A Deeply Fractured US

[brihard]

POTUS says: Yo, dudes need to chillax.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1738204811781165252

Good; criminalization of cannabis is dumb and wasteful.

 

[Remius]

Hunter Biden is being arraigned in January on nine federal felonies. Joseph Biden is the subject of a congressional impeachment investigation.

Also, a special counsel investigated the allegations that Biden had mishandled classified documents. Hunter Biden was interviewed in that.

So..?

But he isn’t being investigated for all the things Trump did (allegedly) so foul on the play and tears on the field.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Hunter Biden is being arraigned in January on nine federal felonies. Joseph Biden is the subject of a congressional impeachment investigation.

Also, a special counsel investigated the allegations that Biden had mishandled classified documents. Hunter Biden was interviewed in that.

So..?

So, what's missing is a DoJ investigation into bribery and influence peddling by the Biden family and associates, including Joe Biden. A congressional investigation isn't a DoJ investigation. A DoJ investigation into Hunter's likely firearm and tax evasion crimes isn't an investigation into bribery and influence peddling. Narrowly focused investigations aren't the same as broad investigations looking into Biden, his family, and his associates. Instead, the DoJ actively works to frustrate the congressional investigation, has managed to let statutes of limitation run out on straightforward matters, and at one point was poised to make a very generous plea offer to Hunter.

The evidence which suggests bribery and influence peddling is stronger than the evidence which was deemed pretext for broad and deep investigations into "Russian Collusion". This double standard won't do.

 

[Brad Sallows]

But he isn’t being investigated for all the things Trump did (allegedly) so foul on the play and tears on the field.

It's the strength of the pretexts for investigation that is the issue - the low standards people think sufficient in one case, versus the high standards they demand in another.

A salacious campaign-funded "research" document consisting mostly of lies, that people knew or ought reasonably to have known was lies, and absolutely knew was campaign funded? What Downer told the US that he thought Papadopolous told him (getting important details wrong in the third-hand hearsay)? Conversations of an incoming NSA with a Russian ambassador, that the FBI director said straight to the faces of the president and VP was legit (information which the president passed to the acting AG)?

 

[Fishbone Jones]

POTUS says: Yo, dudes need to chillax.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1738204811781165252

Ahhhh, the smell of desperation.

 

[Lumber]

It should be, if there was consistency that judges as a profession enforced among themselves. Over 20+ years now of being interested in US politics and the associated legal travails, I've concluded that judges heed "legislative intent" when it suits the argument they're trying to make, and ignore it when it doesn't.

Famous case in point: PPACA's mandate, for which a penalty could be assessed. Legislators and the president were repeatedly insistent that it was a penalty, not a tax. No ambiguity whatsoever about the intent or the legislation. Come the day the entire act is at risk of being thrown out (because it had no severability clause - a reminder that legislators have to be specific) because the penalty is about to fail a test of constitutionality, and Roberts decides to ignore the repeatedly and clearly stated intent of legislators and recast the penalty as a tax. And obviously four other justices were willing to go along with that selective disregard of legislative intent.

The "AHA!" moment over one conversation also doesn't tell us how many legislators were content with the provision the way it turned out because they in fact did not want the president specifically mentioned.

Ahhhh, the smell of desperation.

What? How's this desperate?

 

[Lumber]

It's the strength of the pretexts for investigation that is the issue - the low standards people think sufficient in one case, versus the high standards they demand in another.

You're right.

The cases against Trump have extemely strong pretext, with tons of verified and damning evidence already provided for the public to see, while the constant investigations into Hunter and Joe are weak and desperate.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Oooops! This is going to make some people's day suck big time.

The Supreme Court will not fast-track the request to review Trump's immunity​

The Supreme Court has denied special counsel Jack Smith's bid to fast-track a dispute about whether former President Donald Trump should enjoy absolute immunity from prosecution for misconduct during his time in the White House.

https://www.npr.org/2023/12/22/1221334637/supreme-court-trump-immunity

 

[Brad Sallows]

You're right.

The cases against Trump have extemely strong pretext, with tons of verified and damning evidence already provided for the public to see, while the constant investigations into Hunter and Joe are weak and desperate.

Conventionally, investigators regard large sums of money pouring into family members with no discernable signs of meriting it, a sign of corruption. Conventionally, investigators regard complex webs of companies as opportunities for money laundering. That's according to what people who investigate and charge these kinds of things in the US have written articles about.

But carry on with your gaslighting.

[Add: to be clear, you're 100% correct that cases against Trump have strong pretexts. Now. But I was discussing the past, which you didn't bother to address at all. Weak attempt at misdirection noted.]

 

[Fishbone Jones]

And another possible problem for Smith.

Special Counsel Jack Smith's Appointment Is Unconstitutional

On November 18, 2022, Attorney General Merrick Garland purported to appoint private citizen Jack L. Smith to be a Special Counsel with the power of one of

reason.com

Special Counsel Jack Smith's Appointment Is Unconstitutional​

Everything he has done since Nov. 2022 is null and void.​

STEVEN CALABRESI | 12.20.2023 3:00 PM

On November 18, 2022, Attorney General Merrick Garland purported to appoint private citizen Jack L. Smith to be a Special Counsel with the power of one of the 93 U.S. Attorneys but with nationwide jurisdiction. This makes Jack Smith more powerful than any of the 93 U.S. Attorneys even though they have been Senate-confirmed to their particular offices, and Jack Smith has not been Senate confirmed for the particular office, which he now claims to hold. A close examination of the Justice Department's (DOJ's) organic statute makes it clear that, unlike at least four other Heads of Cabinet Departments, the Head of the Justice Department has not "in, the words of the Appointments Clause, been "by Law" *** vested" with the power to appoint inferior officers like Jack Smith who have more power than any of the 93 Senate-confirmed U.S. Attorneys. This is made clear by an examination of the DOJ's organic statute, 28 U.S. C. Sections 509, 510, 515-519, 533, and, most importantly, Section 543.

More at link

 

[Brad Sallows]

And another possible problem for Smith.

Special Counsel Jack Smith's Appointment Is Unconstitutional

On November 18, 2022, Attorney General Merrick Garland purported to appoint private citizen Jack L. Smith to be a Special Counsel with the power of one of

reason.com

Special Counsel Jack Smith's Appointment Is Unconstitutional​

Everything he has done since Nov. 2022 is null and void.​

STEVEN CALABRESI | 12.20.2023 3:00 PM

On November 18, 2022, Attorney General Merrick Garland purported to appoint private citizen Jack L. Smith to be a Special Counsel with the power of one of the 93 U.S. Attorneys but with nationwide jurisdiction. This makes Jack Smith more powerful than any of the 93 U.S. Attorneys even though they have been Senate-confirmed to their particular offices, and Jack Smith has not been Senate confirmed for the particular office, which he now claims to hold. A close examination of the Justice Department's (DOJ's) organic statute makes it clear that, unlike at least four other Heads of Cabinet Departments, the Head of the Justice Department has not "in, the words of the Appointments Clause, been "by Law" *** vested" with the power to appoint inferior officers like Jack Smith who have more power than any of the 93 Senate-confirmed U.S. Attorneys. This is made clear by an examination of the DOJ's organic statute, 28 U.S. C. Sections 509, 510, 515-519, 533, and, most importantly, Section 543.

It's interesting, but don't hang much hope onto rigorous application of process.

 

[brihard]

Oooops! This is going to make some people's day suck big time.

The Supreme Court will not fast-track the request to review Trump's immunity​

The Supreme Court has denied special counsel Jack Smith's bid to fast-track a dispute about whether former President Donald Trump should enjoy absolute immunity from prosecution for misconduct during his time in the White House.

https://www.npr.org/2023/12/22/1221334637/supreme-court-trump-immunity

Not really; that application directly to SCOTUS was a hedge against a slow DC Court of Appeal, and was filed before the DCCA agreed to expedite and set a very fast briefing schedule. The final of three briefings on that appeal is due Jan 2nd, so this is still moving quickly.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

It's interesting, but don't hang much hope onto rigorous application of process.

I'm not taking a stance. Just reporting what I saw. I'm done trying to discern US law and legalese. I have to expect that the author's bonafides are sufficient enough, that as a constitutional lawyer and professor of the same, at Yale, his info comes from a place of education and practice. Is he right? I don't know. I would need to see an argument against his stance, by someone, at least as qualified in the sections and procedures cited in the original article. My total interest is 'will it work/ not work.'

 

[brihard]

I'm not taking a stance. Just reporting what I saw. I'm done trying to discern US law and legalese. I have to expect that the author's bonafides are sufficient enough, that as a constitutional lawyer and professor of the same, at Yale, his info comes from a place of education and practice. Is he right? I don't know. I would need to see an argument against his stance, by someone, at least as qualified in the sections and procedures cited in the original article. My total interest is 'will it work/ not work.'

It may be telling that Trump’s lawyers have not to this point argued against Smith’s legal ability to act as special prosecutor in any of their pleadings. They may not be able to raise it as a new issue on appeal either, if they didn’t argue it at the initial level. Doesn’t seem likely that they think this carries weight.

 

[KevinB]

I'm not taking a stance. Just reporting what I saw. I'm done trying to discern US law and legalese. I have to expect that the author's bonafides are sufficient enough, that as a constitutional lawyer and professor of the same, at Yale, his info comes from a place of education and practice. Is he right? I don't know. I would need to see an argument against his stance, by someone, at least as qualified in the sections and procedures cited in the original article. My total interest is 'will it work/ not work.'

I don’t think that Kenneth Starr or other special prosecutors had this either — I think that’s the point of ‘special’

 

[kkwd]

It may be telling that Trump’s lawyers have not to this point argued against Smith’s legal ability to act as special prosecutor in any of their pleadings. They may not be able to raise it as a new issue on appeal either, if they didn’t argue it at the initial level. Doesn’t seem likely that they think this carries weight.

Would this filing answer some of the questions asked about Jack Smith's appointment?

BRIEF OF FORMER ATTORNEY
GENERAL EDWIN MEESE III AND LAW
PROFESSORS STEVEN G. CALABRESI AND
GARY S. LAWSON AS AMICI CURIAE
SUPPORTING NEITHER PARTY

INTRODUCTION AND INTERESTS OF AMICI1
This Court should reject Mr. Smith’s request for certiorari before judgment for the simple reason that he lacks authority to ask for it. Nor does he have authority to conduct the underlying prosecution. Those actions can be taken only by persons properly appointed as federal officers to properly created federal offices. Neither Smith nor the position of Special Counsel under which he purportedly acts meets those criteria. And that is a serious problem for the American rule of law—whatever one may think of the defendant or the conduct at issue in the underlying prosecution.

Court Filing

 

[Brad Sallows]

I don’t think that Kenneth Starr or other special prosecutors had this either — I think that’s the point of ‘special’

We live in an era of pursuit of novel legal theories.

A ruling that a senate-confirmed appointment is required would certainly dampen the enthusiasm for special appointments.

 

[brihard]

Would this filing answer some of the questions asked about Jack Smith's appointment?


Court Filing

Dunno, it’s not a rabbit hole I’m gonna dive into. It seems to make the claims, but I don’t believe SCOTUS actually ruled on that, they simply denied cert, which is unsurprising given how fast DCCA is moving- the hearing is on Jan 9th.

If there’s any merit to this particular argument, I’m sure we’ll hear about it in a decision… But I would have expected to long before this point.

 

[KevinB]

We live in an era of pursuit of novel legal theories.

A ruling that a senate-confirmed appointment is required would certainly dampen the enthusiasm for special appointments.

But should it. I didn’t see any outrage when they where looking into the Clintons…
We need to accept justice and its pursuit regardless of what party is accused.

 

[mariomike]

I didn’t see any outrage when they where looking into the Clintons…

Speaking of outrage...

Barack Obama tan suit controversy - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org