Publius
Well-known member
Jack Smith is not merely a legal thorn in Trump’s side -- he’s the ticking time bomb Trump can’t defuse. He holds the power to drag Trump kicking and screaming into courtrooms, where the usual deflections and grandstanding won’t save him. Yeah, I know, he'll be sworn in soon. Will Smith cave and dismiss the cases in grand 'let it go' fashion? I don't think so, though I could be wrong. Smith has asked the court to vacate the remaining deadlines in the pretrial schedule to allow for this assessment. The judge overseeing the case has granted this request, and a status report is expected by December 2, 2024
And no, Trump can't fire him (but, of course, his newly appointed AG, probably Aileen Cannon, could, but it's not that simple, more on it, below). Each charge, every mandate, every subpoena -- Smith is methodically chipping away at the armor Trump has used to shield himself from accountability for decades. As Trump grasps for the presidency like a lifeline, it’s Smith who may well shape his next moves, force his hand, and throw his entire campaign strategy into chaos. Forget the 2024 spin -- this is legal pressure in its purest, most relentless form, pushing Trump closer to a reckoning that no rally, tweet, or hollow bravado can prevent. This isn’t just a case; it’s a seismic threat to Trump’s image, candidacy, and, if justice serves, his future.
Trump thinks he can simply fire SC Jack Smith. It's not that black and white. For one thing, we have yet to receive the ruling of the 11th circuit, which is due, soon, and the three judges are likely to reverse Cannon's dismissal, which will reestablish the Docs case, to the annoyance of Trump, of course.
The firing of a Special Counsel isn’t some easy flick of a switch, no. It’s bound by what we call "just cause," a legal standard, set in stone by 28 CFR § 600.7(d), that says only the Attorney General -- or an acting AG -- can remove a Special Counsel, and only under serious circumstances: misconduct, dereliction of duty, incapacity, conflicts of interest, or other “good cause.”
And everyone remembers the Saturday Night Massacre during Watergate, don’t they (I do)? When Nixon’s desperation to shut down an investigation led him to fire the special prosecutor -- and in one night, he set off a constitutional crisis that nearly tore the presidency from its hinges. The “just cause” standard exists precisely to prevent any president from strong-arming an investigation into submission, from crumbling our institutions for personal convenience. It was put there for the likes of Mueller, for the likes of any Special Counsel facing down power with the truth on their side.
If Trump envisions installing a figure like Judge Cannon as Attorney General to execute his agenda, delivering no doubt corrupt pardons along the way, she would still find herself boxed in by the law. Any move to oust Special Counsel Jack Smith without solid, documented grounds would drag her into a swamp of legal battles that would make the Saturday Night Massacre look like an opening act. The law demands more than loyalty. It demands cause. (Thank providence for the rule of law, to the extreme frustration of Trump).
If she accepts his appointment, she is in for a legal rude awakening, and fame (that two sided sword) or infamy (the other side of the sword) depending on your point of view. Cannon will be teetering that fine line between upholding the rule of law and serving the personal interests of a former president (a corrupt former president, in my view) -- a precarious balance that, if mishandled, risks undermining the public’s faith in impartial justice and the Department of Justice itself (which, under Trump's former administration, suffers greatly as Biden did his best to restore it, though Garland has left Democrats with much to be desired). This includes any directives by Trump to order her to prosecute 'the enemy within' (whatever that means). One thing is certain, we are in for some interesting constitutional challenges, and no doubt, constitutional crises looming on the horizon with the rise of Trump.
And I won't even mention Project 2025 (about which Trump lied, extensively) and the 'deconstruction of the administrative state'.
Hellzapoppin, as it were. (You musical nerds will appreciate the reference
).
www.newsweek.com
And no, Trump can't fire him (but, of course, his newly appointed AG, probably Aileen Cannon, could, but it's not that simple, more on it, below). Each charge, every mandate, every subpoena -- Smith is methodically chipping away at the armor Trump has used to shield himself from accountability for decades. As Trump grasps for the presidency like a lifeline, it’s Smith who may well shape his next moves, force his hand, and throw his entire campaign strategy into chaos. Forget the 2024 spin -- this is legal pressure in its purest, most relentless form, pushing Trump closer to a reckoning that no rally, tweet, or hollow bravado can prevent. This isn’t just a case; it’s a seismic threat to Trump’s image, candidacy, and, if justice serves, his future.
Trump thinks he can simply fire SC Jack Smith. It's not that black and white. For one thing, we have yet to receive the ruling of the 11th circuit, which is due, soon, and the three judges are likely to reverse Cannon's dismissal, which will reestablish the Docs case, to the annoyance of Trump, of course.
The firing of a Special Counsel isn’t some easy flick of a switch, no. It’s bound by what we call "just cause," a legal standard, set in stone by 28 CFR § 600.7(d), that says only the Attorney General -- or an acting AG -- can remove a Special Counsel, and only under serious circumstances: misconduct, dereliction of duty, incapacity, conflicts of interest, or other “good cause.”
And everyone remembers the Saturday Night Massacre during Watergate, don’t they (I do)? When Nixon’s desperation to shut down an investigation led him to fire the special prosecutor -- and in one night, he set off a constitutional crisis that nearly tore the presidency from its hinges. The “just cause” standard exists precisely to prevent any president from strong-arming an investigation into submission, from crumbling our institutions for personal convenience. It was put there for the likes of Mueller, for the likes of any Special Counsel facing down power with the truth on their side.
If Trump envisions installing a figure like Judge Cannon as Attorney General to execute his agenda, delivering no doubt corrupt pardons along the way, she would still find herself boxed in by the law. Any move to oust Special Counsel Jack Smith without solid, documented grounds would drag her into a swamp of legal battles that would make the Saturday Night Massacre look like an opening act. The law demands more than loyalty. It demands cause. (Thank providence for the rule of law, to the extreme frustration of Trump).
If she accepts his appointment, she is in for a legal rude awakening, and fame (that two sided sword) or infamy (the other side of the sword) depending on your point of view. Cannon will be teetering that fine line between upholding the rule of law and serving the personal interests of a former president (a corrupt former president, in my view) -- a precarious balance that, if mishandled, risks undermining the public’s faith in impartial justice and the Department of Justice itself (which, under Trump's former administration, suffers greatly as Biden did his best to restore it, though Garland has left Democrats with much to be desired). This includes any directives by Trump to order her to prosecute 'the enemy within' (whatever that means). One thing is certain, we are in for some interesting constitutional challenges, and no doubt, constitutional crises looming on the horizon with the rise of Trump.
And I won't even mention Project 2025 (about which Trump lied, extensively) and the 'deconstruction of the administrative state'.
Hellzapoppin, as it were. (You musical nerds will appreciate the reference
).
Jack Smith can "force Donald Trump's hand"—Former prosecutor
Glenn Kirschner said that Smith "must indict" the six unnamed co-conspirators in Trump's Washington, D.C., indictment.
www.newsweek.com
Department of Justice (DOJ) special counsel Jack Smith can "force Donald Trump's hand" by indicting his co-conspirators in the federal election subversion case before the president-elect takes office, former prosecutor Glenn Kirschner said on Friday.
After Trump, the Republican nominee, won this year's presidential election against Vice President Kamala Harris, the Democratic nominee, it became all but certain that Smith's Washington, D.C., case against Trump would go away, at least for the time he's in office.
Smith is reportedly taking steps to wind down his two cases against Trump—the D.C. case and the classified documents case in Florida, which was dismissed by Judge Aileen Cannon, a Trump appointee, but that Smith appealed.
