Federal prosecutors accuse Hunter Biden of accepting payments from a Romanian businessman "to influence U.S. government agencies" while his father was vice president.
What do you see as the difference that made one appointment legal and the other illegal? (Other than one is investigating a Biden and the other is investigating trump.)
And Congress (I think you actually mean Senate) didn’t approve Bua, Wilkey or Lacey as special counsel. (All were appointed by Barr in the same manner as Smith.)
Multiple folks have challenged it, every ruling prior to this had ruled that this was a nonsense claim.
We both know it’s not actually a constitutional challenge, it’s a delay in the hope trump wins the presidency and can, once again, avoid repercussions for his actions.
And that way, without Senate confirmation, is the same way in which David Weiss was appointed special counsel in the Hunter Biden case.
So, are you defending/citing the work of an illegal appointee? And if so, shouldn’t we also care about Jack Smith’s charges?
deleted by creator
What do you see as the difference that made one appointment legal and the other illegal? (Other than one is investigating a Biden and the other is investigating trump.)
deleted by creator
Huh, so in other words Jack Smith was appointed in the exact same manner as Nicolas Bua, Malcolm Wilkey, and Frederick Lacey.
But, I am glad you get the silly technicality that has been rejected by every other judge who has heard this nonsensical defense.
deleted by creator
And Congress (I think you actually mean Senate) didn’t approve Bua, Wilkey or Lacey as special counsel. (All were appointed by Barr in the same manner as Smith.)
deleted by creator
Multiple folks have challenged it, every ruling prior to this had ruled that this was a nonsense claim.
We both know it’s not actually a constitutional challenge, it’s a delay in the hope trump wins the presidency and can, once again, avoid repercussions for his actions.