Orange Duce

[Seacoaster(1)]

Neal Katyal in the Times today, canvassing some of the stuff, well, overlooked or misapprehended by Judge Cannon:

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/15/opin ... ments.html

"Judge Aileen Cannon’s decision to throw out serious national-security criminal charges in the classified documents case against Donald Trump is legally unsupported, ignores decades of precedent and is deeply dangerous.

At a time when Americans need to trust their institutions, her decision to declare that the appointment of the special counsel overseeing the case, Jack Smith, “violates the Appointments Clause of the United States Constitution” will undermine that trust and the legitimacy of high-level investigations in the eyes of many Americans.

Her decision is quite unlikely to survive the tests of time, or even the appeal Mr. Smith’s office said he intends to make. But it will further delay a case that has moved so slowly under her direction that it was already virtually certain it would never go to a jury before Election Day.

Judge Cannon asserts that no law of Congress authorizes the special counsel. That is palpably false. The special counsel regulations were drafted under specific congressional laws authorizing them.

Since 1966, Congress has had a specific law, Section 515, giving the attorney general the power to commission attorneys “specially retained under authority of the Department of Justice” as “special assistant[s] to the attorney general or special attorney[s].” Another provision in that law said that a lawyer appointed by the attorney general under the law may “conduct any kind of legal proceeding, civil or criminal,” that other U.S. attorneys are “authorized by law to conduct.”

Sign up for the Opinion Today newsletter Get expert analysis of the news and a guide to the big ideas shaping the world every weekday morning. Get it sent to your inbox.
Yet another part of that law, Section 533, says the attorney general can appoint officials “to detect and prosecute crimes against the United States.” These sections were specifically cited when Attorney General Merrick Garland appointed Mr. Smith as a special counsel. If Congress doesn’t like these laws, it can repeal them. But until then, the law is the law.

I drafted the special counsel regulations for the Justice Department to replace the Independent Counsel Act in 1999 when I worked at the department. Janet Reno, the attorney general at the time, and I then went to Capitol Hill to brief Congress on the proposed rules over a period of weeks. We met with House and Senate leaders, along with their legal staffs, as well as the House and Senate Judiciary Committees. We walked them extensively through each provision. Not one person raised a legal concern in those meetings. Indeed, Ken Starr, who was then serving as an independent counsel, told Congress that the special counsel regulations were exactly the way to go.

Eight separate judges had already rejected the claim that Judge Cannon has now endorsed (including, by the way, the judge presiding over Hunter Biden’s criminal case). It is true that one Supreme Court justice, Clarence Thomas, recently wrote a concurring opinion in the Trump immunity case questioning the legality of the position of special counsel. No other justice joined that opinion, and even Justice Thomas did not come to the conclusions that Judge Cannon did — he simply raised “essential questions” about the office. And his questions ignored a well-trod tradition in America as well as the statutory landscape.

We’ve had special counsels and special prosecutors since at least the time of President Ulysses Grant after the Civil War. That is for a simple reason: We need a system to police high-level executive branch wrongdoing, and the system can’t be run by the president and his appointees alone.

Consider the real-world implication of what Judge Cannon is saying: Under her opinion, Attorney General Garland, not a nonpartisan prosecutor like Mr. Smith, would himself be required to investigate and prosecute the case against Mr. Trump. But Mr. Garland was appointed by President Biden, Mr. Trump’s political rival. Doing so would open himself up to all sorts of accusations.

The converse is even scarier: Imagine a future president suspected of serious wrongdoing. Do we really want his appointee to be the one investigating the wrongdoing? The potential for a coverup, or at least the perception of one, is immense, which would do enormous damage to the fabric of our law.

We had exactly that situation in Watergate. A special prosecutor, Leon Jaworski, sought President Richard Nixon’s Oval Office tapes. Nixon claimed that the prosecutor could not force the release of the tapes because it was an “intra-branch dispute” where the president’s decision was “final.” The Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision, United States v. Nixon, pointedly rejected the claim, saying “Congress has vested in the attorney general” the power to conduct criminal investigations of the government and “vested in him the power to appoint subordinate officers to assist him in the discharge of his duties.” And what laws did the court cite? The very same statutes, Sections 515 and 533, that Mr. Garland cited when appointing Mr. Smith.

“Acting pursuant to those statutes,” the Supreme Court continued, the attorney general “has delegated the authority to represent the United States in these particular matters to a special prosecutor with unique authority and tenure.”

Judge Cannon tried to dismiss those words as “dicta,” meaning that they were not part of the holding of the case, and thus did not constitute a precedent. In fact, they were critical to the court’s holding (and a lot more critical than Justice Thomas’s one-justice concurrence in the Trump immunity case, which she cited several times). Decades have elapsed since the Nixon decision and yet Congress never once altered these laws.

That was so, even though the Justice Department put Congress on clear notice some 25 years ago that it was reading these statutes to authorize the job of special counsel. Congress remained silent even after it saw presidents of both political parties rely on these statutes to do exactly that. And Congress’s silence remained even after court after court in the wake of the Nixon decision read these statutes to authorize the special counsel. None of those were dicta, or even close. That congressional ratification of what the Supreme Court and lower courts found is more than enough to dispose of Judge Cannon’s entire argument.

The Nixon case is not the only Supreme Court decision Judge Cannon blew past. This year, the Supreme Court examined a challenge to the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau, where the challengers said that the board had to be specifically authorized and funded by Congress. In a 7-to-2 originalist decision written by, yes, Justice Thomas, the court said that the Constitution requires no “more than a law that authorizes the disbursement of specified funds for identified purposes.”

That’s exactly what we have here — a statute of Congress that authorizes the Justice Department to spend money on investigations as it deems necessary. Again, if Congress doesn’t like that statute, it can repeal it anytime. Or it can vote to defund Jack Smith’s office. That’s the way our constitutional structure works, not by having a federal judge repeal a statute through judicial fiat. She is a federal judge, not a legislator.

The Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, which will hear the promised appeal by Mr. Smith, has already swiftly rebuked Judge Cannon on two different matters for her decisions in the Trump case that were well out of mainstream thinking about the law. This decision is on the way to a third rebuke for her.

Mr. Smith’s brief to the Court of Appeals will write itself. He will presumably cite the Nixon case, the several federal laws enacted by Congress, and point to the fact that Congress has never altered the statutes that the Supreme Court more than half a century ago said authorize special counsels. The fact that court after court has read them to authorize special counsels, and that Congress has never once questioned what the courts have done, will settle the legal question in Mr. Smith’s favor.

In his planned appeal, the only question left for him is whether to take the further step of saying a third rebuke means that Judge Cannon should be removed from the case, based on her highly erratic decisions. Her conclusion that the special counsel is illegal is, after all, not one that is a matter of interpretation. Rather, it’s one where there is a clear legal answer, given by the Supreme Court decades ago and ratified by Congress."

FTR what is the clear legal answer you speak of? If your correct the appeal should be a slam dunk. I have heard several legal eagles saying that the appointment was unconstitutional for several months. The end game will probably be this gets thrown in the lap of the SCOTUS for another look see. Wouldn't stare decisis apply?

I just posted the article, as it is topical and written by a guy with a pretty authoritative view of the legal landscape (that is, he helped write the regulations that govern the special counsels), which, of course, I don't really have. It does seem like an easy case for reversal, given the number of cases that, prior to this one, sustained challenges to the special counsel construct. It'll go to the 11th Circuit. That'll get appealed by Trump to the SCOTUS, where the age of stare decisis appears like a squirrel you ran over in your rear view mirror.

[OCanada]

I just posted the article, as it is topical and written by a guy with a pretty authoritative view of the legal landscape (that is, he helped write the regulations that govern the special counsels), which, of course, I don't really have. It does seem like an easy case for reversal, given the number of cases that, prior to this one, sustained challenges to the special counsel construct. It'll go to the 11th Circuit. That'll get appealed by Trump to the SCOTUS, where the age of stare decisis appears like a squirrel you ran over in your rear view mirror.


The argument is not new. What is new is it won for tge first and only time in front of something like 11 Federal Judges and appeals. It is pure corruption and a blow to our juris prudence

[Brooklyn]

Political Violence Comes to Its Biggest Fan





https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vQcRjUdjgSE


“AS YE SOW, SO SHALL YE REAP.”

[dislaxxic]

Is Trump Actually a Saudi Agent?

Not a frivolous question at all...consider:

Since Trump left office, his family has received millions in four known deals from the Saudis:

- A deal to host LIV golf tournaments. Forbes recently reported that Trump Organization made less than $800K for about half the tournaments it has hosted. But Trump’s role in the scheme has given credibility to an influence-peddling scheme that aims to supplant the PGA’s influence. When Vivek Ramaswamy learned that two consultants to his campaign were simultaneously working for LIV, he forced them to resign to avoid the worries of influence-peddling. Yet Trump has continued to host the Saudis at his properties.

- A $2 billion investment in Jared Kushner’s private equity firm, in spite of the fact that analysts raised many concerns about the investment, including that he was charging too much and had no experience.

- A deal to brand a property in Oman slated to open in 2028, which has already brought Trump Organization $5 million. The government of Oman is a key partner in the deal, signed with a huge Saudi construction firm.

- A newly-announced deal with the same construction firm involved in the Oman deal, this time to brand a Trump Tower in Jeddah.

These Saudi deals come on top of Trump’s testimony that Turnberry golf course and his Bedford property couldn’t be overvalued because some Saudi would be willing to overpay for them.

But I believe I could sell that LIV Golf for a fortune, Saudi Arabia. I believe I could sell that to a lot of people for numbers that would be astronomical because it is like — very much like owning a great painting.

[snip]

I just felt when I saw that, I thought it was high. But I could see it — as a whole, I could see it if this were s0ld to one buyer from Saudi Arabia — I believe it’s the best house in the State of New York.

And while Eric Trump, not his dad, is running the company, Eric also has a role in the campaign and his spouse Lara has taken over the entire GOP.

Trump never fulfilled the promises to distance himself from his companies in the first term. A very partial review of Trump Organization financial records show the company received over $600K from the Saudis during his first term. As far as I’m aware, no one has even asked this time around.

Which means as things stand, Trump would be the sole beneficiary of payments from key Saudi investors if he became President again. Trump would be, at the very least, the beneficiary of a business deal with the Saudis, as president.

Admittedly, under the Supreme Court’s latest ruling on gratuities, it might be legal for Trump to get a bunch of swank branding deals as appreciation for laundering Saudi Arabia’s reputation (one of the things for which Menendez was just convicted).

But that doesn’t mean it should be ignored, politically. It doesn’t mean American voters shouldn’t know these details. It doesn’t mean journalists (besides NYT’s Eric Lipton, whose most recent story on this was buried on page A7) shouldn’t demand answers.

..

[NattyBohChamps04]

Is this not just super weird to normal people in America? I mean the flags and the stickers and the hats and everything simping for the dude was already way out there. The oversized bandage is obviously a prop, and it's certainly working on his own people.

[Farfromgeneva]

Is this not just super weird to normal people in America? I mean the flags and the stickers and the hats and everything simping for the dude was already way out there. The oversized bandage is obviously a prop, and it's certainly working on his own people.

Come fng on. These people…

Can’t wait for someone to explain how that’s logical and legit ante
behavior.

[MDlaxfan76]

Is this not just super weird to normal people in America? I mean the flags and the stickers and the hats and everything simping for the dude was already way out there. The oversized bandage is obviously a prop, and it's certainly working on his own people.

Come fng on. These people…

Can’t wait for someone to explain how that’s logical and legit ante
behavior.

The Purple Heart stuff is even worse, downright insulting.
But these folks know no bounds of propriety.

[PizzaSnake]

Is this not just super weird to normal people in America? I mean the flags and the stickers and the hats and everything simping for the dude was already way out there. The oversized bandage is obviously a prop, and it's certainly working on his own people.

Maybe it covers the holes in their heads that their brains escaped through.

[njbill]

Too bad Trump didn’t get hit in the nose. Then everybody could look like Jake from Chinatown.

[PizzaSnake]

Too bad Trump didn’t get hit in the nose. Then everybody could look like Jake from Chinatown.

[a fan]

Is Trump Actually a Saudi Agent?

Not a frivolous question at all...consider: (snip)

It's not frivolous. You're just posting facts. OF COURSE he's in their pocket.

And the Supreme Court just made it legal for Trump to do almost (almost) anything he wants with the US Treasury and the Saudis.....and at this point, I hope he sells out American interests in the region for money. It would serve voters right......

[OCanada]

They would just never realize it

[PizzaSnake]

Is Trump Actually a Saudi Agent?

Not a frivolous question at all...consider: (snip)

It's not frivolous. You're just posting facts. OF COURSE he's in their pocket.

And the Supreme Court just made it legal for Trump to do almost (almost) anything he wants with the US Treasury and the Saudis.....and at this point, I hope he sells out American interests in the region for money. It would serve voters right......

'Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard.' -- HL Mencken

[youthathletics]

Well, Well, Well......lookie here. Someone I know has been saying this for quite some time, and now Biden people are saying the very thing. Maybe you should listen to me more often.

I won't call out names, but they are not OS, Cradle, ONWWR, Kramerica,...

Source close to Biden pushes back on calls for him to step aside

A source close to Biden is blaming senior Democratic leaders for "[giving] us Donald Trump," as calls for Biden to step aside grow.

“Can we all just remember for a minute that these same people who are trying to push Joe Biden out are the same people who literally gave us all Donald Trump? In 2015, Obama, Pelosi, Schumer pushed Biden aside in favor of Hillary; they were wrong then, and they are wrong now,” the source told NBC News.

[a fan]

Well, Well, Well......lookie here. Someone I know has been saying this for quite some time, and now Biden people are saying the very thing. Maybe you should listen to me more often.

I won't call out names, but they are not OS, Cradle, ONWWR, Kramerica,...

Source close to Biden pushes back on calls for him to step aside

A source close to Biden is blaming senior Democratic leaders for "[giving] us Donald Trump," as calls for Biden to step aside grow.

“Can we all just remember for a minute that these same people who are trying to push Joe Biden out are the same people who literally gave us all Donald Trump? In 2015, Obama, Pelosi, Schumer pushed Biden aside in favor of Hillary; they were wrong then, and they are wrong now,” the source told NBC News.

Sigh. You ALMOST get it.

What they are talking about is the Dems nominating a sh(t candidate, who then loses to Trump

What I have been talking about, and this is now the 100th time...is that YOU are responsible for NOMINATING Trump to be YOUR Republican choice for POTUS.

Funny thing here is, these are Dems taking responsibility for putting up a garbage nomination for President.

And yet here you are, still, after nominating Trump THREE TIMES....refusing to take responsibility for YOUR PARTY's CHOICE.

Do you ever get tired of blaming everything you do on someone else? Or ever roll an ankle doing it, or something?

[MDlaxfan76]

Jessica Tarlov over on Fox pushed back against the usual liars claiming the divisiveness is all the Dem's fault -- the liars claim that Biden is lying about Trump's Charlottesville claim that the Tiki Torch marchers were fine people. Trump didn't say it according to the liars. Tarlov called bull*hit, she gave the obvious examples that lays the fault at the feet of Trump for all his divisive comments - like mocking Pelosi's husband after he was beaten with a hammer.

This was refreshing.

Read the entire transcript. He was referring to the peaceful protesters (with a permit) who were there to protest the removal of the statue of Robert E Lee & the renaming of the park.

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/08/ ... ipt-241662

Seriously?? Trump lied 30,000x in office, has bern lying ever dince and was known for it back when? He said he wants to be accurate and not rush in yet he has a life time of not doing that. He was trying to play both sides. Why not tske one of his “rally” speeches and deconstruct it

This is specifically about who he was referring to in his "fine people on both sides " comment about Charlottesville.

At the very most generous, what you are saying is that Trump believes that people who were protesting taking down a memorial to Robert E. Lee in a public park, constructed specifically during Jim Crow as a symbol of continued white supremacy in that region, and being removed consistent with the wishes now of the community within which that public park exists, and which removal was publicly supported by the descendants of Lee, are "very fine people"?

That's the most generous interpretation.

Very fine people.

Yup, racists are very fine people.
That's the most generous interpretation.

That's your interpretation of history & your judgement that they are racists for wanting to preserve a symbol of their heritage.

What's next ? Remove the headstones from the graves of fallen CSA soldiers ?

Yes, that's my interpretation and judgment.
It's obviously not Trump's.
As I said, that's the most generous interpretation, as offered up by you, of Trump's remarks.

So, as we've said so often, he's either really stupid or he's racist...or both.

Let's be clear, those who 'want to preserve a symbol of their heritage' are free to do so in a museum which makes clear what that symbol really means, but they aren't free, if a community decides otherwise, to force others to see that symbol in a public park maintained with public dollars. They aren't free to demand, over the majority of the public's will, that military bases continue to be named for traitors to this country, nor parks, nor roads or bridges.

Let's also be clear, finally, that "their heritage" is Jim Crow and slavery and the horrific loss of life in the Civil War fought to extend the practice of slavery in additional territories and ultimately to continue slavery in their own states. That's "their heritage". No sugar coating.

A less generous interpretation is that Trump was refusing to wholeheartedly condemn the neo-Nazis because he wanted their support both electorally and as his brown shirts to come, Proud Boys et al. Blood and Soil. "Jews will not replace us"...couldn't flat out reject, had to say "very fine people" were "protesting peacefully".

But the generous interpretation is enough for me.

But they are permitted to peacefully demonstrate in support of retaining the symbols of their heritage, ...no matter how you judge it > 150 years later.

Permitted, sure.

Respected, no.
Very fine people, no.

BTW, I think people are complex, made up of more than one aspect of their characters and judgments. I know plenty of pretty deplorable racists who take care of their dogs with kindness and don't kick their wives or children either. But in this context of a violent protest leading to the death of an innocent, doesn't make them "very fine people".

Here's that most recent exchange re "heritage", Salty.

[Brooklyn]

Is this not just super weird to normal people in America? I mean the flags and the stickers and the hats and everything simping for the dude was already way out there. The oversized bandage is obviously a prop, and it's certainly working on his own people.

Gee, am surprised that OuttaNowhereWregget didn't advise you to use https://picresize.com/results because of size "overkill".

As for my view on the symbolism of the pic, well, it reflects selective listening on the part of the right wing delusionals. I even heard one guy say that Democrats are destroying America with too many regulations. This notwithstanding the Republican caused disaster in East Palestine, Ohio (which, naturally, they blamed on the Democrats).

The usual delusionalist politics.

[youthathletics]

So when friends and family shave their heads to support someone with cancer....what is that called?

[njbill]

That’s called something entirely different.

Trump doesn’t have cancer. He doesn’t have a fatal, or even a debilitating, disease. A week out, and all he needs is a regular Band-Aid.

He got very very lucky. Those (I’m not saying you) who claim God intervened are disgusting. Why didn’t God intervene to save that poor guy who got killed?

[Typical Lax Dad]

That’s called something entirely different.

Trump doesn’t have cancer. He doesn’t have a fatal, or even a debilitating, disease. A week out, and all he needs is a regular Band-Aid.

He got very very lucky. Those (I’m not saying you) who claim God intervened are disgusting. Why didn’t God intervene to save that poor guy who got killed?

He was just some schmo that God doesn’t care about.