Trump Indictment ( includes NY AG and Fed documents case ) (1 Viewer)

[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

 

[Sendai]

Actually, the regulation specifically states

“The Special Counsel shall be selected from outside the United States Government.”
28CFR600.3(a) Qualifications of the Soecial Counsel

I was referring to

28 U.S. Code § 510 - Delegation of authority​

not

The Special Counsel shall be selected from outside the United States Government.”
28CFR600.3(a) Qualifications of the Soecial Counsel

You still have the problem that the regulation
“The Special Counsel shall be selected from outside the United States Government.”
28CFR600.3(a) Qualifications of the Soecial Counsel
Is a Justice Department written regulation and not the result of congressional legislation. That’s the core of the argument. In order to bypass a presidential appointment there needs to be congressional legislation permitting the appointment.

 

[LA - L.A.]

I was referring to

I'll wait and see what the 11th Circuit says. I suspect they may better understand the actual laws than you do, than any of us except maybe SuperChuck.

 

[LA - L.A.]

An appeals court upheld the gag order in NY hush money conviction against Trump.

"In its gag order ruling Thursday, a five-judge panel found that Judge Merchan was correct in keeping some restrictions in place until Trump is sentenced because the case is still pending and his conviction doesn't constitute a change in circumstances that warrants lifting it.

'The fair administration of justice necessarily includes sentencing,' they wrote.

The gag order bars Trump from speaking out about the prosecution team, court staffers or their families, including Merchan’s daughter, a Democratic political consultant."

"Trump is scheduled to be sentenced on Sept. 18, but the case and gag order could end before that if Merchan grants a defense request to throw out his conviction in light of the Supreme Court’s presidential immunity ruling. Merchan said he plans to rule on Sept. 6."

Appeals court upholds Donald Trump's gag order as he again presses judge to exit hush money case

A New York appeals court has denied Donald Trump’s bid to end a gag order in his hush money criminal case

abcnews.go.com

 

[Sendai]

I'll wait and see what the 11th Circuit says. I suspect they may better understand the actual laws than you do, than any of us except maybe SuperChuck.

I’ll wait for the Supreme Court.

 

[Lapaz]

What do y'all think will happen if Trump loses? Does anyone think Harris will pardon Trump of all Federal charges? I think New York will sentence him before the election, but I suspect it won't include jail. I think if he is convicted in Georgia, it will include jail, so do y'all think Georgia will continue it's prosecution if he loses, assuming Fani Willis wins re-election?

 

[Optimus Prime]

What do y'all think will happen if Trump loses? Does anyone think Harris will pardon Trump of all Federal charges? I think New York will sentence him before the election, but I suspect it won't include jail. I think if he is convicted in Georgia, it will include jail, so do y'all think Georgia will continue it's prosecution if he loses, assuming Fani Willis wins re-election?

Not a chance Harris pardons him, nor should she

We’ve talked about it here before and others know much more about than I do but I’ve read that America would be a much different (and better) place today if Nixon was never pardoned

Yes I think Georgia will continue I’ve always heard that it was the most damning of the cases with the most rock solid evidence

 

[FullMonte]

I was referring to

28 U.S. Code § 510 - Delegation of authority​

not

The Special Counsel shall be selected from outside the United States Government.”
28CFR600.3(a) Qualifications of the Soecial Counsel

You still have the problem that the regulation
“The Special Counsel shall be selected from outside the United States Government.”
28CFR600.3(a) Qualifications of the Soecial Counsel
Is a Justice Department written regulation and not the result of congressional legislation. That’s the core of the argument. In order to bypass a presidential appointment there needs to be congressional legislation permitting the appointment.

You ok? Did you get whiplash or something?

I mean...with how fast you pivoted from "No, the regulation says that in order to be appointed, you must already be an officer, employee, or agency within the DOJ" to this "is a Justice Department written regulation and not the result of congressional legislation," I'd think you MUST have hurt yourself.

Just to clarify. Is it your position that every single justice department regulation must be written as congressional legislation?

And you say "that's the core of the argument"? No. I was specifically refuting your statement that the regulation said that the special counsel must already be a member of the DOJ and showing you that the regulation actually says the exact opposite of that. So, with that said, do you admit that you were wrong when you said that the regulation required the special counsel must already be an employee of the DOJ?

As for presidential appointment, I recently saw a great explanation of this. Who can fire people who the president appoints? Only the president, right? Who can fire the special counsel? Only the attorney general (or acting attorney general). So, if only the attorney general can fire the special counsel, that would seem to make them an employee of the DOJ, and not an officer of the United States who has to be appointed by the president.

 

[Sendai]

Not every regulation need to be congressional legislation.

28CFR600 is a regulation. Not legislation.

The appointment of a special counsel through 28CFR600 is not through congressional legislation.

The appointments clause requires appointment by the president or through congressional legislation. It’s that simple.

I was citing

28 U.S. Code § 510 - Delegation of authority​

As an acceptable means of appointing a special counsel since it is Congressional legislation. It’s makes the Weiss appointment as special counsel legit. Also helps that Weiss was properly appointed.

 

[LA - L.A.]

I’ll wait for the Supreme Court.

Thanks for admitting that the 11th Circuit will rule correctly on the law and overturn Cannon, but the partisan, corrupted Heritage Foundation justices will rule corruptly against the actual law to help out their boy Trump.

I'm really grateful for your admission. It's the most accurate and honest thing you've said about the law in regards to Trump.

 

[RobF]

I was citing

28 U.S. Code § 510 - Delegation of authority​

I already replied to you about that:

That's because that's the law about delegation of authority, not appointment. Why are you ignoring the (previously linked!) full regulations and related laws including the ones about commissioning?

But you seem to be ignoring that point, much like you're ignoring the laws about commissioning as if the law about delegation of authority is the only one that exists.

 

[Sendai]

I already replied to you about that:

But you seem to be ignoring that point, much like you're ignoring the laws about commissioning as if the law about delegation of authority is the only one that exists.

I didn’t ignore it. In fact I stated earlier in this discussion Garland could bring in an assistant U.S. attorney under an existing statute. Garland didn’t do that. Garland appointed him as a Special Counsel. There is no federal statute supporting the appointment of a “Special Counsel “.

 

[Sendai]

Thanks for admitting that the 11th Circuit will rule correctly on the law and overturn Cannon, but the partisan, corrupted Heritage Foundation justices will rule corruptly against the actual law to help out their boy Trump.

I'm really grateful for your admission. It's the most accurate and honest thing you've said about the law in regards to Trump.

I have no idea what the 11th will do. If they affirm Cannon it’s still going to the Supreme Court because the DC Circuit already rejected the claim.

 

[RobF]

I didn’t ignore it. In fact I stated earlier in this discussion Garland could bring in an assistant U.S. attorney under an existing statute. Garland didn’t do that. Garland appointed him as a Special Counsel. There is no federal statute supporting the appointment of a “Special Counsel “.

You clearly are ignoring it, as evidenced by the fact you keep acting as if he was appointed solely under 28 U.S.C. §§ 510, which, again, would make no sense whatsoever.

The reality is, to quote:

By virtue of the authority vested in the Attorney General, including 28 U.S.C. §§ 509, 510, 515, and 533, in order to discharge my responsibility to provide supervision and management of the Department of Justice, and to ensure a full and thorough investigation of certain matters, I hereby order as follows:
(a) John L. Smith is appointed to serve as Special Counsel for the United States
Department of Justice.
...

See how that doesn't just say '510'?

 

[Sendai]

You clearly are ignoring it, as evidenced by the fact you keep acting as if he was appointed solely under 28 U.S.C. §§ 509, which, again, would make no sense whatsoever.

The reality is, to quote:

By virtue of the authority vested in the Attorney General, including 28 U.S.C. §§ 509, 510, 515, and 533, in order to discharge my responsibility to provide supervision and management of the Department of Justice, and to ensure a full and thorough investigation of certain matters, I hereby order as follows:
(a) John L. Smith is appointed to serve as Special Counsel for the United States
Department of Justice.
...

See how that doesn't just say '509'?

I didn’t say he was appointed under 509. I said Garland could use 509 to appoint counsel to prosecute the case. I also pointed out that Smith didn’t belong to the category of individuals cited in 509. If Garland had appointed him as an assistant U.S. Attorney then 509 could apply. But Garland didn’t do that. By the way 510, 515, and 533 don’t provide the authority to appoint, directly, someone from outside the government, as Smith was, as a Special Counsel.

 

[RobF]

I didn’t say he was appointed under 509. I said Garland could use 509 to appoint counsel to prosecute the case. I also pointed out that Smith didn’t belong to the category of individuals cited in 509. If Garland had appointed him as an assistant U.S. Attorney then 509 could apply. But Garland didn’t do that. By the way 510, 515, and 533 don’t provide the authority to appoint, directly, someone from outside the government, as Smith was, as a Special Counsel.

What? 510 (509 in the last post was a typo) applies to "any other officer, employee, or agency of the Department of Justice". And 533 is literally providing the authority to "appoint officials" "to detect and prosecute crimes against the United States". It doesn't say anything about "but not if they're not already working for the government".

The basic fact is that the Attorney General has statutory authority to hire people to work in the DoJ (and not just from 533), and also has the statutory authority to delegate authority, such as that necessary to supervise particular criminal cases, to anyone in the DoJ.

2+2 is 4. You have to jump through some serious hoops to try and make it 5.

Cannon's dismissal is just that of course.

I found this a good, and detailed, write up of why it doesn't work: https://www.justsecurity.org/98037/doj-special-counsel/

 

[FullMonte]

Not every regulation need to be congressional legislation.

28CFR600 is a regulation. Not legislation.

The appointment of a special counsel through 28CFR600 is not through congressional legislation.

The appointments clause requires appointment by the president or through congressional legislation. It’s that simple.

I was citing

28 U.S. Code § 510 - Delegation of authority​

As an acceptable means of appointing a special counsel since it is Congressional legislation. It’s makes the Weiss appointment as special counsel legit. Also helps that Weiss was properly appointed.

So, you say that not every regulation needs to be congressional legislation. But, then you say that a regulation is not valid because it is not done through congressional legislation.

Please take a moment to point out exactly how it is determined which regulations must be done through congressional legislation.

As for the appointments clause being required for a special counsel, I'll challenge you to respond to what I said earlier. Can you tell me any position that is appointed by the president and confirmed by congress that can be fired by any individual other than the president (I don't mean impeached, but where a single person other than the president can fire that person)?

 

[Sendai]

So, you say that not every regulation needs to be congressional legislation. But, then you say that a regulation is not valid because it is not done through congressional legislation.

Please take a moment to point out exactly how it is determined which regulations must be done through congressional legislation.

As for the appointments clause being required for a special counsel, I'll challenge you to respond to what I said earlier. Can you tell me any position that is appointed by the president and confirmed by congress that can be fired by any individual other than the president (I don't mean impeached, but where a single person other than the president can fire that person)?

So here’s the problem with 28cfr600. It is not congressional legislation and it specifies “the Special Counsel shall exercise, within the scope of his or her jurisdiction, the full power and independent authority to exercise all investigative and prosecutorial functions of any United States Attorney.” So the Special Counsel is by this definition a United States Attorney. Only Congress can create United States Attorneys, not the DOJ, and United States Attorneys must be appointed by the President. So, the DOJ, through a DOJ regulation is attempting to create a United States Attorney through the back door without presidential appointment.

28 CFR § 600.6 - Powers and authority.

www.law.cornell.edu

 

[LA - L.A.]

So here’s the problem with...

...you're mistaken interpretation.

“the Special Counsel shall exercise, within the scope of his or her jurisdiction, the full power and independent authority to exercise all investigative and prosecutorial functions of any United States Attorney.” So the Special Counsel is by this definition a United States Attorney.

The bold part implies the opposite of what you are inferring. You're interpreting that statement as if it says this:

​

"the US Attorney shall exercise, within the scope of his or her jurisdiction, the full power and independent authority to exercise all investigative and prosecutorial functions of any United States Attorney."​

​

If the Special Counsel was the equivalent of any US Attorney it wouldn't be necessary to specify that a Special Counsel has the same functions as any US Attorney.

The fact that they have to spell out that the Special Counsel has the same functions as a US Attorney, actually shows that the Special Counsel is not considered a US Attorney as defined by the law.

The rest of what you said is irrelevant, because the Special Counsel is not a US Attorney as defined by the law.