@@ItsMeT---426 did you see evidence of those documents? Smith did not have the taken away documents catalogued properly akin to mixing them on open tables and placing them in folders and boxes.
Its nice to see intelligent comments countering the glaring flaws in this video. Clearly the individuals in this video either don't understand or they don't want to understand.
@@bigdougscommentary5719 True, but all of the rest concerned appointments for individuals that were already employed as US attorneys.....not private citizens like Jack Smith. Might want to mention that next time.
that's not true.. LOL!!! No one approved this special council, the FBI set this up!! They aren't allowed to set up special councils!! Thats why the judge ruled that way!! It was unconstitutional!!
@@howfine7726 doesn’t have to be, doesn’t have anything with the constitution only the president give the ok for the attorney general to appoint a special counsel!
@@user-db6ps7pb7d Per the US Constitution Article II, Section II, Clause II: the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments A special counsel is an "inferior officer". In all previous cases, either the President appointed or Congress requested the Attorney General appoint a special counsel. Garland had neither when he appointed Smith. Rep. Masse brought this up during a Congressional hearing as well. The last special counsel appointment expired with the case it was investigating and did not grant the Attorney General any authority to appoint a new one at will.
@@user-db6ps7pb7d Not according to Andy McCarthy who used to be attorney general I think that was his title. He is the one who brought attention to Jack Smith's illegal appointment.
@lloydb4130 no, he won't. Jack Smith doesn't lose cases. Let's keep it 💯. He is 1 of the top lawyers in the 🌎. Not our country, the world. This is a text book easy case. Trump did it. It on tape. Jack just makes sure all the I s are dotted and ts are crossed. No mistakes.
Wydra is a legal clown All 93 US attorneys have to be appointed by the President and confirmed by the senate But a Special Counsel a de facto US attorney with more powers than the 93 does not??? Wydra also neglects to mention that there is no Special Counsel law on the books. The closest law expired 1999
@@newelllondon724 That's what you get if your career (i.e. Wydra's career) is mostly determined by sexual favours to superiors in stead of intellectual achievements. 🤷
Exactly. I'm not sure what she meant by the law is with Smith. There are special council appointed but they are confirmed by the senate or they aren't involved in a federal government case
Jack offs appeal will be turned down. Cannon is the only judge so far that has rulled following the law and using common sense so hats off to her. Wyda is a constitutional accountability president, really? She's obviously a mainsteam media liar. She's not mentioning the tampering with the documents by the FBI that was admitted to. The higher courts are gonna agree with her decision, its obvious she took the time and researched the law before making her decision.
LOL, no. She delayed, delayed, and delayed until a crooked and corrupt supreme court justice could write an opinion that wasn't even relevant to the case they were deciding that gave her a scapegoat to use. Republicans judges ignoring decades of precedent when it suits them.
@@bytemuncher1 Maybe a year. Smith is not only handling the classified documents case but the Jan 6 case. So you're have a split court issue between the 11th District Court of Appeals and the DC Circuit court. This will likely expedite it to SCOTUS if either of these courts disagree.
@@Solargeek 😂 § 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.
Jack Smith is a member of the justice department and was working for the justice department at the world Court in the Hague boy you people really really are not educated at all
exactly! The signal was clear in the presidential immunity decision. Those of use able to traverse in and out of echo chambers can see it clear as day.
It’s not corruption it’s obstruction of justice. Trump stole those documents and then obstructed the investigation to get those documents back. There is tons of evidence against him, and one of trumps employees even publicly came out and spoke the truth about them moving boxes to hide them from investigators
Interesting she did not comment at all on how Jack Smith's selection for special counsel was different from other special counsel appointments. That's because she does not want to acknowledge that it was.
It's pretty clear that.Jack Smith did NOT have the constitutional authority to become a Special Counsel. He was pushed through by AG Merrick Garland, regardless of what the law says about the approval process for a Special Counsel. Garland has NO RESPECT for the law. Thank goodness he never went through the Senate investigation process for nomination to the SCOTUS. That is one of the few things I can give Mitch McConnell credit for.
lol..their parroting of the "unprecedented decision" pointing to appointments of other special council, all while ignoring the fact that each and every one of those appointments were with individuals who were already US attorneys.....not private citizens as Jack Smith is. Bunch of ignorant liars expecting everyone to believe them. Sad. Their others "options" are also ridiculous. None of them will ever happen and even if they did, it would be laughed out of court.
@snunya9399 jack smith isn't and hasn't been a private citizen in his career. This has been rehashed repeatedly and found to be legal. There is precedence from Nixon. The use of special counsels are to support impartiality and fair proceedings. And no not all have been US attorneys
It's not an outlier. Just a few days ago, Justice Thomas wrote a concurrence (correction, I previously said "dissent") specifically addressing this issue
It was not a descent. It was in conjunction with the ruling on presidential immunity does an unsolicited outlier and not warranted under Supreme Court rules.
@@user-db6ps7pb7devery US attorney has to be appointed by the president and confirmed by the senate But a special counsel with far more powers does not?
@@newelllondon724 correct, special counsel get appointed in cases as requested by the president to the attorney general so no one can claim partisanship. This fact has been proven over and over again and upheld by the Supreme Court. Attorney Bill Barr appointed three special counsels if I remember correctly, Mueller, Durham, Weiss, Hur were all appointed by republican attorney generals.
There was an amicus brief to scotus an also one of the judges remark that jack smith is illegitimate and this woman is not revealing what she must know.
Jack Smith's appointment was unconstitutional. In the Supreme Court's decision on presidential immunity, it was evident that the justices were notably skeptical about the manner in which Jack Smith was appointed. While his appeal was entirely predictable, it is unlikely to succeed in the long run. Although the case may continue to be contested, the decision will stand even if it ultimately requires intervention by the Supreme Court (which I think it may).
Says the guy with no credentials whatsoever or he would have bragged on them. Then the same tard (you) loosely cites the corrupt SCOTUS with at least two justices trying very hard to not be held criminally responsible for their own actions by keeping the former corrupt president immune from his actions. Basically, all criminal GOPs get a free pass. HARD NO!
@@user-db6ps7pb7d That's because it was a "warning shot across the bow," as the saying goes-one that Jack doesn't want to accept. It is highly unlikely that this would be included if it weren't important. The Supreme Court rules on as few specifics as possible; for example, in the presidential immunity decision, they said Trump may have immunity (contraray to what msm tell you) but did not make a definitive ruling on his case. Instead, they sent it back to a lower court for further consideration, outlining different categories of immunity that might apply.
@@Qingeaton yes Jack Smith did they already said that trump is paying people to be on his side judge canon is getting ready gifting from trump and judge Thames is to alone with the other two judges but it won't work because Jack Smith is going to win and judge cannon will be removed from trump case because judge canon knows trump did all what they said he did judge canon thinks trump is going back into the white house and by that he will give her a part she should have never been on the case any how she got into trouble the last time she tried to help trump she's another one of trump little boot licker but it getting ready to fall apart because they no that judge Thomas has been getting gifts and judge cannon also the both of them are gone another judge told judge canon not to take trump case but she didn't listen judge canon is in real big trouble but she doesn't no it because she didn't do her job 😍🤩
@@specialladyt Smith was a citizen, not an officer of the government. I don't know why they chose him, but he did not go through the processes that would have made it legal. Probably because they were in a rush to convict Trump of something....anything. The ruling may be overturned. I believe she has now finished the case, so no need to remove her. She's finished now. The 11th circuit may over rule her decision, and then the Supreme Court will over rule them, so Cannon will be proven to be right.
The Judge raised objections to three points of special counsel that fundamentally need to be judicially, addressed… and finally laid to rest,… Senate confirmation, the oversight necessity, the funding source. These issues have hanging over the appointment of special counsel and putting its legitimacy into question. This “progressive” lawyer self-described on her own website as Progressive needs to stop making money on slyly misleading others… beauty and speaking craftily do not replace the truth, no matter no matter the professed level of competency.
@@fred2903 yeah I am amazed that these shows put out so much info that a 2 second google search can debunk. He was never appointed and there were almost 100 other people Garland could have appointed and they would be legal. Why he chose Smith is a mystery.
Thomas's advisory concurrence was an Easter Egg for Judge Cannon. Thomas might as well have been running Cannon by remote control. None of the precedent since the 1800's support her ruling.
Don't it means if they get the appeal and past the retail and would be going to have a different judge i believe that's true cause it would be the same when it went back to her
I appreciate the information given by the video. And like someone else say, we know how Clarence Thomas will vote. But the lady blinks so much that it's distracting. Watch her again.
It doesn't matter if it's constitutional or unconstitutional or if he has jurisdiction blah blah blah none of that matters because Jack Smith is about 6 months away from being unemployed
@@SlimPickins-lj7rd and everybody else right behind it I'm afraid. Nobody's getting the whole story on these news shows and everybody's blaming the other team and that's not the the whole truth is our biggest problem right now. We all think we know better and we don't know anything. Please approach the news like that when you consume. Nobody is telling everything
How many time did the feds ask him to return them ? How many times did he order his immigrant employees to hide them ? Did the feds have to get a warrant, and finally raid JB's garage again ? *ZERO* times. See the difference ? Didn't think so.......
Thomas ,alito , kavenaugh,barret, could we guess how they will vote, oh lets not forget ol clarence thomas, to say this court is compromised is an understatement.!
exactly, but some people just don't want to accept it. If some how Jack wins the appeal (that may happen) ultimately it will go up to the supreme court who has already clearly voiced skepticism towards Jack's appointment in the recent presidential immunity decision. They will almost certainly rule against Jack.
More importantly the Presidential Records Act does not confer criminal jurisdiction. There are no criminal penalties for refusal to turn over presidential records. It is intended to be a civil proceeding. And it clearly supersedes all other laws pertaining to presidential records. Any document that is not a private document is a presidential record including classified documents.
The Raid was unprecedented . Trump was in discussion and working to please the Document Archives bureaucrats even though he had no obligation to do so. The case was unprecedented . Jack Smith was not employed directly by the DOJ . It is to be Garland to file a protest.