Brian Cates: They're also trying to keep this on the down low, but the SCOTUS accepted former AG Ed Meese's brief on how Smith was unconstitutionally appointed by Garland.
(media.greatawakening.win)
- N C S W I C -
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (36)
sorted by:
US Code says this (Sorry for the text wall, I posted the law as written):
28 CFR § 600.1 - Grounds for appointing a Special Counsel.
§ 600.3 Qualifications of the Special Counsel.
There must be some conflicting law or SCOTUS would not have taken Meese's amicus brief into consideration. Enter 5 U.S.C 7511(b)(2)(C):
5 U.S. Code § 7511 - Definitions; application
A special Council law from the Clinton era was allowed to expire meaning that any Special Council appointed after must be appointed only with the advise and consent of the Senate. Was it this one you posted? I am too tired to dig atm. Tough day. I am fairly certain it was this that was cited by the Meese amicus brief.
Reading through 5 U.S.C 7511(b)(2)(C), Smith does not fall under any of those requirements. It does allow for the President to make an exception to the rules but Biden has disavowed any involvement in the appointment of Jack Smith (we all know that is total BS in reality but they never went through the formal process of making it a presidential appointment so they have to run with that story)