Special counsel Jack Smith has charged former President Donald Trump in a superseding indictment in his federal election interference case. "Today, a federal grand jury in the District of Columbia returned a superseding indictment, ECF No. 226, charging the defendant with the same criminal offenses that were charged in the original indictment," a Justice Department spokesperson said Tuesday. "The superseding indictment, which was presented to a new grand jury that had not previously heard evidence in this case, reflects the Government's efforts to respect and implement the Supreme Court's holdings and remand instructions," the spokesperson said.
REDIAL @ #46
They're basing the unconstitutional question on the fact that the Independent Counsel Act expired (sunset) in 1999.
Here is what I found:
www.ecfr.gov ~ CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS 600.1 Grounds for appointing a Special Counsel.
Excerpt:
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.
600.2 Alternatives available to the Attorney General.
When matters are brought to the attention of the Attorney General that might warrant consideration of appointment of a Special Counsel, the Attorney General may:
(a) Appoint a Special Counsel;
(b) Direct that an initial investigation, consisting of such factual inquiry or legal research as the Attorney General deems appropriate, be conducted in order to better inform the decision; or
(c) Conclude that under the circumstances of the matter, the public interest would not be served by removing the investigation from the normal processes of the Department, and that the appropriate component of the Department should handle the matter. If the Attorney General reaches this conclusion, he or she may direct that appropriate steps be taken to mitigate any conflicts of interest, such as recusal of particular officials.
If this matter is a big question, I'm no seeing it.
Drudge Retort Headlines
This Is Post-Roe America (173 comments)
Central Park 5 Sue Trump for Defamation (72 comments)
U.S. Infant Deaths Rose After Fall of Roe v. Wade (59 comments)
Harris Leads Trump 2-1 Among the Earliest Voters (36 comments)
Trump Talking About Arnold Palmer's Private Parts is Just Weird (36 comments)
Guardrails Will Avert Manipulation of Election Outcome (30 comments)
McDonald's Donald Trump Worked at Failed Last Health Inspection (29 comments)
Trump Calls Judge 'evil' for Releasing Files Before Election (24 comments)