The appendix was released in four portions. The first portion was 723 pages and was almost entirely redacted, with the exception of a few House Committee interviews from its investigations into efforts to overturn the election results. Unredacted information from the other portions included excerpts from Vice President Mike Pence’s autobiography, a transcript of a Trump White House news briefing after the election in November 2020 and a transcript of a 2023 CNN town hall interview with the former president.
I didn’t think that was possible. I remember when Ken Starr was investigating the Clintons, he wasn’t done until he said he was done, no matter how long it took, and there was nothing anyone could do about it. Have the rules changed?
The law doesn’t support the kind of arbitrary removal that we can be sure Trump’s talking about. It has to be done by the AG, personally, and for good cause. There’s also a right of judicial review (in DC District Court) for the Special Counsel and an obligation that the AG report the details directly to ‘the division of the court’ and to Congress.
So AG Laura Loomer just has to pick from the grab bag of grievances to fire him and then if it gets challenged in the courts, SCOTUS likely sidesteps or upholds the firing.
Well, Cannon would only be AG until there’s a SCOTUS opening. Then Loomer can step in. Wait… does Loomer have a law license? Does the AG have to be an attorney? If not, hell, make room for Rudy!
Yes, the rules have formally changed. Ken Starr was very independent. The rules that allowed that independence were scrapped a few decades back.
The current rules allow quasi-independence. For simplicity, Jack works for the AG. He has more autonomy than a normal prosecutor, but less than Ken Starr did.
It’s easy to imagine that Trump can get Jack removed. It’ll just require some paperwork and ginning up some plausible reasons that the AG can use to do it.
On Glenn Kirschner’s youtube channel (can’t access YT at work for a link), he is saying that this AG list being reported by the media is enough to finally have her removed from the case. If the case does in fact get re-instated by the 11th Circuit.
I seem to recall that in the Pentagon Papers case, the presiding judge (Matthew Byrne) was offered the Attorney General post while the trial was underway. Raised a substantial stink; but that was 1973, and this is now.
(Judge Byrne dismissed the charges after some evidence that the government said it couldn’t provide turned up in John Ehrlichman’s safe.)
As far as I can tell, there are very few restrictions on any cabinet members, including the AG. The POTUS nominates them, and they have to be approved by a simple majority of the Senate. There was a law passed in 1967 also called the “Federal Anti-Nepotism statute” which would prevent the POTUS from appointing members of their immediate family to any cabinet post (which is probably the only reason why none of Trump’s kids were cabinet members) but I don’t see any other restrictions. Presumably the Senate would reject anyone nominated for the role who lacks legal expertise, but who knows anymore.
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 writing of the specific reason for his or her removal.
I’m calling this one … same horse, different jockey.
The above sets forth the applicable law that Trump would need to break in order to have Smith removed.
Second source:
Aside from review of particular actions, the regulations also grant the Attorney General authority to discipline or remove the special counsel. This authority may be exercised “only by the personal action of the Attorney General.” In other words, to comply with the regulations, the Attorney General himself must remove the special counsel, not the President or a surrogate (unless, as noted previously in this report, the Attorney General has recused himself in the matter under investigation). A decision to remove the special counsel must be made with “good cause,” such as misconduct, a dereliction of duty, incapacity, the existence of conflicts of interest, or violation of departmental policies. The Attorney General must report his decision to remove the special counsel, with an explanation of that decision, to both the Chairman and Ranking Members of the Judiciary Committees of Congress.
