SteakNEggs
Well-Known Member
Lolol are you saying Trump appointed Mueller to investigate himself for the Russia hoax where Hillary with Obama's knowing bought Russian propaganda from Christopher Steele? You guys ever find those pee tapes?
TheStormofWar
Well-Known Member
He was appointed during Trump's administration by Deputy AG Rosenstein, so yes. Again homie, it's your contention the Trump administration's appointments Mueller and Durham, as well as every Independent Counsel since 1875, requires the appointment by Congress, despite the fact it is not Congress's purview to enforce the laws of our nation and every related SCOTUS case said they were good on this concept. Do I have your bat*** logic correct?
SteakNEggs
Well-Known Member
Notice how he refuses to answer the question..
True... Or false... A simple one word answer please ..
The Appointments Clause says, "Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States be appointed by the President subject to the advice and consent of the Senate, although Congress may vest the appointment of inferior officers in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments." Smith, however, was never confirmed by the Senate.
TheStormofWar
Well-Known Member
I asked first. Last call, it is your contention the Trump administration's appointments Mueller and Durham, as well as every Independent Counsel since 1875, requires the appointment by Congress, despite the fact it is not Congress's purview to enforce the laws of our nation and every related SCOTUS case said they were good on this concept. Do I have your logic correct?
SteakNEggs
Well-Known Member
True or false...
The Appointments Clause says, "Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States be appointed by the President subject to the advice and consent of the Senate, although Congress may vest the appointment of inferior officers in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments." Smith, however, was never confirmed by the Senate.
SteakNEggs
Well-Known Member
No I asked first...lol you terrorist are illegally arresting political opponents. And you're barking up the wrong tree. The Russia hoax was wrong by almost every standard. It's a extremely stupid example that never should've happened in the first place. Just like this.
True or false
The Appointments Clause says, "Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States be appointed by the President subject to the advice and consent of the Senate, although Congress may vest the appointment of inferior officers in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments." Smith, however, was never confirmed by the Senate.
TheStormofWar
Well-Known Member
And we're done. The SCOTUS has upheld this forever and a day as the appointment of an investigative prosecutor was Constitutional in 1988 with Morrison v Olsen. I'll defer to their judgment because, again, it's not the purview of Congress to enforce the laws, no matter how much you try and crow about it.
Beyond that, your own admission here basically said Trump's AGs were wrong to appointment ICs during his own administration. The two-faceness is hilarious.
SteakNEggs
Well-Known Member
Be angry, I don't care. It's all falling apart for the fascist punks. It's only a matter of time until they do something crazy... Oh that's right... They just tried to assassinate a candidate. Where were you during all of this? Silent.
SteakNEggs
Well-Known Member
The answer is true btw. You're whataboutism is nothing more than cowardly.
True
The Appointments Clause says, "Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States be appointed by the President subject to the advice and consent of the Senate, although Congress may vest the appointment of inferior officers in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments." Smith, however, was never confirmed by the Senate.
SteakNEggs
Well-Known Member
Why Robert Mueller’s Appointment As Special Counsel Was Unlawful
First, all federal offices must be “established by Law,” and there is no statute authorizing such an office in the DOJ. We conduct what we think is the first thorough examination of the statutes structuring the DOJ to show that the statutory provisions relied upon by the DOJ and lower courts for the appointment of Special Counsels over the past two decades do not – and even obviously do not – authorize the creation and appointment of Special Counsels at the level of United States Attorneys. They authorize the creation and appointment of Special Counsels to “assist” United States Attorneys, and they allow existing Senate-confirmed United States Attorneys to serve also as Special Counsels, but they do not remotely authorize the creation of the kind of Special Counsels represented by Robert Mueller who replace rather than assist United States Attorneys. United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974), does not hold to the contrary, because no question was raised in that case about the validity of the independent counsel’s appointment.
Second, even if one chooses to overlook the absence of statutory authority for the position, there is no statute specifically authorizing the Attorney General, rather than the President by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to appoint such a Special Counsel. Under the Appointments Clause, inferior officers can be appointed by department heads only if Congress so directs by statute – and so directs specifically enough to overcome a clear-statement presumption in favor of presidential appointment and senatorial confirmation. No such statute exists for the Special Counsel.
Third, the Special Counsel is, in all events, a superior rather than inferior officer and thus cannot be appointed by any means other than presidential appointment and senatorial confirmation regardless of what any statutes purport to say. This is obviously true as a matter of original meaning, and it is even true as a matter of case law once one understands that neither Morrison v. Olson, 487 U.S. 654 (1988), nor Edmond v. United States, 520 U.S. 651 (1997), can plausibly be read to say that any person who is in any fashion subordinate to another executive official is an “inferior” officer. Such a reading leads to the ludicrous result that there is only one non-inferior officer in every federal department
scholarship.law.bu.edu
First, all federal offices must be “established by Law,” and there is no statute authorizing such an office in the DOJ. We conduct what we think is the first thorough examination of the statutes structuring the DOJ to show that the statutory provisions relied upon by the DOJ and lower courts for the appointment of Special Counsels over the past two decades do not – and even obviously do not – authorize the creation and appointment of Special Counsels at the level of United States Attorneys. They authorize the creation and appointment of Special Counsels to “assist” United States Attorneys, and they allow existing Senate-confirmed United States Attorneys to serve also as Special Counsels, but they do not remotely authorize the creation of the kind of Special Counsels represented by Robert Mueller who replace rather than assist United States Attorneys. United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974), does not hold to the contrary, because no question was raised in that case about the validity of the independent counsel’s appointment.
Second, even if one chooses to overlook the absence of statutory authority for the position, there is no statute specifically authorizing the Attorney General, rather than the President by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to appoint such a Special Counsel. Under the Appointments Clause, inferior officers can be appointed by department heads only if Congress so directs by statute – and so directs specifically enough to overcome a clear-statement presumption in favor of presidential appointment and senatorial confirmation. No such statute exists for the Special Counsel.
Third, the Special Counsel is, in all events, a superior rather than inferior officer and thus cannot be appointed by any means other than presidential appointment and senatorial confirmation regardless of what any statutes purport to say. This is obviously true as a matter of original meaning, and it is even true as a matter of case law once one understands that neither Morrison v. Olson, 487 U.S. 654 (1988), nor Edmond v. United States, 520 U.S. 651 (1997), can plausibly be read to say that any person who is in any fashion subordinate to another executive official is an “inferior” officer. Such a reading leads to the ludicrous result that there is only one non-inferior officer in every federal department
Why Robert Mueller’s Appointment As Special Counsel Was Unlawful
Since 1999, when the independent counsel provisions of the Ethics in Government Act expired, the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) has had in place regulations providing for the appointment of Special Counsels who possess “the full power and independent authority to exercise all investigative and...
TheStormofWar
Well-Known Member
Quote for me what political party the shooter was a member of. I'll wait. While we're on that, quote for me the case I was talking about.
TheStormofWar
Well-Known Member
I stopped there. The Ethics in Government Act from '78 says otherwise, meaning your author was blowing some smoke. Have a nice day.
SteakNEggs
Well-Known Member
The guy who donated to Biden campaign? That guy?
A 20-year-old living in a crucial swing state, Crooks had already shown potential signs of interest in politics, making a small political donation to Democrats.
SteakNEggs
Well-Known Member
Be maaaaad. Be a tyrant. Good riddance.
TheStormofWar
Well-Known Member
You can do it. Quote for me the shooter's political party.
TheStormofWar
Well-Known Member
Not my fault you can't read or check for yourself.
SteakNEggs
Well-Known Member
It's pretty cut in stone... There's obvious reasons why him and fish ran away and wouldn't answer a simple question. I just wish y'all would've complained when the Judge donated to political opponents opponents like the Judge did in NY. Who's daughter literally worked for Biden. Who 2 different AGs refused to press charges, same as the FEC , and it only happened the moment Biden sent his third in command at the DoJ to arrest him.
You all really care...(Sarcasm you don't give a s*)
You all really care...(Sarcasm you don't give a s*)
TheStormofWar
Well-Known Member
What the **** are you talking about? I answered, it, gave the constitutional reason and one of the SCOTUS cases going over it. If you can't read homie, that's on you.
SteakNEggs
Well-Known Member
I'm not going to answer your questions when you don't have any respect to answer my true or false question. Well... I'm guessing a Trump supporter wouldn't assassinate Trump. Are people really this stupid? Fish claims to be partially Republicans and he's the most Alt-Left person I know. He was liking post just the other day where the conversation was about assassinating Trump. Ask him about it.
Al-O-Meter
Well-Known Member
'Independent Counsel', no. Independent Prosecutor, yes. Mueller could lead an investigation but had to hand off any prosecutions to the DOJ due to being an "inferior officer".
When the Biden DOJ kept going on about how independent the investigation was, how the Biden DOJ wasn't putting their hands on the scale to prosecute a political opponent, it meant that Jack Smith wasn't an inferior officer being supervised and directed. It was an independent office carrying out the prosecution, and independent offices need to be created by Congress as per the US Constitution.