Can Trump fire Jack Smith?

[Hermitian]

I wasn’t sure if this should be in Factual Questions or in here.

It is all over the news that Trump says he would fire Jack Smith immediately if elected. Would he have the power to do that?

[DavidNRockies]

Is it kosher to point to another post, from another forum, in an effort to answer a question in FQ?

DOJ/Jack Smith Investigation into Trump and Election Interference, January 6th Insurrection (Re-Indicted August 27, 2024)

Okay. Further investigation. The current regulations covering the Special Counsel are under 28 CFR Part 600. 600.7(d) reads: The Special Counsel may be disciplined or removed from office only by the personal action of the Attorney General. The Attorney General may remove a Special Counsel for misconduct, dereliction of duty, incapacity, conflict of interest, or for other good cause, including violation of Departmental policies. The Attorney General shall inform the Special Counsel in writin…

[Hermitian]

Thanks. So it sounds like all Trump has to do is tell the AG to fire Jack Smith and then the AG undoubtedly will (with cooked up reasons).

[Ynnad]

Does anybody remember the Saturday Night Massacre:

Saturday Night Massacre

[DavidNRockies]

Sure.

But that kind of principled civil servant will have no place in a second Trump administration.

[Horatius]

@DavidNRockies

But that kind of principled civil servant will have no place in a second Trump administration.

And demanding they fire Smith would be a good way to sus out who they are.

[Dandan]

Haven’t figured it out yet, have we?

Dan

[Horatius]

Figured what out?

Trump is going to get rid of everyone who he thinks opposes him. How he determines who those people are is the only real question. Some will be obvious, but Trump’s paranoia will lead him to greater and greater loyalty tests to find all those hidden Never Trumpers he knows are lurking about.

“Are you now or have you ever been…?” is going to be the call-back of the day.

[Dandan]

@Horatius

Figured what out?

Thanks for clarifying.

Dan

[DesertDog]

To carry over from the DOJ/Jack smith Investigation thread,

@Atamasama

She’d be breaking the law on his behalf.

“She” being AG Cannon.

And then Smith or the Democrats will appeal, and it will wind up before SCOTUS who will then extend their President can do no wrong edict insofar as Dear Leader is concerned. If a Democrat should ever again get elected (ha!) it will, of course turn on a fucking dime and had the ultimate power back to the legislative body.

[DeadTreasSecretaries]

I’m still not sure what crime a Trump AG would be committing by firing Smith. The law cited says Trump wouldn’t be allowed to fire Smith himself, but his AG could if they found cause based on the law The coutts might have to decide if the hiven reason is good enough but honestly SCOTUS seems like it would lean into the unitary executive philosophy that would tend toward expansive powers for the AG regardless of which party was in charge, or at least punting and letting a firing stand by default

[Atamasama]

@DeadTreasSecretaries

The law cited says Trump wouldn’t be allowed to fire Smith himself, but his AG could if they found cause based on the law The coutts might have to decide if the hiven reason is good enough but honestly SCOTUS seems like it would lean into the unitary executive philosophy that would tend toward expansive powers for the AG regardless of which party was in charge, or at least punting and letting a firing stand by default

Firing Smith without cause to stop an investigation (without sufficient cause) might be a violation of Title VI of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978, but I’m not a lawyer. It’s absolutely violating the spirit of the law; the law exists to fight against corruption in the federal government, and if the subject of the investigation can just make it go away at will (when it is supposed to be independently run), then the law is meaningless.

But yeah, with this SCOTUS, they might just shrug and say “whatever”, and invalidate the whole law in doing so. They’ve shown a willingness to completely gut the rule of law in the recent past at the expense of the country. I mean, there are members of SCOTUS that are clearly corrupt and very unwilling to entertain any restrictions on themselves, so this would be consistent with that.

[griffin1977]

Yup, that’s the main reason Trump wants to be president. That should really be a bigger deal, but you know, that’s the dystopia we find ourselves in.

He will replace him with, I dunno, Eric Trump
* on day one. He will also pardon himself and whichever fauning sycophant replaces him will say “the accused has been pardoned and the state has dropped all charges”. AFAIk (and IANAL) there is not even anyone who could appeal that?

• J/king :Trump would never trust Eric Trump with anything so important

[Whack-a-Mole]

Smith is not fired (yet) but it may be moot:

Judge in Trump 2020 election case agrees to cancel court deadlines after his...

The federal district judge overseeing the case against President-elect Donald Trump related to the 2020 election agreed to forego current deadlines to allow special counsel Jack Smith and his team more time to assess the “unprecedented circumstance” arising out of his election Tuesday to serve a second term in the White House.

Smith asked U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan in a one-paragraph filing for additional time to “determine the appropriate course going forward consistent with Department of Justice policy.” He said prosecutors will provide more information to the court by Dec. 2. Chutkan quickly granted Smith’s request and tossed out the remaining deadlines she had set. She ordered the government to submit to her a report “indicating its proposed course for this case going forward” by Smith’s proposed early-December deadline.