And Judge Cannon holds the middle of the board... (and yes, she is intentionally playing trial date chess)

I'm going to repost and carry on a discussion from another thread this morning- as this is a different subject that needs it's own thread.

This discussion is about criminal trials only, not civil ones.

What is at play:

[b]Jack Smith Flordia Trial:[/b]
-Flordia "documents trial"
-Ultra MAGA Trump appointed Judge
[URL=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aileen_Cannon]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aileen_Cannon[/URL]
-Least likely trial to get a conviction due to the Jury pool alone. 65% maga jury pool, only 1 needs to be a holdout to frig it all up
-Multiple constitutional issues that could overturn any conviction, even as the laws state otherwise
-If he wins before trial, Trump could actually direct AG to have all charges dropped
-In theory, Trump could pardon himself (still debatable)


[b]Jack Smith DC trial:[/b]
-January 6th intersection trial
-Ultra TDS lefty outspoken Trump hatting Obama appointed Judge
[URL=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanya_Chutkan]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanya_Chutkan[/URL]
-Most likely trial to get a conviction (if it actually goes to trial on all charges) as jury pool is about 0% maga, with unfavorable prior rulings towards Trump
-If he wins before trial, Trump could actually direct AG to have all charges dropped
-In theory, Trump could pardon himself (still debatable)

[b]Georgia attempt to steal election rico trial:[/b]
-A Republican appointed Federalist Society judge, who seems very impartial so far. However could possibly lean maga if given an opportunity. unlikely so.
[URL=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_F._McAfee]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_F._McAfee[/URL]
-All proceeding on youtube
[URL=https://www.youtube.com/@judgescottmcafee]https://www.youtube.com/@judgescottmcafee[/URL]
-Fanni Willis mess
-Most likely to actually be guilty of some of the charges, however some constitutional issues that could come up in both state supreme court, and federal supreme court
-Jury pool is only about 20% MAGA, however, the venue could possibly change
-Governor Kemp has no pardon power, as well Governor Kemp has no power over the DA (contrary to social media BS)
-Trump has no pardon power (even if moved to federal court), as well has no power over the DA

[b]Alvin Bragg NY porn star hush money case[/b]
-Weakest case of all
-Not any likey jail time on a very unlikely event of conviction
-Trial date set for March 25th (was expected to change to last trial, but now might actually go first)
-Judge Juan Merchan, whose daughter works with democrat donors
[URL=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juan_Merchan]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juan_Merchan[/URL]
-Pretrial hearings in February to decide actually trial date



It is a fairly complicated conversation, with a complex webb- So I will use the following convo as a way to present the argument...


Now I'm going to start by copy/paste a discussion that got started in another thread- where I made a post that Jack Smith was unlikely to have a trial before the election, and this poster responded- my response follows:

[QUOTE=Reliance012 post_id=1697068083]The trial could still begin as early as March, but will probably start between April and June. Trump would need flagrant and extreme help from the SC if he’s to delay the 1/6 trial into fall. The timeline below was assuming an appeals court decision last week, which didn’t happen, though I expect it’s coming any day.

“In sum, the shortest plausible timeline under our assumptions: The mandate issues after five days, there is no en banc petition, and cert is denied. That would be about 19 days after the DC Circuit panel issues its decision.

The longest plausible timeline under our assumptions: Trump receives 30 days to petition for rehearing en banc, the mandate only issues until 7 days after the en banc petition is denied, Trump petitions the Supreme Court, which then grants cert and decides the case. That would be about four-and-a-half months after the DC Circuit panel decision, and would take us up to mid-May.”

[URL=https://www.justsecurity.org/91108/how-long-will-trumps-dc-immunity-appeal-take-analyzing-the-alternative-timelines/]https://www.justsecurity.org/91108/h...ive-timelines/[/URL][/QUOTE]This article, and the timeline it suggested, was a horrible analysis- mocked by people in the legal community on both the left and right side.

As demonstrated so far with how wrong it has been on the timeline so far.

What makes it strange is the writers are fairly respectable - but this just turned out to be another demonstration as to how normal-thinking people can absolutely lose their chit it terms of rational thinking when it comes to anything involving Trump.

-The mere suggestion a decision- with 5 unprecedented measures- would come so quickly to start with is baffling.
-The left out the impact of Fisher??? a case that can likely eliminate 2 of Trump's 4 DC charges, that aren't even in Scotus until June
-The ignored Cannons stronghold of the May trial date in Florida, which MAGA Cannons helped team Trump in delaying everything else - except the trial date- which she will likely do in March. (she has to now with all the other measures delayed). But by waiting for the delay, it's preventing Chutkan from doing March or June
-Many other things it missed- horrid write-up




Here is the reality:

Since that article was published...
1. On January 18th DC trial Judge Chutkan acknowledged in a ruling the March trial date won't work anymore, with the delay in appeals, and her lack of Jursdition until it's finished. She also stated that when it is finally returned to her court, Trump was og allotted 7 months of prep time, and the clock is paused until it is back to her court- so he will still have all the remaining time left.

Also, Judge Chutkan barred special counsel Jack Smith from filing substantive new motions without advance permission while the trial is out of her jurisdiction on appeal.


[URL=https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.258148/gov.uscourts.dcd.258148.195.0.pdf]https://storage.courtlistener.com/re...8148.195.0.pdf[/URL]

2. After that, in seeing the reality of the delay, on the 24th she went further into going ahead and scheduling a different Trial for April (meaning that slot is now occupied)

[URL=https://imgbb.com/][img]https://i.ibb.co/j5k30sY/GEn92-Ba-XEAAPh0e.jpg[/img][/URL]


3. And then you got the reality of how long an en banc and SCOTUS hearing could go. If it ends up getting cert grant by SCOTUS- and making it there - are looking Last week June, 1st few days of July ruling likely- in which according the January 18th dc Judge filing- Trump's 7 7-month clock would just then continue.



But wait, there's more!!!



Next, you have Ultrea MAGA Judge Cannon in Florida who had delayed virtually everything, even suspended hearings, - except the May trial date (which has to be delayed now) and she doesn't plan on having the delayed hearing until March. Thus excluding Judge Chutkan from getting a May, or even early June, Trial anyway. And the pace Cannon plan- Trump will for sure not have that trial before election...

It is a trial chess game, and Judge Cannon holds the middle of the board...

Smith also made a crucial strategic error in filling the FL trial 1st- so now she has leverage.


More on that:

[QUOTE][b]Judge Cannon Hands Donald Trump Much-Needed Delay in Blow to Jack Smith[/b]

Jan 13, 2024 at 11:00 AM EST

The judge overseeing Donald Trump's federal classified-documents case has been accused of failing to enforce a routine deadline, amid claims the former president is hoping to delay the trial until after November's presidential election.

Judge Aileen Cannon, who was nominated to the bench by Trump, has rejected Special Counsel Jack Smith's request to force the former president to reveal if he plans on using a defense that he was merely relying on advice of his lawyers during the trial. Newsweek contacted the Department of Justice (DOJ) on Saturday for comment via email.

Trump has pleaded not guilty to 40 charges relating to allegations he illegally retained top-secret and classified material after he left office in January 2021, then obstructed the federal attempt to retrieve them from his Mar-a-Lago, Florida, home. The former president has denied any wrongdoing and has repeatedly said that the charges are part of a political witch hunt that seeks to derail him as frontrunner for the 2024 GOP presidential nomination.

Cannon has previously faced calls to recuse herself from the case in which she was randomly selected to oversee because she has already made a number of decisions that could be seen to have benefited the Republican.

In a court filings on Friday, Cannon rejected federal prosecutors "motion to compel disclosure regarding advice-of-counsel defense," while saying such a request is "not amenable to proper consideration at this juncture."

As noted on X, formerly Twitter, by Katie Phang, a lawyer and MSNBC legal analyst, Cannon "basically says that it's too early in the litigation to consider forcing Donald Trump to have to disclose this information."

Joyce Vance, a former federal prosecutor, was one of those who said that Cannon's decision is helping Trump delay the start of the classified documents trial, which is currently scheduled for May 20

The proceedings in Florida may yet change when a scheduling conference for the case takes place on March 1, just days before Trump's federal trial over 2020 election obstruction and conspiracy allegations is scheduled to begin.

Trump has long been accused of trying to delay the start of both the federal classified documents and election trials. If he wins the 2024 election, he could call on the DOJ to drop the federal investigations into him once he enters office in January 2025, or pardon himself as president if he is convicted beforehand.

Because the case involves highly sensitive documents, some of them involving national security, however, Judge Cannon has had to put elaborate security protocols in place that have delayed the trial by months.

"In the Mar-a-Lago case, Judge Cannon has just refused to enforce a routine deadline & it's entirely clear she has no intention of letting this case go to trial before the election or possibly ever," Vance posted on X.

Others also criticized Cannon for not helping Trump's case move forward towards its scheduled deadline.

"His luck in drawing Cannon for this open-and-shut case cannot be overstated," posted the Scary Lawyer Guy social-media account. "While [Judge Tanya] Chutkan *may* be able to get his other trial in before November, a more experienced (+ less biased) judge would have had the MAL [Mar-aLago] case on the calendar months ago. Instead, she's slow walking things."

Cannon has already faced calls to remove herself from the case over claims she may be biased towards the former president.

The judge previously handed down a decision that meant that Trump would not have to testify under oath his unsubstantiated claim that the FBI may have "planted" evidence against him during the August raid at his Mar-a-Lago resort in 2022.

Another ruling from Cannon also meant that Trump would not have to state which of the materials recovered from his Florida resort had allegedly been declassified before he left the White House in January 2021. This is another disputed claim by the former president that has never been backed up by his lawyers in official court filings.
[/QUOTE]


But wait, there's more!!!


Also, you have the Fisher case- which isn't set to be heard until June- and would possibly all but negate 2 of Trump's major DC charges

Cont next post...

Bro, that post set you off lmao.

Chill out.

[QUOTE][b]The ‘Sleeping Giant’ Case that Could Upend Jack Smith’s Prosecution of Trump
The Supreme Court has agreed to consider a case that doesn’t mention the former president, but that could invalidate half of the Jan. 6 charges against him.[/b]

here’s been a lot of attention paid to the Supreme Court’s upcoming decision on Donald Trump’s claim of immunity from prosecution for actions taken while president, a judgment that will have big implications for the 2024 presidential campaign and special counsel Jack Smith’s indictment of the former president on charges related to Jan. 6. But there’s a sleeping giant of a case also percolating in the Supreme Court that’s even more likely than the immunity issue to impact Smith’s prosecution of Trump.

The case is Joseph W. Fischer v. United States, which the court agreed to hear in December, and which doesn’t explicitly mention Trump. At issue is whether prosecutors and the Department of Justice have been improperly using a 2002 law originally aimed at curbing financial crimes to prosecute a Jan. 6 defendant named Joseph Fischer. Should the court side with Fischer, it would also call into question the use of the law against other Jan. 6 defendants — including Trump.

Smith’s indictment contains four counts in total. Two of those are for obstruction of an official proceeding and for conspiracy to do so. Those crimes are part of a relatively recent criminal statute governing financial disclosures known as the Sarbanes-Oxley (or “SOX”) Act, which was enacted following the Enron corporate accounting scandal, and which makes it a crime to obstruct an official proceeding of the U.S. government. The Justice Department has so far used it to charge over 300 people involved in the Jan. 6 insurrection; more than 150 have been convicted of the offense following jury trials or pleaded guilty to it.


Many of these defendants, including Fischer, have argued that the “obstruction of an official proceeding” part of the SOX Act was only meant to apply narrowly to financial crimes similar to the ones that produced the law in the first place — and not as broadly as the Justice Department has used it in the Jan. 6 cases.

Courts across the country have already been wrestling with the question of whether the SOX Act’s obstruction provisions apply to the various means by which people tried to halt Congress’ examination and ratification of the presidential election results favoring Joe Biden. As of this month, at least 14 judges in 22 cases had backed DOJ’s interpretation. But some have expressed doubts after the Supreme Court agreed to hear Fischer’s case; in at least two of the Jan. 6 cases, trial judges have delayed the defendants’ sentencings pending the Supreme Court’s ruling on the issue, meaning the underlying SOX Act charges may be vulnerable.

The impact of Fischer on the Jan. 6 trial against Trump might not be known until after the Supreme Court wraps up its term in June, at which point it could knock out half of Smith’s counts against Trump. And it could also disrupt the convictions of many Jan. 6 defendants already serving time for their role in the insurrection.

Several conservative members of the high court describe themselves as “textualists” who take the words of a law at face value, and to a textualist reader the SOX Act would likely seem straightforward. Consider its language: “Whoever corruptly . . . obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.” The statute’s language does not clearly specify that only certain kinds of obstruction qualify.

The broader reading of the statute would appear to be what Congress intended. Remarking on the bill that became the SOX Act, then-Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.) repeatedly observed that it “strengthens laws that criminalize document shredding and other forms of obstruction of justice.” Referring to the statute in a 2002 White House press release, President George W. Bush likewise touted “strengthening laws that criminalize document shredding and other forms of obstruction of justice.” (Emphases added.) Another part of the law defines “official proceeding” as including “a proceeding before the Congress.”

So, DOJ’s legal equation would appear logically simple: On Jan.. 6, Congress was engaged in the official proceeding of counting the Electoral College votes for president under the Constitution and the Electoral Count Act. Trump took numerous steps to impede that process, and he did it corruptly, which loosely means that he knew what he was doing and his purpose was unlawful.

But here’s the wrinkle. Immediately preceding this language is another provision of the SOX Act, which specifies that whoever “corruptly — alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record, document, or other object ... with the intent to impair the object’s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding,” engages in a criminal act, too. (Emphasis added.) The Fischer argument is that the two provisions must be read together — that the phrase “or otherwise obstructs” in the broad part of the statute is confined by the narrower provision that came before it, with the link between the two being the opening word “corruptly.”

Under this reading, Smith would be required to prove that the defendants “corruptly” altered a record as a threshold matter before they can be charged more broadly with obstructing a congressional proceeding. He could add charges that the same defendants “otherwise” engaged in other, similar forms of obstruction using records or documents, the argument goes, but the statute doesn’t allow a standalone charge of obstruction of an official proceeding based on conduct such as trespassing on the Capitol building. Fischer and two other defendants in the case, Edward Lang and Garrett Miller, are charged with participating in the events of Jan. 6 — not personally taking any actions regarding records or documents.

The lower court agreed with the defendants, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit reversed, finding that the SOX Act language is broad enough to cover their conduct. (The Supreme Court only took up Fischer’s case, leaving the D.C. Circuit ruling to stand for now as to Lang and Miller.)

The government’s argument is that the broad language of the provision employed by DOJ is clear, and there’s no need to read between the lines to intuit a conclusion that Congress actually meant to qualify all parts of the statute to require a corrupt nexus to a document or record. After all, the law refers to altering a record or otherwise obstructing an official proceeding — it doesn’t say “and.” In the words of Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, writing in 1929, “there is no canon against using common sense in construing laws as saying what they obviously mean.” Although conservative jurists, adhering to the plainest reading of the text, would presumably agree with the Justice Department, the fact that the Supreme Court voted to consider the Fischer case after so many Jan. 6 defendants have been convicted of violating the SOX Act means that a number of justices do have a problem with DOJ’s interpretation.

Needless to say, a Supreme Court ruling that limits the application of the obstruction charge to documents or records has the potential to undermine Smith’s prosecution of Trump and overturn hundreds of existing Jan. 6 convictions. A saving grace for Smith could be that in Trump’s case, the indictment contains other allegations, including that he assisted in devising and implementing a plan to submit fraudulent slates of presidential electors to obstruct the certification proceeding, so it seems distinguishable from Fischer’s case. A fraudulent slate of electors is a document, after all. But until such point that the Jan. 6 case against Trump goes to the jury for deliberation on a verdict, the Supreme Court could rule in a way that gives Trump room to file a fresh motion to dismiss the SOX Act counts against him, which would produce even more delay.

The trial is currently set for March 4 on four charges — the two SOX Act charges, plus one count of conspiracy to defraud the United States and one count of conspiracy to threaten the exercise of rights secured under the Constitution, in this case, the right to vote. Although the presidential immunity appeal could slow things down, the Supreme Court hasn’t even agreed to hear it yet and could conceivably decline. Moreover, Trump will likely lose anyway, which means Smith would have to wait that one out until the court rules in June, at the latest. At that point, he can go to trial over the summer on all four counts in sufficient time to secure a jury verdict before the November election.

If the immunity issue resolves before March 4, or at least before Fischer is decided, Smith — and for that matter, U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan — may go forward with a trial on all four counts despite the risk that two of them might be declared invalid. (Smith could seek expedited review of Fischer in the Supreme Court, but it denied a rush request on the immunity issue, so that effort would seem futile.) If the trial occurs on the sooner side, and the Supreme Court later rules in a way that impacts Trump’s case, it could give Trump a basis to appeal a conviction on the rationale that the jury was tainted by evidence bearing on flawed SOX Act charges. (The problem for Trump would be that the relevant evidence probably overlaps with the conspiracy to defraud the United States charge anyway.) If a guilty verdict is reversed on appeal for some reason, Smith would have to retry Trump, which is not feasible given the treacherous politics of prosecuting former presidents not once, but twice. And if Trump wins the election, he’d surely call off the prosecution or try to pardon himself. Alternatively, Smith could go to trial in March on just the two remaining counts, but that would cut down the numerical odds of a guilty verdict — not to mention the fact that the first SOX Act count is the only one that doesn’t require proof of a conspiracy, or a meeting of the minds between more than one person — and will be perceived as a political triumph for Trump.

At a minimum, then, the Supreme Court’s decision to hear the Fischer case means the Jan. 6 case against Trump has legal exposure if it goes to trial on March 4, although the court might ultimately uphold DOJ’s use of the obstruction charge in Fischer. And if it doesn’t back the government … well, that would have enormous legal and political impacts for hundreds of Americans, perhaps most especially for a certain former president.
[/QUOTE][URL=https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2024/01/17/supreme-court-case-trump-prosecution-00135852]https://www.politico.com/news/magazi...ution-00135852[/URL]

Now keep in mind, the above article was written before DC Judge conceded the March trial not happening, the 7-month prepare clock paused, and moved on to schedule another April trial as well.




When you look at the conflicting trial dates, consider DCCA's already delayed timeline, and consider SCOTUS quickest timeline...


The earliest possible time Smith could pull off a trial before the election at this point is mid October. Now if you want to risk the options of Trump being stuck in a courtroom the 3 prime weeks before the election, wow.


In reality, that is the quickest- likely it can't happen anyway.


With 1 exception- Smith drops charges in Flordia Trial, then removes Cannon's stronghold of the chess board.

Most experts agree Smith is very unlikely to get a convention in Florida anyway with a 65% maga jury pool.



With GA all but out, the only likely remaining criminal Trial Trump could see is alvin bragg NY trial- which is simply the weakest case against him.

Bellow is a decent article describing it.

Not this article ran before it was known additionally DC judge went ahead and scheduled another April trial for someone elsehttps://www.wsj.com/politics/electio...-2024-b97fecf3

This is a growing relevant complex story that could quickly change one way or the other - and needs its own thread

One of many side notes....

Might hear about this later.....

It has been filed - when the first Jack Smith Trump case appeal for either case comes up - SCOTUS could choose, or not choose, to take action on this....

It gives scotus the ultimate out - they don't have to make an immunity decision- and they can fix misuse of the special counsels provisions.

And scotus would love to get out of this without having to make an immunity decision.


It is the "easy button" for scotus if they choose...


Copy of brief filed December 20th (under the radar)

[URL=https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-624/293864/20231220140217967_US%20v.%20Trump%20amicus%20final.pdf]https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketP...us%20final.pdf[/URL]


Context:

[QUOTE]
Is Jack Smith an Illegitimate Prosecutor? Has Every Act Taken by Him Been Without Lawful Authority?

On December 21, 2023, a very interesting amicus brief was filed with the United States Supreme Court in the matter of United States v. Trump. The brief was filed in response to Special Counsel Jack Smith’s effort to convince the Court to take up the immunity issue raised by former President Trump rather than have it decided first in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. The brief was filed by former U.S. Attorney General Edwin Meese and law professors Steven Calabresi and Gary Lawson from Northwestern and Boston University Law Schools, respectively.

An amicus brief is one filed by persons who are not parties to the case but have some particularized interest or specialty with regard to the subject matter that might aid the Supreme Court in coming to a decision. Roughly translated, they are referred to as “Friend of the Court” briefs.

What the Meese brief argues is that Special Counsel Jack Smith occupies an office that is not recognized by law and was created by Attorney General Merrick Garland in violation of the Appointments Clause of the Constitution. The specific details and case law involving the Appointments Clause are beyond the scope of this one article, but the foundation of Meese’s argument is that Smith was given law enforcement authorities by Attorney General Garland that are equivalent to or greater than the authorities given to actual “Officers” of the United States – specifically U.S. Attorneys. However, unlike U.S. Attorneys who were appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate, Special Counsel Smith – a private citizen – was put in place by Garland pursuant to a regulation of the Department of Justice.

Regulations are not “laws.” They are internal operating provisions that, for the most part, direct how the government departments conduct their business. The departments are authorized to create regulations by Congress, but some regulations are wholly internal and do not create rights or obligations for members of the public.

Jack Smith was named as “Special Counsel” under a regulation adopted by the Department of Justice after the independent counsel statute passed by Congress was allowed to expire without being extended near the end of the Clinton administration. Jack Smith’s position and authority were created by DOJ to solve an internal operating dilemma – how to conduct criminal investigations of a president or those close to him when the president is the source of the authority to conduct those investigations — a conflict of interest.

DOJ solved this problem at the end of the Clinton administration by adopting regulations that are set forth beginning at 28 CFR Sec. 600.1. That regulation reads:

[QUOTE]§ 600.1 Grounds for appointing a Special Counsel.

The Attorney General, or in cases in which the Attorney General is recused, the Acting Attorney General, will appoint a Special Counsel when he or she determines that criminal investigation of a person or matter is warranted and—

(a) That investigation or prosecution of that person or matter by a United States Attorney's Office or litigating Division of the Department of Justice would present a conflict of interest for the Department or other extraordinary circumstances; and

(b) That under the circumstances, it would be in the public interest to appoint an outside Special Counsel to assume responsibility for the matter.[/QUOTE]The Meese brief does not take issue with this regulation. Rather, the Meese brief addresses the question of the universe of individuals who can be lawfully appointed to the position of “Special Counsel” in order for this regulation to fit under federal statutes and the Constitution’s Appointment Clause.

Meese states that the appointments of Patrick Fitzgerald, John Huber, and John Durham as past “Special Counsels” were all valid because, at the time of their appointment, each was serving as a Senate-confirmed United States Attorney within the Department of Justice. Their appointment as “Special Counsel” did not alter their authority; it just granted them the same authority over a particular investigation pursuant to the regulation that they otherwise would not have under their individual geographic limitations.

Meese and his co-authors first published the objection set forth in the current brief in law journals and other publications following Robert Mueller’s appointment as Special Counsel, given that he was an attorney in private practice at the time he was named Special Counsel to investigate former President Trump, but never to a court.

Now, Meese and his co-authors are making the claim against Jack Smith to a court because of his effort to have the Supreme Court take up the immunity issue. This created an opportunity for them to raise the question by arguing that Smith lacks jurisdiction to seek the Court’s relief because he is not truly an “Officer” of the United States.

[QUOTE]Congress alone has the authority to create federal offices not established by the Constitution. And the Attorney General cannot ex nihilo fashion offices as he sees fit. Nor has Congress given the Attorney General power to appoint a Special Counsel of this nature. Thus, without legal office, Smith cannot wield the authority of the United States, including his present attempt to seek relief in this Court.[/QUOTE]The Meese brief notes that Attorney General Garland based his appointment of Smith on the language of 28 U.S.C. Sec. 515 – among other statutes – and that statute does concern the appointment by the Attorney General of “Special Attorneys.” The pertinent part of that statute reads:

[QUOTE](a) The Attorney General or any other officer of the Department of Justice, or any attorney specially appointed by the Attorney General under law, may, when specifically directed by the Attorney General, conduct any kind of legal proceeding, civil or criminal, including grand jury proceedings … which United States attorneys are authorized by law to conduct…
[/QUOTE]The Meese brief points out that while this authority to appoint “special counsels” may exist in a statute passed by Congress, that authority is nonetheless limited by provisions of the Constitution as to the individuals eligible for such appointment given the nature of the powers being conferred. Because Jack Smith was a private citizen when appointed, never having been nominated by a president or confirmed by a vote of the Senate, he was not within the scope of individuals who could be authorized by Garland to exercise prosecutorial authority equivalent to United States Attorneys. Any action purporting to create such a position – or “office” -- and vest it with the same authority as United States Attorneys is unconstitutional because it was not “created by law."

At the risk of doing great violence to the constitutional analysis set forth in the Meese brief, the following is a paraphrase of the argument advanced:

The Appointments Clause provides for the appointment of officers “which shall be established by Law.” “Officers” are – obviously – appointed to “Offices,” and the “Office of the President” is the only office created by the Constitution. Congress creates all other “offices” of the Executive Branch by statute, hence the “established by law” language.

The power to create these offices and vest them with lawful authority is part of the “Necessary and Proper” clause to carry into execution the powers conferred on the Executive. "Established by law” has been interpreted to mean not by regulation or Executive Order, as only Congress passes laws. Congress has the exclusive constitutional authority to create federal offices. The Constitution does not give the president nor the heads of Executive Branch departments the power to create offices to which individuals may be appointed.

The Department of Justice and the Office of the Attorney General were both created by Acts of Congress and vested with the prosecutorial function of the Executive Branch. The DOJ was created by Congress with several “offices” – Attorney General, Deputy Attorney General, Associate Attorney General, Solicitor General, eleven Assistant Attorneys General, a U.S. Attorney for each federal judicial district, and the heads of the various law enforcement agencies created. These are all considered officers of the Executive Branch, and the individuals picked to lead them are subject to the Appointment Clause.

One problem with the regulations establishing a Special Counsel is that the language therein specifically contemplates naming someone from outside the government to fill the role. It is curious that even though that is the case, all the Special Counsels other than Mueller and Smith have been U.S. Attorneys in the government at the time of their appointment. That suggests that the issues raised by the Meese brief have been considered in the past, and a choice was made to violate the regulation in that regard rather than potentially violate the Constitution with an unlawful appointment.

Among the most compelling arguments made by the Meese brief comes at the end when it notes the incarnation of a Special Counsel vested with a Javert-like mission, as compared to the statutorily-created officers of the Justice Department – the Attorney General, Deputy Attorney General, Associate Attorney General, Solicitor General, eleven Assistant AGs, and 94 U.S. Attorneys – all subject to presidential appointment and Senate confirmation. According to the Biden DOJ, the Attorney General can simply create a Special Counsel Office, appoint a non-government actor to that post, grant him the power to wield the authority of a grand jury, draw resources from various federal law enforcement agencies, and direct their conduct, and seek search and arrest warrants when loosed upon a member of the public.

[b]If the Meese brief’s argument is correct, then all the actions taken by Smith have been without lawful authority under federal law – beginning with the use of the grand jury in Washington D.C. to build the cases he has brought against former President Trump. The outcome would almost certainly mean that the cases would be dismissed.[/b]

What might come next? That’s a question for another day.


[/QUOTE]

[URL=https://redstate.com/shipwreckedcrew/2023/12/23/is-jack-smith-an-illegitimate-prosecutor-has-every-act-taken-by-him-been-without-lawful-authority-n2167897]https://redstate.com/shipwreckedcrew...ority-n2167897[/URL]

Significant upcoming dates:

Keep in mind, many of these dates block other dates from being created by other judges

February 2nd: briefs due in Fanni Willis inappropriate conduct allegations
Febaury 5th: 1st possible day for depositions by Fanni Willis and Nathan Wade
February 8th: Trump Colorado SCOTUS oral arguments
February 15th: oral arguments and hearing for Fanni Willis conduct / motion to dismiss
March 1st: Florida trial hearing for possible may trial date moved (could still be moved at a later date hearing if Judge wants to occupy the spot longer)
March 25th: NY Alvin Bragg trial set to begin, this still blocks some- he's indicated he will give way to smith if needed
May 20th: Florida trial still scheduled (pretty much has to move at this point, however if it stayed, and team Trump made it last a long time, could block out most of the summer - and likely no jury conviction)
August 5th: proposed Georgia trial start

Fischer SCOTUS case?
https://www.scotusblog.com/case-file...united-states/

Still a little unknown on dates / but decision unlikely until the end of June earliest.

SCOTUS will not expediter Fischer to get Trump in quicker - as it's unfair to Fischer

Another "unlikely but still possible" curveball in the Georgia case - mark meadows can still appeal to scotus to have trial moved to federal court - which could move every defendant to federal court in one.

It's already denied in district and circuit.

Also asking for full circuit en banc

Link to his updated legal team

https://thefederalist.com/2024/01/15...ead-to-scotus/


Also, as a whole meadows by far has the best legal team

Another possible "doubtful" curve ball some legal minds have been speculating.

This DCCA immunity ruling (it will go against Trump, however, is causing a delay and will eventually probably go to Scotus for more delay)

Many thought it would be out by the 12th or the 19th at the latest and here we are- why


Possible 1 of the 3 judges holding out for delay time.....

The bush Judge Henderson



DCCA rules - apparently she can hold out as long as she wants....

I don’t think this super hero you speak of, “Ultra MAGA” Cannon is going to be able to obstruct justice like you think be will.

She's already blocked out may from a plausible trial month, preventing DC judge from taking it.

And already did the delay motions so that date will eventually have to move away later.

We don't need anymore of her. She's already done what we needed..

Deranged Jack Smith won’t get his boxes case in time, not solely because Judge Cannon is favorable towards Trump, but the complexities of presenting classified materials to a jury also requires a long review process, which is unprecedented in these circumstances.

The Georgia RICO case is DOA because Fani Willis turned out to be a corrupt whore. Even if it isn’t tossed, that one isn’t starting until 2025 at the earliest by their own admission.

The New York case is such a ridiculous miscalculation. Alvin Bragg stretched the law as thin as he possibly could to circumvent the statute of limitations. Even liberal lawyers have said Trump would likely get acquitted, or almost certainly have any conviction overturned on appeal if he wasn’t. The Democrats are now wishing it was never brought first because it softened the political impact of the later, more serious indictments.

That leaves January 6th. Jack Smith’s only hope to lock the orange man up before Election Day. It’s unfortunately matter that would probably end in a conviction with jail time. But fortunately for Trump, the DC Court of Appeals has yet to rule on his immunity and it’s stayed until then. After they decide, Trump has the legal right to a 90 day period to file with the Supreme Court. That brings us to May. Then who knows how long they take.

At this point, the only criminal case likely to proceed in 2024 is the NYC case and that’s the only one where a supermajority of the public thinks Trump is innocent. The left did not play their cards right lmao.

It seems like if Trump wins the election then all or most of his problems will go away...

...but if he loses, he might be in for a rough ride with his legal issues.

I don't think he's going to win tbh.

I'm surprised this judge hasn't been forced to recuse herself.


So many unexpected things are going to happen between now and the election.


A lot of ups and downs.


Should be entertaining.

He's fuked if he looses- unless these people just start to pardon

If you look at this from unbiased standpoint, Cannon is actually acting normal. People are just getting pissy because she isn't moving as fast as possible- and they want her to move faster considering the nature of the situation -Trump.

Ga judge has been impartial as well.

Chutkan has been the unreasonable one - the March trial date was ridiculous early compared to what a trial normally would be of this nature- even lefty legal people thought so- and felt having it too early could've been an appeal danger.

Strategically it was dumb also - She could've scheduled August or September and had it Scotus appeal full proof.

Cannon lately has been a little "back at ya" towards Chutkan based on trying to step into her territory - the only arguable unreasonable thing Cannon has done was not reschedule the trial date yet- locking up a month no one can use now - and she obviously can't either.


There is still a slight possible this can happen late -but it's getting less than less likely each day

For the lefties that think I'm crazy - here is a lefty as it gets source about the Fischer case:
https://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/amp/rcna129857

Scotus March calendar out no fisher case yet....

One more day in , one more day without DCCA decision in...

Successful delay is successful so far.

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/0...delay-00138688


Article also doesn't take into account Fischer, May blocked, and part of April already booked.

March trial officially off the books now

Only court reporter in the room today notes

This does a fair job and summarizing my threadhttps://www.nationalreview.com/2024/...l-begin-later/