Tracking Trump Administration and Cabinet picks

[TwiceHorn 31495]

6 minutes ago, Willfully Horn said:

Thanks. So, Cannon ruled that Nixon was right, and the court wrong, and Cato agreed? Or, Nixon was agreeing that special counsel appointments are valid?

No, she dismissed that part of the Nixon holding as not essential and therefore of no precedential value. Part of the problem is that Nixon the litigant didn't raise the issue of the validity of the appointment, just whether the counsel had certain powers. 

The Cato article didn't agree or disagree with the decision it just analyzed it. 

[Schulz2.0 28960]

54 minutes ago, Balcones said:

https://www.cato.org/commentary/analyzing-judge-cannons-opinion-was-jack-smith-legally-appointed
 

read away

[Willfully Horn 8027]

17 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

No, she dismissed that part of the Nixon holding as not essential and therefore of no precedential value. Part of the problem is that Nixon the litigant didn't raise the issue of the validity of the appointment, just whether the counsel had certain powers. 

The Cato article didn't agree or disagree with the decision it just analyzed it. 

So, did Cannon decide that everyone who had dealt with these special prosecutors was clueless on what mattered? Did Cannon discover that none of them were empaneled legally, since the statute mentions officers, and not officials?

[TwiceHorn 31495]

4 minutes ago, Willfully Horn said:

So, did Cannon decide that everyone who had dealt with these special prosecutors was clueless on what mattered? Did Cannon discover that none of them were empaneled legally, since the statute mentions officers, and not officials?

No.  It is implicit in her holding that all special counsel appointed since the Ethics In Government Act expired in 1999 were appointed invalidly, as well as any appointed before that Act in 1979.

[Willfully Horn 8027]

Just now, TwiceHorn said:

No.  It is implicit in her holding that all special counsel appointed since the Ethics In Government Act expired in 1999 were appointed invalidly, as well as any appointed before that Act in 1979.

OK. I think I understand. Thanks.

[Bullneck 19168]

https://www.instagram.com/p/DCu1FwHyZjH/?hl=en

 

 

[TwiceHorn 31495]

36 minutes ago, Willfully Horn said:

OK. I think I understand. Thanks.

The Ethics in Government Act was the only Congressional legislation (redundant) that provided for special counsel, called under the statute "independent counsel."  It was a complex scheme, but, given that it was legislation, there was no question that it complied with the Constitution, especially after Morrison v. Olson, which specifically so held.

Every special counsel appointed before or after that relied on the express and inherent powers of the Attorney General, which Cannon found were lacking, unlike every other court that has ever considered it.

[Prepuce of Doom 21079]

[Willfully Horn 8027]

43 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

The Ethics in Government Act was the only Congressional legislation (redundant) that provided for special counsel, called under the statute "independent counsel."  It was a complex scheme, but, given that it was legislation, there was no question that it complied with the Constitution, especially after Morrison v. Olson, which specifically so held.

Every special counsel appointed before or after that relied on the express and inherent powers of the Attorney General, which Cannon found were lacking, unlike every other court that has ever considered it.

Again, thanks. Perhaps I am missing something, but it seems as though “Yeah, except for those prosecutors appointed under the Ethics in Government Act,” could have also served in answering my last post.

Enlightened by your posts, I reread the Cato analysis. Cannon had four statutes to consider, which were cited by Garland in appointing Smith. One she did, indeed, reject by arguing the statute clearly applied to the FBI, given the distinction between officers and officials. Another she dismissed due to her belief that the phrase “attorney specially retained”, meant only attorneys that were already employed. Because “retained” was used in its past tense. As if hiring someone for a purpose is best expressed “attorney specially retain.” And for another, she proclaimed that “prosecute,” in 1966, actually was meant to convey a narrower definition of the word “prosecute.” She is arguing that, in ‘66, “prosecute” meant to help further a prosecution, and not to actually, you know, prosecute.

 

TL/dr Absent further information, I disagree that the Cato analysis was anything other than bullshit.

 

Edited 4 hours ago by Willfully Horn

[tx 3 putt 77060]