• Lauchs@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      1 month ago

      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.)

        • Lauchs@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          1 month ago

          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.

          • Neuromancer@lemm.eeM
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            10
            ·
            1 month ago

            Jack Smith was not appointed in the same manner. When did Congress approve Jack Smith? They didn’t. That is the issue as outlined in the article.

            • Lauchs@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              11
              ·
              1 month ago

              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.)

              • Neuromancer@lemm.eeM
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                10
                ·
                1 month ago

                Sounds like nobody challenged it or the prior courts had a different opinion.

                Cannon got this from Thomas. So I expect this to go up the court system

                • Lauchs@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  9
                  ·
                  1 month ago

                  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.

                  • Neuromancer@lemm.eeM
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    9
                    ·
                    1 month ago

                    SCOTUS may have a different take this one. Maybe not. To me it’s telling only Thomas wrote about it.