Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

Showing Original Post only (View all)


(87,374 posts)
Mon Jun 24, 2024, 03:59 PM Jun 24

Cannon questions Special Counsel funding, independence. Gets schooled. [View all]

Katie Phang @KatiePhang 2h
Next up was James Pearce, on behalf of the Special Counsel's Office.

Pearce: Special Counsel is independent counsel that can access Congressionally-enacted permanent, indefinite funding.

Cannon: So it's limitless appropriations?

Pearce: Yes, consistent with the idea of

Cannon: Can you provide some examples of limitless appropriations?

Pearce: Yes, I can think of two. And it means that they are not limited by time or by amount.

Cannon then started to ask Pearce about the Special Counsel's website that showed the latest expenditure report. She even drilled down on specific line items, including the total amount of expenditures for November

Cannon: Is it $5.4 million or really $9 million?

Pearce: I'm not sure, but we can supplement w/the Court.

Cannon: That would be helpful because these are public documents.

Pearce: I understand, but your Honor, there is no case where any court has suggested that the total amount of expenditures is relevant.

Cannon: But when it's limitless, there is a separation of powers concern...

Pearce: In fact the caselaw says only to focus on the source [of funding] and the purpose [of the funding].

Cannon: Don't interrupt me.

Cannon: What about other funding sources? What is your substantiation for your argument that there is alternate funding available to the SCO?

Pearce: I can represent that there is the full commitment of the DOJ to fund the Special Counsel in this prosecution.

Pearce: The DOJ has over a billion dollars that can be used as appropriations to fund the Special Counsel's Office.

Pearce: There is “sufficient independence” and the special counsel “strikes that balance of independence and accountability.”

Pearce furthers that the special counsel can and should be able to operate outside of the DOJ.

Cannon: Are there any examples that you can think of when an Attorney General rescinds or modifies order of appointment of SC?

Pearce: I can't think of any examples where regulations were rescinded midstream, other than perhaps the Saturday Night Massacre.

Cannon: So this idea of

Pearce: So it's not really a question of whether the rescission happened or not, it's how is the power structured.

Cannon: Janet Reno said it's too much political pressure to yank a special prosecutor.

Pearce: There is a presumption of regularity. As far as our SC are concerned, SC have complied with specific framework, complying with DOJ policies, etc.

Pearce: The test of what makes someone a "principal officer" is not whether they are President-nominated and Senate-confirmed.

"Don't interrupt me!"
28 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Her lack of legal knowledge edhopper Jun 24 #1
She may not have much history but she is very well coached. erronis Jun 24 #25
She is DETERMINED to make Jack Smith the defendant rather than bluestarone Jun 24 #2
What is wrong with her is that she serves neither the law nor the public. Mister Ed Jun 24 #3
☝️☝️ crickets Jun 24 #4
That would also apply to the majority of SCOTUS even though japple Jun 24 #15
"WTF is wrong with this STUPID judge?"... I think (with no proof) she is being coached on what to say and do.nt mitch96 Jun 24 #13
Could be multiple things johnnyfins Jun 24 #19
well hell. onethatcares Jun 24 #5
I swear (I have been thinking this for ages now with Trump and his lawyers).I think they are so uneducated chowder66 Jun 24 #6
She has clearly taken a deep dive down the Q-conspiracy rabbit hole. A total lunatic. Pepsidog Jun 24 #7
She is a traitor. triron Jun 24 #8
I have no respect for Cannon, but respect for the role of judges means she is right. She should not be interrupted. . nt Bernardo de La Paz Jun 24 #9
given her egregious behavior, my response to that is BS NoRethugFriends Jun 24 #26
Any judge who purposely delays justice needs Emile Jun 24 #10
She will soon partner with Alina Habbadabbado Aviation Pro Jun 24 #11
Can Nothing Be Done About Her? WiVoter Jun 24 #12
She's fishing for a way to throw out the case Diraven Jun 24 #14
Or to handicap the case by removing key counsel. live love laugh Jun 25 #28
Bullshitters gotta sling bullshit cuz they aren't very smart. NoMoreRepugs Jun 24 #16
How is that within her scope to consider? LiberalFighter Jun 24 #18
Good Gawd! GiqueCee Jun 24 #20
She's sticking her nose where it doesn't belong. Katcat Jun 24 #21
Focusing on irrelevant minutiae Retrograde Jun 24 #22
This is closest to what I think is happening. She's way out of her league ms liberty Jun 24 #27
Cannon Unqualified Blue Idaho Jun 24 #23
It's like she has an earpiece and someone is feeding her the questions Raven123 Jun 24 #24
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Cannon questions Special ...