There are 31 comments.

1. Member
   Eb Snider

   @EbSnider

   11:15 AM EST ⋅ Nov 9, 2024

   Full Size Tabby (View Comment):

   Barfly (View Comment):

   Eb Snider (View Comment):

   Let’s not forget that apparently Jack Smith was illegally appointed by Garland. This was a point I was completely unaware of in the reporting until the Judge ruled against this case. Something about the legal process.

   More than just a process issue. I forget what the exact qualification was, but basically Garland can’t just appoint any old lawyer.

   No it is not an insignificant process issue. Though technically it is a “process” issue in that there are processes built into the United States Constitution to reduce the likelihood of citizens getting persecuted by rogue agents of the government.

   Criminal prosecutors with the power to bring criminal charges in court have the power to ruin people’s lives. A prosecutor with the power to ruin a person’s life with federal criminal charges must either 1) be appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate (so the Senate has the opportunity to vet that prosecutor), or 2) be appointed in accordance with a specific law passed by Congress (again, so Congress knows what’s going on, and presumably limits the authority of any prosecutor appointed under that law). The regular United States Attorneys are handled under option 1). But they are geographically limited in the scope of their power and authority. Congress knows who to blame and hold accountable if something goes wrong in the area for which the Senate confirmed a United States Attorney. Ken Starr was appointed under option 2). Congress presumably understood what it was setting up (even if subsequent events indicated that maybe they didn’t).

   Jack Smith was appointed with no authority under either option. United States Attorney General Merrick Garland gave him essentially unlimited nationwide authority to pursue anything he wanted, and presumably to ruin any citizen’s life.

   The “process” of requiring Senate confirmation or a specific law for an individual to have power to criminally charge a person with a violation of federal law protects American citizens from random and arbitrary legal harassment by a federal official. So I suppose it could be called a “process” issue, but it’s not an insignificant process issue.

   This is a good elaboration. Yes, the word “Process” is a bit loaded. Though I’d differentiate the word “process” form “technicality”. Process has a big picture, technicalities are details.

   Certain processes are critically important, which is why those processes were instituted in the first place. Like the formation of a Special Prosecutor. Technicalities rather than being big picture issues hinge on some specific detail that may or maybe not be important or ultimately have an effect.