and walk away.

AG Garland is a constitutional scholar and a practical gentleman. He knows the makeup of the court, so he knows how this will end.

A. We don’t have all the documents. There are still many boxes missing.
B. No. Trump deserves to go to jail for this.

 

[FullMonte]

Federal Prosecutors are subject to the appointments clause.

can you cite the caselaw that SCOTUS used to determine that Special COunsels are federal prosecutors subject to the appointments clause? Because, again, the regulation for appointing them states directly that they are "confidential employees."

 

[superchuck500]

Federal Prosecutors are subject to the appointments clause.

You keep saying that but you’re not using the correct terminology - the appointments clause doesn’t refer to “federal prosecutors”, it refers to principle officers and inferior officers.

US Attorneys are federal prosecutors and are appointed/confirmed because it is required by statute - Congress removed any ambiguity as to their status, as the they are the chief federal legal and law enforcement officer of each federal district. Assistant US Attorneys that are in the criminal division are also called “federal prosecutors” but they are not appointed. They serve as delegees of the appointed US attorney.

 

[MT15]

Chuck, I saw where Smith is going to appeal. I have a question. Some have said that he probably shouldn’t appeal, just get himself appointed as an AUSA, assigned to S. FL and refile the case there. Their point wasn’t that the denial was correct, but that this would save time. Also, they could draw a different judge.

Is there any merit to that?

 

[DaveXA]

Chuck, I saw where Smith is going to appeal. I have a question. Some have said that he probably shouldn’t appeal, just get himself appointed as an AUSA, assigned to S. FL and refile the case there. Their point wasn’t that the denial was correct, but that this would save time. Also, they could draw a different judge.

Is there any merit to that?

I'd rather they rule on it and set, or rather affirm precedent than leave it hanging.

 

[MT15]

I'd rather they rule on it and set, or rather affirm precedent than leave it hanging.

Yeah I figured that might be a good reason. However time is of the essence if we want any of what Trump did to come to light.

 

[DJ1BigTymer]

Chuck, I saw where Smith is going to appeal. I have a question. Some have said that he probably shouldn’t appeal, just get himself appointed as an AUSA, assigned to S. FL and refile the case there. Their point wasn’t that the denial was correct, but that this would save time. Also, they could draw a different judge.

Is there any merit to that?

The DoJ needs to appeal to the 11th circuit so when they curb-stomp her again, they will be forced to exclude her from the rotation once charges are re-filed.

 

[DaveXA]

Yeah I figured that might be a good reason. However time is of the essence if we want any of what Trump did to come to light.

I don't think there's enough time to litigate much else now. There are months left when some of these things can take much longer. I would just let the process play out.

 

[J-DONK]

I don't think there's enough time to litigate much else now. There are months left when some of these things can take much longer. I would just let the process play out.

Yeah Cannon dragged it out before killing it.

I would love to know if there has been a more blantant partisan hatchet job carried out by a judge?

 

[LA - L.A.]

Has anyone pointed out that not only did Cannon drag it out before dismissing the case, but she also dismissed the case on the first day of the Republican convention? I just realized that connection that's been staring me in the face all day. I'm sure it was probably already discussed and I missed it.

I don't think Cannon's timing is a coincidence.

 

[zztop]

Just another reminder that there are different set of rules for certain people. When it came out that she was a trump appointed judge, I had a sinking feeling of how it would go. Unfortunately I was correct

 

[FullMonte]

Chuck, I saw where Smith is going to appeal. I have a question. Some have said that he probably shouldn’t appeal, just get himself appointed as an AUSA, assigned to S. FL and refile the case there. Their point wasn’t that the denial was correct, but that this would save time. Also, they could draw a different judge.

Is there any merit to that?

To piggyback off of that. If that happened, or another AUSA were to take over the case….would this ruling somehow exclude evidence that was discovered by smith?

 

[SFIDC3]

Yeah Cannon dragged it out before killing it.

I would love to know if there has been a more blantant partisan hatchet job carried out by a judge?

I respect Chuck's knowledge and opinion but I don't believe there is no evidence that Cannon is partisan hack, I think it's rather obvious.....

 

[Sendai]

can you cite the caselaw that SCOTUS used to determine that Special COunsels are federal prosecutors subject to the appointments clause? Because, again, the regulation for appointing them states directly that they are "confidential employees."

Cannon’s opinion

https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/24807236/trump-classified-documents-case-dismissed.pdf

Lots of citations.

Plus the long history requiring U.S. Attorneys requiring presidential appointments. Along with congressional recognition that legislation was required for the creation of an independent council.

 

[Sendai]

Chuck, I saw where Smith is going to appeal. I have a question. Some have said that he probably shouldn’t appeal, just get himself appointed as an AUSA, assigned to S. FL and refile the case there. Their point wasn’t that the denial was correct, but that this would save time. Also, they could draw a different judge.

Is there any merit to that?

I mentioned that he could be hired as an assistant in a previous post. Probably results in a long run of court challenges and not a good image builder for the administration.

 

[Sendai]

Since the regulations define the special counsel as a "confidential employee," why would the appointments clause rule? The special counsel is not a "principal officer" which must be appointed by the president and confirmed by the senate. Therefore, the question rests with the second type of officer that the Supreme Court has interpreted, an "inferior officer." SCOTUS has interpreted those as "whose appointment Congress may place with the President, judiciary, or department heads."

I would think it's a safe assumption that Congress has placed the ability to appoint DOJ employees with the DOJ.

The DOJ can’t set rules and regulations that circumvent the constitution. The constitution is clear on appointments.

 

[MT15]

The DOJ can’t set rules and regulations that circumvent the constitution. The constitution is clear on appointments.

So, I will take chuck’s opinion over yours. I noticed you really haven’t responded to his explanation of why Cannon is wrong.

 

[Sendai]

You keep saying that but you’re not using the correct terminology - the appointments clause doesn’t refer to “federal prosecutors”, it refers to principle officers and inferior officers.

US Attorneys are federal prosecutors and are appointed/confirmed because it is required by statute - Congress removed any ambiguity as to their status, as the they are the chief federal legal and law enforcement officer of each federal district. Assistant US Attorneys that are in the criminal division are also called “federal prosecutors” but they are not appointed. They serve as delegees of the appointed US attorney.

And Cannon addresses that legislation in her opinion.

https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/24807236/trump-classified-documents-case-dismissed.pdf

I think it starts around page 19.