We previously discussed how Hunter Biden adopted the arguments of the National Rifle Association (NRA) and other gun rights groups to challenge the law that his father has championed as a key gun control reform. In his effort to challenge his various charges, Hunter Biden has gone full Trump. Now, Hunter has adopted the Trump argument that special counsels are unconstitutional in seeking to toss out all of the charges by Special Counsel David Weiss, it is the very argument that Democrats and liberal law professors have denounced as meritless and menacing. Having recently embraced the conservative justices in challenging gun laws, Hunter is now channeling Justice Clarence Thomas on the unconstitutionality of special counsel appointments — an argument that his father denounced as wrong and “specious.”
I recently discussed the decision of Judge Aileen Cannon to strike down the Florida case against former President Donald Trump. Law professors ridiculed the concurrence of Justice Thomas in arguing that special counsels lack a constitutional foundation.
Biden is now asking the federal courts to adopt the Thomas position. On Thursday, courts in California and Delaware were asked to dismiss the criminal tax and gun cases against Biden.
The motions track the analysis of Judge Cannon and argue that “the Attorney General relied upon the exact same authority to appoint the Special Counsel in both the Trump and Biden matters, and both appointments are invalid for the same reason.”
I wrote in my column that the challenges seem to draw courts into the Wonderland of Special Counsels.
In “Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland,” the Mad Hatter asks Alice, “Why is a raven like a writing desk?” It turned out that the Mad Hatter had no better idea than Alice.
In her 93-page order, U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon seemed to face the same dilemma when she asked Special Counsel Jack Smith why a private citizen is like a confirmed U.S. Attorney.
However, a key difference between Smith and Weiss is that it could lead these courts to asking “why is a Weiss like a Smith?” The extent that he is not could prove a critical distinction. Weiss is a Senate confirmed U.S. Attorney where Smith was a private citizen plucked by Merrick Garland from the general population for the position.
Biden is seeking to brush over that Mad Hatter anomaly:
“The constitutional flaw at the center of the Special Counsel’s appointment is that Congress has not established the office of a Special Counsel. Given that Congress requires a U.S. Attorney to be nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate, it makes no sense to assume that Congress would allow the Attorney General to unilaterally appoint someone as Special Counsel with equal or greater power than a U.S. Attorney. That is what has been attempted here.”
Clarence Thomas is beaming.
Jonathan: The only person “Going Full Trump” in this kabuki play is Judge Eileen Cannon! She has now fully shown she is the gift who keeps on giving–to DJT. She drew her support for her opinion, probably in the draft stage for over a month, from the “love letter” she received from Justice Thomas in the “immunity” decision. And she showed her unalterable support for DJT, who appointed her, by releasing the opinion (7/15) the first day of DJT/ MAGA Convention–to give maximum impact for DJT who could claim another court “victory”.
But Cannon’s decision may prove to be short lived. On the merits, her opinion is poorly reasoned and ignores history and court precedent–every court that has ruled has upheld special prosecutors and special counsels whether or not appointed inside or outside the DOJ. She will almost be certainly be reversed by the 11th Circuit on appeal by Jack Smith because she is a stain on the federal judiciary. And it will be Cannon’s third strike so there is a significant chance she will also be recused from the Mar-a-Lago docs case.
No matter. Cannon has accomplished what she set out to do–making it impossible for Jack Smith to try this case before the election. That’s good news for DJT because of any of the criminal cases this was a slam dunk against him. And he knew it. The law of unintended consequences is also part of what happened from Cannon’s decision. Every other prosecution by Special Counsels will now be in jeopardy. Think Hunter Biden!
Clarence Thomas may be “beaming” as you say. What you don’t mention in your column is that his “love letter” to Cannon was NOT endorsed by any other of the Justices in the “immunity” decision. That means that if the 11th Circuit overturns Cannon there may not be 5 votes on the Court to even hear an appeal by DJT!
YAWN
Trump’s gonna make you his woman and you’re gonna love it
DM Cannon did not ignore precedent – SCOTUS has MANY times ruled on the appointments clause. It has NEVER ruled that someone could fill an “office” of the United States without being appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate.
It has NEVER ruled that an “office” could be created by the executive branch without Statutory law passed by congress.
There is LOTS ofprecident supporting Cannon.
What you are refering to is RECENT LOWER court decisions outside the 11th circuit. These are not precident. They are not precident in the 11th circuit. They are not even precident in the circuits were they were decided.
Precident is set when an appeals court confirms (or rejects) a lower court opinion. Lower court judges are deferential to the decisions of other lower court judges but they DO NOT legally constitute binding precedent.
This is especially true if the decision was from a different federal circuit.
You have been ranting about Cannon forever. But the FACT is that she has been constitutionally correct from the start.
Even when she was overrule by the 11th ct of appeals – they were wrong, and she was correct.
You can challenge a warrant in a civil suit – it is not common, but it has occured before.
It is actually quite risky for a criminal defendant – as the burden of proof is on the plaintiff (Trump) and the standard is more likely than not. Where in a Criminal trial the standard is beyond a reasonable doubt and the burden is on the prosecutor.
Regardless, Trump was free to challenge the Warrant and the seizure of his property in a civil case – even though Smith was trying to proceed on a criminal case.
SCOTUS should have reversed the 11th Ct of appeals – but they decided not to grant cert – they do not grant cert every time a loweer court gets something wrong. And the Trump civil suit against Smith was not an important case for SCOTUS as even if the civil suit died Trump would still get to challenge the Warrant in the criminal trial.
I know this is hard for you – but these are NOT Trump issues.
While Turley is correct – Hunter’s case is Weaker than Trump’s Further even if Hunter Won – it is near certain his conviction in Delaware would be upheld as Weis is the US Attorney for Delaware and was appointed by the president and confirmed by congress and can constitutionally prosecute Hunter in Delaware.
But he CAN NOT prosecute Hunter in California. That must be done by the US Attorney for California.
The problem with Smith (and Mueller) is that they were not appointed by the president and confirmed by the senate.
I beleive every other SC ever appointed was a US Attorney at the time they were appointed.
It is arguable that Durham as an example did NOT have the authority to prosecute anyone within the domain of his SC appointment anywhere in the US. But he absolutely had the power to prosecute anyone within the domain of his appointment as a US attorney.
The differences between a US Attorney and a Special Counsel are small – US attorney’s jurisdiction is regional, SC’s is nationwide.
US attorney’s have arguably more supervision by DOJ and more budgetary constraints.
But that is all. Further a US attonry CAN be latterally transfered without the approval of congress. Weis can be transfered from Delaware to CA.
But neither Mueller nor Smith were appointed by the PResident or confirmed by congress at the time of their appointment.
Nor is there a Special Counsel stature as the apointments clause ALSO requires.
You say SOME other courts found differently than Cannon – that is correct – they were WRONG.
This is the apointments clause in the constitution.
[the President] 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.
US attorney’s are Officers of the United States.
A special Counsel is a SUPERIOR officer to a US Attorney.
Therefore a Special Counsel MUST be appointed by the president – Not the AG, and must be confirmed by the Senate.
Next while the AG can apoint inferior officers – the SC is NOT an inferior office and to empower the AG to do so – congress must STILL create the inferior office and explicity autorize the AG to appoint that inferior office.
Congress did NOT pass a Special Counsel Statute – not to create an office of the United States, and not to create an inferior office.
It is NOT Cannon that has this wrong – it is YOU and those few recent courts that have found otherwise.
When this gets to the SC – if it gets there – expect another 9-0 Decision – this is NOT a close call – despite the nonsense of left wing legal pundits.
I do not actually expect this will get to SCOTUS.
The idiots in the 11th ct of appeals are going to overturn Cannon – as they have already proven they can not read.
Regardless the case is dead until after the election. After the election Trump will fire Jack Smith and that will end this.
There will not likely be an appeal of the 11th Cir Ct. of appeals unless Trump loses the election. And even not then as Biden or whoever the democrats that miraculously wins will drop this. They do not want to lose at the Supreme court,
And the entire country knows none of this lawfare has anything to do with actually believing Trump committed a crime.
The entire purpose is to try to kneecap his re-election. And it is not working.
And when the dismissal of nutcase right wing extremist Trump brown-noser Eileen Cannon gets easily overturned, then what does Hunter do?
Wait for SCOTUS to overturn
It is unlikely this will get to SCOTUS.
The next step is an appeal to the 11th cir ct or appeals. If they hear and decide the appeal before the election – they will likely rule against Cannon.
If they do not hear it before the election – they will drop the case because it is moot after Trump fires Smith.
If they do decide before the election – that still will prevent a trail before the election – and Smith will still get fired afterwords.
And now it will be SCOTUS that refuses to hear the case – because it is moot.
Cannon is correct, but it is unlikely this case will make it to the Supreme court so that her judgement will be confirmed.
Did a double-take on this article…thought it was one from the Bee (but it isn’t).
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/leahbarkoukis/2024/07/19/biden-campaign-responds-to-trump-speech-n2642189
The Bidens (et.al.) are a symptom.
No doubt they are all guilty at various degrees, from a knowingly accessory to criminal involvement,
they must to be penalized.
Their Day of Judgment and Sentencing will be swiftly made.
Law and Order must prevail for the People of the United States of America 🇺🇸
I’d like to see the Biden’s take accountability. I’d like to see Trump complete his and go to prison.
Riiiiiiight
Trump has not committed an actual crime.
The Biden’s have.
Regardl;ess the Biden’s will not see justice – Joe Will pardon his familiy and himself on the way out the door.
I have no doubt that he will pardon his family but I’d like the USSC to eventually review any pardons he issues for himself. That’s more of a grey area, and might just be a bridge too far. I assume any pardons he issue for himself will be for federal crimes committed prior to entering office. Notwithstanding the lefts visceral opposition, we now know that presidents have immunity or at least, the presumption of immunity, for what are deemed to be “official acts” while in office but I’d like to know the four-corners of the self-pardon for acts committed prior to entering office. Can a president merely say, “any federal crime I committed prior to office, I am pardon for”? What about on-going criminal activities? Does he have to allocute to specific acts, or can a blanket pardon be issued? If the USSC was willing to allow broad based immunity for “official acts” but hedged a bit on anything else, why would one think that they would go for a broad based self-pardon on pre-presidential acts? Also, any federal financial crime he could pardon his family for, could also be tried at the state level.
Joseph Biden, and his dysfunctional son, Hunter, are both a threat to Democrats electoral hopes in the US Senate and US House, per recent polling data acquired by Democrats. While the horse’s head in the film The Godfather was from an actual dead horse, hopefully Pelosi will go easy on the old gelding, and just let Secret Service protect him.
Democrats are going for the jugular with Joe. Apparently, he hadn’t taken the very strong hints—you know, of every swing state going for Trump—so staffers for Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer spent the week leaking details about how they had meetings with Biden and told him to resign. Nancy Pelosi is a killer—she will put a horse’s head in Biden’s bed, and she’ll have sliced it off herself. Once Nancy turns on you, you’re done.
https://www.thefp.com/p/tgif-back-with-a-bang
“Joseph Biden, and his dysfunctional son, Hunter, are both a threat to Democrats electoral “
Though I doubt Joe will survive long, I hope he does. Let the Democrats live with the lies they have been telling, and force the lying news media to deal with the monsters they created.
S. Meyer said: “I doubt Joe will survive long, I hope he does.”
It looks like you may get your wish. Headlines today make it appear that Joe-Jill continues to resist the calls to cease their campaign. Idiotic. On top of the issues that Biden is already tagged with causing him to trail Trump, he now can be challenged by Republicans to explain why he continues to run when half of the prominent Democrats in the country have called for him to step aside. That is a lose-lose proposition.The electorate may be slow to pay attention, but by this time nearly every Democrat in the country must be aware of this controversy, and the utter disunity it has caused among Democrat politicians. Fine and dandy. That infighting should translate into significant down ballot gains by Republicans.
“That infighting should translate into significant down ballot gains by Republicans.”
Is that conclusion based on emotion or lack of intellect?
Dont put it past Pelosi / Schumer / Obama to admit him to Hospice just because of COVID.
Im serious. These people will literally kill to retain power as history has shown
That is a real consideration. Many years ago, Kaiser Permanente was accused by a small group that accused them of shifting expensive patients to hospice to reduce costs. Hospice would only then give them the pain medications needed to keep them pain-free. I know this firsthand from multiple people, including physicians and specific policies, but I never had enough information to draw the conclusions I believed to be at least partially true.
We are dealing with the leftist mindset that lacks decency and humanity. That is one reason leftists hate religion, as the Bible encourages ethical and moral principles. The 613 Mitzvahs encourage much good, though some misanthropic individuals like to cite only the Mitzvah they do not understand.
it is called “patient dumping” and it is a very old practice by for-profit hospitals. They charge up a storm on dying cancer patients, bilk their insurance plans as much as possible with brand-name chemo / oncology products and expensive radiology procedures. When the plans have reached their limit as to submitted charges, the for-profit hospitals dumps them. The patients get dumped onto a county or state hospital or hospice. I saw it often when I was affiliated with such hospitals. Now I am on the opposite spectrum of patient demographics – uninsured.
The laws were changed, and patient dumping became very costly to those who did it.
HMOs used similar selective practices to get healthy patients to enroll. Who would want to enroll a sick person for a fixed moderate price? At least in my area, some physicians would join the HMO. They would encourage healthy patients to join them in the HMO while keeping the others as higher-paying patients. They made out well because the sick patients gave them higher incomes, and the healthy ones in the HMO meant their patient population would cost the HMO less, ensuring a hefty bonus at the end of the year.
One of the physicians in my area used physician assistants. He would be around to treat new and healthy patients, leaving the sick ones to the physician’s assistant. There were virtually same-day appointments for the healthy, but a long wait for the chronically ill, who went elsewhere. That kept his patient population healthy and ensured bonuses from his insurers. Most of his time was spent reading the news while the sick weren’t cared for. These practices are just some reasons the government shouldn’t be involved in health care, though limited involvement that doesn’t alter the marketplace might be acceptable.
You may not realize it but before Medicare was passed there was another bill considered so that the elderly and poor could still receive care. Government has made the health system very inefficient when if managed correctly could have been a positive generator of cash for the nation rather than a negative.
I’m not sure that healthy patients being given little time vs chronic patients mostly seeing a PA is such a horrible thing. As a healthy HMO patient, I want to be in and out as fast as possible. Just call in a Z-pack prescription and you can bill it any way you want to. If I’m in bad shape, after the initial diagnosis and treatment plan has been established, I’m not sure if a PA couldn’t do just as good a job. I spend a decent amount of time around doctors, and I’ve never seen a group of people complain more about what they’re making, and they seem to be making more than just about everyone else.
Ignorance consumes your thinking ability. The sickest patients need the MD the most.
Working on the premise that the Biden family is entirely motivated by greed, I’m surprised that no one has offered them a sweet enough package to get the old coot to step down. I would think the offer of an eight figure book deal would be enough to buy off the family and keep Hunter and Dr. Jill in stockings and gin for little while. The problem with Joe stepping aside is that it probably won’t matter much in Nov and could actually make their problem worse. The Trump is a “threat to democracy” is already dead, now the Dems will be disenfranchising all of those millions of loyal primary voters and replacing him in a back-room deal. If he’s being replaced because he’s polling badly, that might not be a good enough reason to disenfranchise those millions of primary voters, if he’s being replaced because he’s too senile for the job, then he probably shouldn’t be running the country either.
And the biggest problem is, who is going to step in? Kamala is a train wreck. She’s not even close to being ready for that job. Even with a rock star VP, it isn’t going to help her. If she’s off the ticket, there will also problems with the campaign funds. Black voters will be turned off even more than they already are. If I were the republican leadership, I would fight to make sure Biden fulfills his commitment to the primary voters.
You don’t think Biden is going to let all those millions in campaign donations slip between the organizations family fingers do ya?
I’ve heard Biden zoom call was worse than the debate!
Republicans are unlikely to do more than Jabb at Democrats from the sidelines.
The longer this fiasco goes on the better for Republicans.
This likely will result in the House delaying further hearings on the Biden crime syndicate.
Let Democrats take Joe out.
Estovir,
I bet there is a lot of behind the scenes talks going on.
Hollywood could not write a script better than this.
When he is lucid, I have no doubts Biden wants to stay in and win. When he is lucid.
Otherwise, whoever is actually running the show, his close circle of friends, family and advisors, they are the ones really “running.” They seem to think they can keep going, and even win.
Special counsels undermine public confidence in the Department of Justice and remove oversight of DoJ actions from Congress (as well as the President). The practice should be abolished. DoJ should enforce the laws independently and impartially subject to Congressional oversight. Both houses of Congress have committees with jurisdiction for a reason.
Special counsels undermine public confidence in the Department of Justice and remove oversight of DoJ actions from Congress (as well as the President).
Oversight aside, they certainly do when they are patently the opposite of being unbiased, impartial, ethical, and without any conflicts of interest arising from links to the current DoJ that appointed them.
Then Deputy Attorney General James Comey (watch the pattern start to develop) appointed Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald moved heaven and earth in attempts to indict VP Dick Cheney over Valery Plume being outed as a desk CIA employee – despite everybody involved knowing prior to Comey making the appoiintment that Richard Armitage and Karl Rove had outed Plume.
Despite knowing Scooter Libby had absolutely nothing to do with it, like Comey and his FBI would do later with their perjured FISA warrants regarding the “Russia Dossier”, Fitzgerald made Scooter Libby into the criminal. Later under oath, Armitage testified Fitzgerald had instructed him not to go public with this information. In an act of abject personal and political cowardice, President Bush would not pardon Scooter Libby and reference what Comey and Fitzgerald had done to explain why he was doing so, Bush merely commuted Scooter Libby’s prison sentence, leaving him a convicted felon.
And then there’s Robert Mueller appointed to investigate the “Russia Dossier” that the Acting Attorney General, Mueller, and his lead police state fascist Andrew Weissman already knew was a fabricated political lie. The only thing that Mueller (who perjured himself to FISA courts as Comey et al had done before him) DIDN’T investigate was where that dossier came from, who paid for it, who was involved in that, etc. When asked why a hot former FBI Director forgot to investigate those most basic questions, all he would respond with was three words: “Not my purvue.”
Consider for a moment who WASN’T indicted following Mueller’s investigation: Obama’s last two Attorney Generals who perjured themselves to the FISA courts over the ‘Russia Dossier’ they introduced into the court. FBI Director Comey and Acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe did the same. Special Counsel Robert Mueller did the same. And every single FBI agent and lawyers who were also signatories to those warrant applications made to the FISA courts. Not a single one of them has been indicted while they target innocent people for political felony convictions – the sickest of Soviet legal system irony.
And now we have Jack Smith, a well known and SCOTUS exposed Soviet Democrat political campaign police state fascist hit man. The very opposite of what you would assume a Special Counsel to be.
I don’t know what the correct remedy is, but the only way Americans can’t be outraged at those examples of Special Counsels is that they’re either heavily biased or don’t know a single thing about the machinations of those Special Counsels who were nothing but political hitmen.
That is a tough call. There is an inherent conflict created because the AG is a Presidential appointee. Some mechanism to overtly ensure impartiality needs to be in place, whether or not that is manifested as special or independent counsel. I suspect that is the DOJ, along with other departments, is thinned of superfluous functions and employees, as it very much should be, the potential for conflicts of interest will only increase. I don’t know that there is an easy answer to this.
Turley still has not explained why Cannon’s ruling is correct or not. He’s not analyzing her ruling because he hasn’t said he agrees with it. Cannon’s ruling is an outlier only because her ruling is the only one not correctly interpreting the statutes. The issue is about Garland’s authority to appoint a special counsel and it’s already been determined that he indeed has the authority. Cannon is indulging in Trump’s convoluted theory that the special counsel must be someone appointed by the president and confirmed by the senate. That’s not true.
28 USC 510
“ The Attorney General may from time to time make such provisions as he considers appropriate authorizing the performance by any other officer, employee, or agency of the Department of Justice of any function of the Attorney General.”
The key words here are “may from time to time make such provisions AS HE CONSIDERS APPROPRIATE authorizing the performance by ANY OTHER OFFICER, EMPLOYEE, OR AGENCY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE of any function of the Attorney General.
Nothing in the authorization says person chosen must be one that has been appointed by the President or confirmed by the Senate. The point of having that authority is to ensure independence from political motivation.
Smith was and employee of the DOJ he was the assistant United States attorney (AUSA) in New York. This is where Cannon and Turley’s argument falls apart. The law is very clear on the authority to appoint special counsels by the AG. Smith is an officer, employee of the DOJ.
Trump’s argument relies on a twisted interpretation of the law and we know Cannon is always entertaining Trumps twisted interpretations to delay the case.
IF, Cannon’s ruling is upheld it certainly means Hunter Biden’s case should be dismissed. By making that argument they an appeals court denies the motion then it certainly will go to SCOTUS. The majority of the justices will not align with Thomas since justice Barrett and even Kavanaugh do not seem to buy the non-binding opinion of justice Thomas. Thomas just threw that out there to help Trump because we know his wife is adamant about Trump being innocent of all charges. Thomas is corrupt already and is mired in scandal. Turley is completely ignoring it and for good reason. He doesn’t want to face the wrath of MAGA nutties for disagreeing with justice Thomas.
Confederate Constitutional racist George started his ramble with a lie of insinuation and racism:
Turley still has not explained why Cannon’s ruling is correct or not…. Thomas is corrupt already and is mired in scandal.
You Soviet Democrat racists have loathed Justice Thomas since he escaped the racist attacks of Bribery Biden at his confirmation hearings. You blog racist ranting will succeed when Biden’s “This is a high tech Klan lynching” didn’t? Or are you outraged that Thomas’ parents and grandparents born in America as Confederate slaves weren’t thrown out of America as you regularly say they should have been?
Turley laid out what the courts have to decide when presented with the two opposing claims. You start your Internet Law Degree analysis based on lying that Turley hasn’t decided the decision for the court.
Why are you Soviet Democrats not only racists like President ‘Don’t want my kids in jungle bunny schools’ Biden as well as abject pathological liars like Bribery Biden?
I’m offended that Cheap Fake Americans like you, Gigi and Dennis McIntyre blatantly lie to us every single day. It’s insulting, not convincing nor thought provoking.
On the other hand, you do serve a useful function of showing normal Americans what kind of contemptible police state fascist and racist slime this country has to deal with from you Soviet Democrats and your New Hitler Youth in the House and Senate.
Uh, Jack Smith had left that position in the DOJ well before he was appointed special counsel. At least, that’s what I read. Thus he was a private citizen and not an officer, employee, or agency of the department of justice. From 2017 thru to Nov. 2022, when Garland appointed Smith as SC, he was not employed by the DOJ.
You really need to read your own comments before posting.
First you claim that JT doesn’t make an argument. Then you claim that his argument fails.
And you argue that a SC appointee doesn’t have to be part of the DOJ. Then you argue that Smith was, at the time of his appointment, part of the DOJ.
You have a habit of sprouting contradictions all over the place.
And a nasty habit of getting the formulas exactly backwards:
“Nothing in the authorization says person chosen must be one that has been appointed by the President or confirmed by the Senate.”
A government agent (e.g., an AG) cannot take any action that is not expressly *authorized*. That is the mechanism of a *limited* government. Our is not a government of: Do whatever you feel like doing.
If not codified in previous legislation, or perhaps by mutual understanding in Congress, a Special Counsel is a position filled by a person who most reasonable Americans would see meeting the following requirements:
1. A record of a distinguished career where their professional conduct as a prosecutor is reputable and not in question.
2. A career record that demonstrates they investigate and prosecute without bias, and with complete impartiality – “equal justice for all”.
3. No links to the Attorney General and DoJ who appoints that Special Counsel.
Aside from the Constitutional question of whether Jack Smith was properly appointed, it seems to me that most fair minded persons thinking of a Special Counsel meeting the requirements above has to be outraged at Smith’s appointment.
Jack Smith was an election campaign hitman in the Obama/Biden reelection campaign of 2016. He suggested to the IRS that they could shut down GOP election campaign groups for the duration of the election campaign – after Obama was reelected America got an “oops, sorry about that, American taxpayers will pay the punitive damages you win suing in court. And of course there is the way he targeted and took out Governor McDonnell for corruption in office – and his wife, who held no elected office. Followed by SCOTUS in a unanimous decision throwing the convictions out and the decision calling Smith out as “a threat to the separation of powers”.
That is the complete opposite of the first two qualifications listed above that require impartiality, unbiased, and an unblemished career record.
As to the third, Jack Smith has a straight line to Merrick Garland’s Deputy AG, Lisa Monaco. Smith and Monaco were working together for Obama/Biden when Smith initiated his prosecution to take out McDonnell as Obama’s most feared potential election opponent.
What are the chances that it was actually Lisa Monaco who chose her former partner from when they were working together during the 2012 campaign – not Merrick Garland?
I would say that’s almost certainly how Jack Smith of all the thousands of potential choices of federal prosecutors out there became the choice. Smith: a civilian with his record, SCOTUS called him “a threat to our separation of powers”, living in Europe was the best choice to satisfy Americans this is an impartial Special Counsel.
On it’s face, Jack Smith is quite possibly the worst choice Biden/Garland/Monaco could make for a legitimate Special Counsel. Political Hit Man v1.2????
Is this irrelevant? A prosecutor with Smith’s record as a political hitman for the party now in office meets the requirements and spirit of the office of Special Counsel?
Is the Constitution constitutional?
Hunter does not have immunity because he’s Joe’s son.. but Biden will pardon him before he leaves office.
Everyone has known that since the beginning of all this.
Everything Hunter and Joe have done is to avoid or delay pardons.
Everything House Republicans have done is to force the pardon’s early or to atleast publicly expose the criminal conduct.
No one is going to jail ever for the conduct of the Biden crime family.
Only if he recognizes who he is!
Professor Turley: When Cheap Fake Dennis McIntyre shows up today to do his dirty work for Bribery Biden starting with his inevitable Cheap Fake “Jonathan:” (as though you would ever allow him to set foot on your lawn), ask him to explain yesterday’s accusations about Project 2025.
Ask him how he justifies Bribery Biden creating a Cheap Fake Trump Project 2025 website as they created the fake “Russia Dossier” for the 2016 election campaign. They only have one way to fight elections: lies and Cheap Fake dossiers and websites.
https://www.TrumpProject2025.com/
And a Coles Notes dissection of this Cheap Fake Biden Project2025 website:
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2024/jul/16/bidens-bogus-trump-website-spews-election-lies-mis/
He has been echoing Vice President Cackle Harris today proclaiming that not only is Project 2025 from the Hitleresque mind of Trump, but it is completely divorced from the concerns and desires of normal Americans. I have finally taken the time to find Project 2025, and a few hours to read though it’s proposals; here’s the link for your readers
project2025.org/
Ask him about the dangers he can point out in the pages of Project 2025, which pages we can go to and read them to see for ourselves.
In closing, I am almost giggling with excitement at the thought of Vice President Cackle Harris being on a debate stage with future Vice President JD Vance, debating what she is fearmongering can be found inside the Cheap Fake Biden Project 2025 website.
This is nothing but a Hail Mary stunt by the Biden Mafia Crime Family to weasel out of a clean conviction. Bidens are completely unable to take responsibility for any of their actions, nothing is their fault, and anything bad happens to them is unAmerican political persecution. I can’t wait till Jan 20 when we get an honest president.
Dear Mr. Turley, thanks for what you wrote, but I would stop wasting time, ink and paper on the silliest of all people, Hunter Biden. He was born with a silver spoon in his mouth and screwed his own life over and over again. By clinging to his dad’s coattails, he made a few bucks. I would rather be in the shoes of Mr. Vance than those of Hunter Biden. Don, Jr. and Eric Trump recognize the greatness of Mr. Vance, although as they have stated, the worlds which that were raised in were polar opposite.
This is an important legal issue whether it is Hunter or not.
I would further note thaqt while Turley points out ONE critical difference between Weiss and Smith there is another critical difference between the cases.
Hunter IS a close relative to the president. There is a CLEAR conflict of interest.
There never should have been an SC appointed to go after Trump. Those cases should have been handled by the US attorney in Florida and the US attorney in DC. Had that occurred there is some tiny chance Democrats would have gotten their prosecution by the election.
Of course there is also the possibility that a non-braindead US attoney would have dumped the cases, and certainty that there would not have been any of this indict in DC before politically corrupt judges and then try in FL where the alleged crime occurred.
While Thomas and Trumps attorney’s are correct – there is no Special Counsel Statute – there can be no Special Counsel.
The Hunter case – Not the Trump one, points out the actual need for a Special counsel statute.
As well as the serious constitutional problems that ANY special counsel statute will have.
The purpose of a Special counsel is to conduct an investigation and possible trial where DOJ has a conflict.
That means everything involving the president. most things involving the WH, and everything involving DOJ itself.
As an example Garland and Garland’s DOJ CAN NOT dismiss the house referal for contempt of congress.
An SC must be appointed. That would have been true of Holder, Bannon, Navarop, Hunter and Garland Contempt referals.
It woud NOT have been true of the Louis Lehrner contempt referal.
But there is no SC statute – so there can be no SC.
But lets imagine there WAS an SC statute – AND that the SC was appointed by the President and confirmed by congress.
In those cases where there is ACTUALLY a sopund basis for an SC – investigating the president, the WH or DOJ – then we
have a conflict if the president (or AG) appoints the SC, and we have a problem if the SC is somehow put in place by lateral transfer – which is the NORMAL way to avoid these types of problems.
Put simply we want an SC when there is a conflict of interests, and where there is a conflict of interests, someone outside the executive branch must appoint the SC, and we do NOT want SCs (or staff) who are members of the current executive. While Smith is a moron,
he is closer to what we want – independent of the current administration – though the same MUST be true of his staff.
Smith should be hiring attorney’s and investigators who are NOT part of the FBI or DOJ.
Regardless, the core issue is the SC themselves.
While congress can solve SOME of the constitutional issues it can not solve all of them.
A congressional statute Might have made Durham legitimate, and it would have made appointing a US attorney to go after Trump legitimate. But it would not have made Hurr, Weiss, Muller or Smith legitimate. They are all STILL investigating the person who appointed them or those close to them.
I beleive the IC statute required a 3 judge panel to appoint and supervise the IC – that sounds like a better idea – but it too is not constitutional.
Ultimately we need a constitutional amendment.
And then we have to decide how we want to make this work.
There is no perfect solution. Anything that you do can be abused politically.
” If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.”
Federalist 51 James Madison
Are you actually surprised that someone being investigated by a special counsel would adopt the strategy of someone else who seems to have made themselves immune to a special counsel? Especially when comparing mens rea and severity of crime and coming out on the favorable side? My god, Turls. I’d love to think you have more sense than the crew that likes to wear ear diapers and take a s#$t in the Rotunda but you’re making it tough here.
While Turley is correct that Hunter’s challenge has more problems than Trumps
First Weiss started as merely a US attorney – even finding in favor of Hunter would not alter much that has occured thus far.
US Attorney Weiss was appointed by the president and confirmed by congress. US attorney Weiss has a position that is created by Statute. All Hunter has to object to is Weiss’s elevation to SC.
The courts could:
Throw out the Delaware conviction – but allow Weiss to reflile it as US attorney for Delaware.
Decide the error is harmless in the case of the Delaware conviction – Weiss is a properly appointed US attorney for the Delaware federal district.
Refuse Weiss the ability to proceed in California and require DOJ to use a US attorney serving California.
Of Course the president could just laterally transfer Weiss to CA – that is unlikely, but Pres. Biden can only stop Hunter’s prosecution in CA by the US attorney for CA by ordering the case dropped – which would likely get him impeached immediately.
Overall Hunter has less legal amunition against Weiss even if Thomas’s CORRECT reading of the constitution is adopted.
But the Hunter Biden case is PRECISELY the case that screams for a TRULY independent proscecutor.
The conflict in the Trump case is political. Presidents have to act where their actions could be imputed to be politically motivated all the time. Public perception and impeachment by congress are the barriers to that.
The Conflict with Hunter is PERSONAL – and that requires an independent counsel and we have no constitutional means to do that.
The conflicts involving various Contempt of Congress referals by current adn former members of the executive branch are institutional conflicts – and DOJ can not handle those – but we have no constitutional means to address that.
ear diaper better than a depends diaper
So, that’s why Joe snuck into the Rotunda and came back with a smile on his face?
Cheap Fake Impartial Anonymous Soviet Democrat pops up:
Are you actually surprised that someone being investigated by a special counsel would adopt the strategy of someone else who seems to have made themselves immune to a special counsel?
Sentient human beings wouldn’t try to claim Trump sits on SCOTUS.
Particularly when they’re doing so in the service of Bribery Biden, who Babysitter Jill v2.0 has had in Depends since he campaigned from the basement in 2020.
We feel your rage that Hitman Smith got whacked himself by SCOTUS. FOR THE SECOND TIME.
Seems like the Biden Crime Family has some basic misunderstandings of the law and the constitution and that somewhat important step of senate confirmation (you know that advise and consent of the senate thing) Obama had a similar failing by trying to stick the US with treaties without senate confirmation. He tried to get the states to conform to the Iran “understanding” but several states balked since it was not confirmed by the Senate. I think that ended up in court.
They both must have received legal advice from Joe (number 75 out of 85) at Syracuse School of Law). And to think Obama graduated from Harvard and Hunter graduated from Yale. Not a good look for those 2 schools. I wonder in the years ahead who will get higher status in the Yale Law School reunions, JD Vance or Hunter Biden. Vance seems to have a huge lead at present. If we used Critical Race Theory placement on starts on the 100 yd sprint of life, I think Hunter would have started on the 50 yr marker and Vance was 10-20 yds behind the starting line and He has already passed Hunter. Of course Mrs. Vance may have already won the race
“Seems like the Biden Crime Family” Your confused, Joe Biden has not been convicted of a crime, trump is the one that is a convicted felon. Facts matter. You may disagree with the fact that trump should have been convicted, but the fact of the matter is, he has been convicted.
If I was found guilty of stealing a loaf of bread , 32 slices,
Would that be 32 felonies?
You damn sure would if the prosecutor was Merrick Garland and saw your “Old Airborne” tag….
In Manhattan, yes.
Old airborne says: If I was found guilty of stealing a loaf of bread , 32 slices, Would that be 32 felonies?
Hey! Another jumper!
Rigger’s Check, Old airborne: what is the name of the part of the C1 harness where the risers are attached?
Do you think questioning someone else’s credentials gives you credibility?
I’m not airborne but it’s the main lift web.
Only if they were individually wrapped and sold separately.
Legally Trump has not been convicted until Merchan affirms the Jury. that has not occured.
All that has occured is that he has been found guilty by a Manhattan Jury – For Trump and LOTS of people that is a badge of honor.
Regardless, Trump was actually acquitted – by the Jury that matters in ALL these cases – the Jury of the people.
FACTS MATTER. This is why the Lawfare has accomplished nothing.
When you engage in political prosecutions and warp the law to get your enemies, you lose the support of the people.
I would suggest reading the Declaration of independence.
“whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it”
The ultimate voice on EVERYTHING is the people.
And you LOST before that Jury.
There have been LOTS of convictions – but not of Trump
Again FACTS MATTER.
With respect to Biden – no one has called JOE a convicted felon.
The poster you want off on an idiotic rant against called the Biden’s a Crime Family.
That is a reasonably accurate description.
Or do you think it should be legal to take tens of millions of dollars from Russian Oligarchs or Chinese Security Service proxies in return for leveraging Public power to their benefit ?
A Jury in New Jersey just found that Sen. Menedez is guilty of exactly that – except that he was working for a nominal ally as opposed to the Biden’s who were working for nominal enemies, And Menedez got caught with Gold Bars and Dollar Bills in his pockets. A very bad look – but not really different from money in bank accounts.
Both the Biden’s and the Menedez’s should have learned from the best – the Clinton’s.
You conduct your public corruption right out in the open and you call it a Chartity.
Now Oligarchs can give you hundreds of millions in return for your abuse of politic power in their favor and you can say no, no, no, it was all for mosquito nets in Africa or Aides medicine that we never delivered.
Regardless, We have had lots of “Crime families” that we fully recognize and name as such – without convicted the Don.
Biden’s DOJ didn’t prosecute, despite the evidence, or else Joe would be a felon, too.
Like when Comey under Obama/Biden let HRC get away with her classified docs.
If justice was provided equally, there would be no subjective conviction talking points.
Anonymous-9:39AM I did not say Joe Biden, I said “the Biden Crime Family” who had many members get checks from Hunter’s “business deals”.
Of Course Justice in the once great state of NY is somewhat of a joke. Convicted for calling a legal expense a legal and business expense. Also expired statute of limitations. I’ve sat on Juries and have judges, lawyers, et all as patients and friends as well as family, been an expert witness in many cases and received a lot of training from attorneys in medical and corporate law. Basically all of them would have seen this conviction of Trump as a farce. It reminds me of how Blacks were treated in the Jim Crow South, as well as the “non Jim Crow” north (very little difference but a lot of hypocrisy in the north).
Let justice be served
Cheap Fake Anonymous Soviet Democrat:
Facts matter. You may disagree with the fact that trump should have been convicted, but the fact of the matter is, he has been convicted.
Facts do indeed matter. Convicted in pretty much the same manner Jack Smith took out Governor McDonnell as Obama/Biden’s most feared opponent during the 2012 reelection campaign. Or was this different? And when that Soviet style show trial Merchan conducted gets tossed out exactly like Jack Smith was tossed by SCOTUS, what will be the Soviet Democrat line after it’s tossed?
THIS IS WHY WE MUST PACK THE COURTS!!
Given your obsession with convicted felons in the Oval Office, any concerns that the First Felon Gun Crime Son now being the primary advisor to the Unindicted Felon Bribery Biden?
Any concerns that Bribery Biden will STILL continue sharing classified information with the First Felon Gun Crime Son and his Chicom and Russian customers?
How about concerns he might be sharing the nuclear codes as well as classified information? In 2016 y’all were needing a monthly supply of Depends as you were saying Trump was so unstable that we were about to have a nuclear war.
Given your claims Trump will take out his enemies, are you worried that Trump’s AG will swiftly move to indict Bribery Biden, The First Felon Gun Crime Son and everybody else involved in hiding and using 40 years of accumulated stolen classified information to share with the ChiComs and Russians? Move the venue to an unbiased location like Kansas, Oklahoma, etc?
Anon, I tried to post this comment on the earlier article, but here goes.
Two narratives with some truthiness will be pushed.
In the FL case it will be “He got off on a technicality, but we all know he’s as guilty as sin.”
In the NY fraud case it will be “He’s a convicted felon even though the verdict was struck down on appeal.” The first half of each one is semi-truthful but the second half is not so much. And in each case the long history and publicity of the cases have done serious damage to Trump’s reputation and even legal exoneration won’t remedy that.
The issue with Hunter is that the attorney in his case was approved by the Senate.
Orange Lipped Cannon’s ruling did not hinge on that.
No, but Hunter’s will
Sorry, Metamucil
Incorrect – that was ONE of 3 major grounds that together were more than compelling.
Another is that there is no SC statute – that applies to both Trump and Hunter.
Soviet Democrat Birthing Person (Questioning) Sammy had a Midol Moment:
Orange Lipped Cannon’s ruling did not hinge on that.
Yes it did. Using Goebbel’s theory of “Just keep telling the lie long enough and it will become truth” isn’t working for you.
Entertain us with more renditions of your “The Russia Dossier compiled by US intelligence agencies proves Trump is Putin’s paid stooge”.
Such was the motivation for my comments in Turley’s “Ravens’ which observed, in part, “Garland and his minions will hopefully be obliged to defer to the SCOTUS whose final determination in these matters, as with ‘Chevron’, will be a welcome regulator of individuals in government and the law, who are given to explore every nefarious opportunity available to achieve their ends when no guard rails exist to keep them in check. Where the likes of an Andrew Weissman is deemed a proper role model for aspiring attorneys and is appointed to a faculty of law.”
Zzdac1-Do they teach ethics in Law School.
Politics aside, Hunter would be insane NOT to ape the arguments that Judge Cannon has already adopted. The trial court will likely reject this argument, leading to a split that will actually make it easier for SCOTUS to accept the cases.
Cannon will be appeal – though unlikely in time to affect the election.
The 11th ct of appeals will likely rule against her – as they do not seem to have heard of the constitution – which was evident in their prior ruling against her – No the constitution does not bar civil challenges to warrants prior to a criminal trial. It is not common but it has occurred before – many times
There is not likely to be a circuit split.
The case is unlikely to be taken up by SCOTUS because Trump will be president and SC Smith will be fired.
But SCOTUS should take up the case and Afirm Cannon – because she is right and because that would be consistent with their case law on appointments in EVERY OTHER CONTEXT.
And because we actually need some kind of law.
In fact we need a constitutional amendment – because a law that does what we need – allows for the independent investigation and prosecution where there is a conflict with the WH or DOJ can not be accomplished constitutionally merely by a statute.
Problem is that the cases are dissimilar. Jack Smith (D) has not been confirmed. God I hope that guy gets to spend a decade in the Greybar Hilton.
How can FHB afford all this lawyering?
Not a bad idea though, especially for a junkie.
Look at Menendez: He had hundreds of thousands of dollars received illicitly stashed all over his house. Grifters like Hunter Biden have no problem coming up with cash. When you run out start up a GoFundMe account with yourself as the beneficiary. Thousands of donors ASAP. Name recognition I guess, and “sticking it to the man”.
I am so confused. If the Biden are involved in LawFare against their political enemies, why was Melendez charged? He is a Demo. And why would Joe go after his own son?
I thought this was LAwFare against all of Joes foes? Oh, wait, Joe hates his sone. Joe has dementia and doesn’t know that Melendez is a Demo? That has to be it, Joe is the dumbest leader of a major crime syndicate that has ever existed. That has to be it. If I keep saying that will I believe it? II hope so, because trump repeating lies all the time helps his cult followers believe his falsehoods.
Are you asking about Senator Robert MENENDEZ, twit? If so, the possible reasons for that prosecution have been explored in the comment sections of previous Turley articles.
twit? You must be a trump follower, Does he use anything other than what a 1st grader would use to try to demean people? I know, trump wants all his sycophants to have a lower IQ than him, so I am guessing your IQ is…..65?
Lower IQ than he, not him.
I wouldn’t have bothered with your inane comment and the careless spelling, except that you posted the EXACT same comment to at least one of Turley’s previous articles (where the reasons you requested were discussed at length). You might at least have corrected your obvious error before pasting your bogus boilerplate. Bottom line is that Menendez pissed off Phil Murphy, whose wife Tammy was coveting Menendez’ Senate seat at the time the prosecution process was begun. The flighty dilettante later decided that campaigning was just too, too arduous, and changed her mind about running, but the prosecution’s wheels were already turning. For some unfathomable reason, Murphy appears to be regarded as a rising star amongst the Democrats, so it would have been very easy for him to pull some behind the scenes strings to get the Fed DOJs to slip their leashes and indict Menendez. Regarding your IQ: I needn’t bother to speculate, as you regularly have it on complete (albeit anemic) display here for anyone capable of evaluating such metrics.
The Hunter case started before Biden was president – probably the Mendez one did too – though Menedez has been a public corruption problem for decades (as has Joe).
Democrats in DOJ tried HARD to delay or kill the Hunter case – without leaving any fingerprits.
They did manage to run out the statute of limitations on the most serious tax evasion charges.
And they have refused to charge for anything that might lead to Joe – despite the fact that the prosecuted Menedez for LESS egregious conduct.
Joe ios the dumbest leader of a major crime family ever – that is beyond any doubt. 75th in a class of 89 in a podunk law school is NOT the sharpest knife in the drawer.
China is paying for it.
Flabbergasted (word of the day)