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]

You keep saying that the president has to appoint a Special Counsel, and a Special Counsel has to be approved by the senate, right?

Can you explain to us, then, what you think the difference between a US Attorney and a Special Counsel are?

No.

The role of the Special Counsel has the power and authority of a U.S. ATTORNEY, so in order to fill that role, the individual must be a U.S. ATTORNEY. And to be a U.S. ATTORNEY that individual must be presidentially appointed and senate approved.

The AG can appoint a Special Counsel from the pool of 93 U.S. ATTORNEYS.

There is no congressional legislation that gives the AG the power to create a U.S. ATTORNEY.

 

[MT15]

The role of the Special Counsel has the power and authority of a U.S. ATTORNEY, so in order to fill that role, the individual must be a U.S. ATTORNEY.

I think this is where the disconnect is. Everyone except Cannon says that having these functions doesn’t make them a US Attorney, it is just the way that the Special Counsel functions are defined.

Just because you say that a motorcycle has the same function and properties of a car, (internal combustion engine, used to transport people and things) that doesn’t mean it IS a car.

And you haven’t addressed the conundrum that if a Special Counsel is investigating a sitting President it makes zero sense to make it someone who can be fired at will by the subject of the investigation.

 

[FullMonte]

No.

The role of the Special Counsel has the power and authority of a U.S. ATTORNEY, so in order to fill that role, the individual must be a U.S. ATTORNEY. And to be a U.S. ATTORNEY that individual must be presidentially appointed and senate approved.

The AG can appoint a Special Counsel from the pool of 93 U.S. ATTORNEYS.

There is no congressional legislation that gives the AG the power to create a U.S. ATTORNEY.

wow...did you get dizzy running in that circle?

You say "The role of the Special Counsel has the power and authority of a U.S. Attorney," and you say "The AG can appoint a Special Counsel from the pool of 93 U.S. ATTORNEYS." Why? Why would he do that? Why would he tell a U.S. Attorney, "Hey, you are now a Special Counsel. You have the same power and authority you had 5 minutes ago."

Again, I'll ask you....What is the difference, in your mind, between a U.S. Attorney and a Special Counsel?

 

[faceman]

I'll put this here. Much richer neighbors in Mar-A-Lago have become perturbed at Trump.

 

[Sendai]

wow...did you get dizzy running in that circle?

You say "The role of the Special Counsel has the power and authority of a U.S. Attorney," and you say "The AG can appoint a Special Counsel from the pool of 93 U.S. ATTORNEYS." Why? Why would he do that? Why would he tell a U.S. Attorney, "Hey, you are now a Special Counsel. You have the same power and authority you had 5 minutes ago."

Again, I'll ask you....What is the difference, in your mind, between a U.S. Attorney and a Special Counsel?

Well, since the Independent Counsel Act expired there have been 7 Special Counsel’s. Three, Fitzpatrick, Dunham, and Weiss were United States Attorneys. So there’s that.

A United States Attorney is appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. Four of the Special Counsel’s were not appointed and confirmed. So there is that difference.

Again, only Congress can create an office with the power of a United States Attorney. The current office of the Special Counsel is a creation of a DOJ regulation, not legislation. The only way a Special Counsel is legitimate, under these circumstances, is if they are a current United States Attorney.

 

[MT15]

Still haven’t addressed the point that if the President or someone close to the president is the subject of the investigation, how can you have a Special Counsel who can be fired at any time by the subject of the investigation?

 

[Sendai]

I think this is where the disconnect is. Everyone except Cannon says that having these functions doesn’t make them a US Attorney, it is just the way that the Special Counsel functions are defined.

Just because you say that a motorcycle has the same function and properties of a car, (internal combustion engine, used to transport people and things) that doesn’t mean it IS a car.

And you haven’t addressed the conundrum that if a Special Counsel is investigating a sitting President it makes zero sense to make it someone who can be fired at will by the subject of the investigation.

That’s a problem for Congress to address. Like they did with the Independent Counsel Act.

Something to consider. The 11th District Court of Appeals has twelve judges. Seven are basically Federalist Society Appointees. So Cannon will likely not be standing alone.

 

[Sendai]

Still haven’t addressed the point that if the President or someone close to the president is the subject of the investigation, how can you have a Special Counsel who can be fired at any time by the subject of the investigation?

Patience

 

[FullMonte]

Well, since the Independent Counsel Act expired there have been 7 Special Counsel’s. Three, Fitzpatrick, Dunham, and Weiss were United States Attorneys. So there’s that.

A United States Attorney is appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. Four of the Special Counsel’s were not appointed and confirmed. So there is that difference.

Again, only Congress can create an office with the power of a United States Attorney. The current office of the Special Counsel is a creation of a DOJ regulation, not legislation. The only way a Special Counsel is legitimate, under these circumstances, is if they are a current United States Attorney.

You very clearly quoted the wrong person when you posted, so you might want to fix that.

My post was a simple question. If a Special counsel has the same power and authority as a U.S. attorney, and the AG (according to you) must select a special counsel from the pool of U.S. attorneys, what is the difference between a special counsel and a U.S. attorney?

Put another way, what can a special counsel do that a U.S. attorney cannot?

 

[Sendai]

You very clearly quoted the wrong person when you posted, so you might want to fix that.

My post was a simple question. If a Special counsel has the same power and authority as a U.S. attorney, and the AG (according to you) must select a special counsel from the pool of U.S. attorneys, what is the difference between a special counsel and a U.S. attorney?

Put another way, what can a special counsel do that a U.S. attorney cannot?

No I didn’t. The response addresses the last paragraph.

Avoid being properly appointed and confirmed.

 

[MT15]

Patience

I’m asking you. You’re the one opining on this.

 

[Sendai]

I’m asking you. You’re the one opining on this.

And I answered in a previous post to you.

It’s the responsibility of congress. Like the Independent Counsel Act.

 

[FullMonte]

No I didn’t. The response addresses the last paragraph.

Avoid being properly appointed and confirmed.

But you said, in your own words, that the AG can appoint a special counsel from the pool of U.S. attorneys. I’m asking why that is even an option. If they have the same power and authority there would be no reason to do that.

Also, selecting a Special Counsel from the pool of US Attorneys eliminates one of the main reason "Special Counsels" exist. One of the main reasons they exist is so that they can be appointed for one particular investigation, and once that investigation is completed, their employment ends. Therefore, they don't have to worry about reprisals/retribution for what they do. David Weiss MUST think about every action he takes regarding Hunter Biden, and whether or not THAT is the thing that gets him fired. Jack Smith does not have to worry about that. If he would have completed his investigation, and said, "My investigation found that Donald Trump is the most innocent person alive, and I uncovered evidence showing that multiple democrats, including Joe Biden, are guilty of various crimes." So what? He doesn't have to worry about getting fired for that, because as soon as his investigation completed, he was no longer an employee of the government.

 

[LA - L.A.]

Patience

I have all the patience in the world when it comes to seeing Trump justly held accountable for the crimes he committed. Trump violated the Espionage Act by taking, keeping and hiding national security documents that belong only to the US government and obstructed justice to try to hide and perpetuate his crimes.

Trump betrayed the trust of we the people of the United States and he put our national security at risk because he's a selfish, thuggish criminal.

 

[Sendai]

But you said, in your own words, that the AG can appoint a special counsel from the pool of U.S. attorneys. I’m asking why that is even an option. If they have the same power and authority there would be no reason to do that.

Also, selecting a Special Counsel from the pool of US Attorneys eliminates one of the main reason "Special Counsels" exist. One of the main reasons they exist is so that they can be appointed for one particular investigation, and once that investigation is completed, their employment ends. Therefore, they don't have to worry about reprisals/retribution for what they do. David Weiss MUST think about every action he takes regarding Hunter Biden, and whether or not THAT is the thing that gets him fired. Jack Smith does not have to worry about that. If he would have completed his investigation, and said, "My investigation found that Donald Trump is the most innocent person alive, and I uncovered evidence showing that multiple democrats, including Joe Biden, are guilty of various crimes." So what? He doesn't have to worry about getting fired for that, because as soon as his investigation completed, he was no longer an employee of the government.

It’s the only option.

“He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.”

Absent legislation from Congress to create an office of the Special Counsel or Independent Counsel the DOJ has no authority to appoint someone outside the DOJ to that role. And that legislation does not exist.

United States Attorneys are legally defined and the AG can assign them to any case he desires.

Your point about independence is valid but it’s the responsibility of Congress, as the constitution states, to establish the role for someone like smith.

 

[Sendai]

I have all the patience in the world when it comes to seeing Trump justly held accountable for the crimes he committed. Trump violated the Espionage Act by taking, keeping and hiding national security documents that belong only to the US government and obstructed justice to try to hide and perpetuate his crimes.

Trump betrayed the trust of we the people of the United States and he put our national security at risk because he's a selfish, thuggish criminal.

And the United States Attorney for the 11th District could refile the case on Monday. So there’s that.

 

[LA - L.A.]

Trump violated the Espionage Act by taking, keeping and hiding national security documents that belong only to the US government and obstructed justice to try to hide and perpetuate his crimes.

Trump betrayed the trust of we the people of the United States and he put our national security at risk because he's a selfish, thuggish criminal.

And the United States Attorney for the 11th District could refile the case on Monday. So there’s that.

Not necessary at all. You trying to wish-cast and speak it to existence, but it ain't happening, bro. The 11th Circuit is going to overturn Cannon and send the case back, possibly with Cannon being removed from the case. The majority of the Heritage Foundation justices aren't going anywhere near the case.

 

[FullMonte]

It’s the only option.

“He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.”

Absent legislation from Congress to create an office of the Special Counsel or Independent Counsel the DOJ has no authority to appoint someone outside the DOJ to that role. And that legislation does not exist.

United States Attorneys are legally defined and the AG can assign them to any case he desires.

Your point about independence is valid but it’s the responsibility of Congress, as the constitution states, to establish the role for someone like smith.

So, you have now gone from arguing "The AG can appoint a Special Counsel from the pool of 93 U.S. ATTORNEYS" to arguing "Special Counsels simply don't exist."