And... BTW... I think they gave Old Joe COVID so as he might die.. not trace if he actually dies.
So the classified documents case against Trump has been tossed on the
grounds
that prosecutor Smith was unlawfully appointed.
What a silly reason to attempt to toss a case out. Justice in the USA is filled with special counsels.
This decision cannot be appealed.
Of course it can, and it is being appealed.
Judge Cannon will be overturned and removed from the case.
At this point judge Cannon has done what she wanted to do.
She must have been paid well.
The legal system working just fine? It's an emabarassment.
Note the double '>>' above. That isn't my quote.
Sounds like you think it is ok for the prosecution to break the law as long >> > as they get the outcome you think is right.
You just made that up, out of nothing.
No, I did not.
Above, you just said that "this kind of argument" -- the
prosecution did something illegal so the case should be tossed -- is
"always a bad argument."
So if the prosecution breaks the law, what should the proper argument
against their actions be?
What happens when the prosecution breaks the law in Canada?
This is not about the prosecution, it is about the appointment of a special >> prosecutor. These appointments happen all the time.
Who appoints the special prosecutor? The defense? No. The general population? No. The side prosecuting the case, i.e. "the prosecution," appoints the special prosecutor.
What does a special prosecutor do? They are part of the prosecution. When those appointments are not legal, they should be questioned.
In any case it is an embarrassment that a federal judge in the USA would pull >> such a stunt.
Toss a case because the special council was not properly appointed?
That is not a stunt. If a higher court decides she was wrong, it will come back. Otherwise, they will have to appoint someone else and try again.
The DOJ is prosecuting the case.
In this case, he was prosecuting the case.
You can play silly semantics games all you want, as you usually do, to try
to make it sound like you are right and know what you are talking about. I am waiting for the trademark "I never said that!" when the direct quote, from you, was included in the message.
IB Joe wrote to Dr. What <=-
Every day that passes more and more evidence surfaces showing the incompetence of the Secret service.
And... BTW... I think they gave Old Joe COVID so as he might die.. not trace if he actually dies.
No higher court is needed. Trump needs to be put on trial and a jury can decide his guilt or innocence.
Trump has no plan to put up a defence, mostly because he has none.
I also heard that Joe is planning to pass the mic to Kamala, the border-czar.
Would that "legislating from the bench" was cause enough to impeach and remove judges.
That is a an interesting possibility.
I don't believe that the lethal strains are currently in circulation. Instead, I believe that they're being kept on standby. This could be an exception where they've decided to take a dose out of the lab to use it for strategic, one-time use.
I also heard that Joe is planning to pass the mic to Kamala, the border-czar.
Would that "legislating from the bench" was cause enough to impeach and remove judges.
He got "COVID" in order to get him out of the spotlight while they
figure out what to do. The more he talks, the more voters go to Trump.
In any case it is an embarrassment that a federal judge in the USA would pull >> such a stunt.
Toss a case because the special council was not properly appointed?
That is not what happened.
Republicans united and the Democrats are fractured.
But don't make the mistake in believing that they cannot unite behind whoever is nominated, no matter how awful the choice. People should
have been able to figure out that Joe was going senile in 2020 but that didn't stop Democrats from supporting him.
No higher court is needed. Trump needs to be put on trial and a jury can
decide his guilt or innocence.
Trump has immunity for all official acts. The USSC told him so.
Trump has no plan to put up a defence, mostly because he has none.
He doesn't need any. He has his fascist USSC. He can assassinate
you as one of those official acts ...
In any case it is an embarrassment that a federal judge in the USA would >> pull >> such a stunt.
Toss a case because the special council was not properly appointed?
That is not what happened.
Federal judge dismisses Trump classified documents case over concerns with prosecutor's appointment
SOURCE: The Associated Press https://apnews.com/article/trump-classified-docu
ents-smith-c66d5ffb7ba86c1b991f95e89bdeba0c
I also heard that Joe is planning to pass the mic to Kamala, the border-czar.
Wishing Joe Biden dead is truly sick and disgusting.
IB Joe, Pronouns (FJB/LGB)
In any case it is an embarrassment that a federal judge in the USA wo >> pull >> such a stunt.
Toss a case because the special council was not properly appointed?
That is not what happened.
Federal judge dismisses Trump classified documents case over concerns wi prosecutor's appointment
SOURCE: The Associated Press https://apnews.com/article/trump-classified
ents-smith-c66d5ffb7ba86c1b991f95e89bdeba0c
[...]
That is not what happened.
The Superseding Indictment is *DISMISSED* because Special Counsel Smith's appointment violates the Appointments Clause of the Untied States Constitution. U.S. Const., Art. II, [Sec.] 2, cl. 2. Special Counsel
Smith's use of a permanent indefinite appropriation also violates the Appropriations Clause, U.S. Const., Art. I, [Sec.] 9, cl. 7, but the Court need not address the proper remedy for that funding violation given the dismissal on Appointments Clause grounds.
I haven't made any mistake. It doesn't matter who they pick they are for the same policies.
The Republicans under Trump has become the party for the working class whereas
the Democrats are for the donors.
Looks like the Democrats are heading for an open convention and if 1968 is anything like what 2024 is going to be I cannot wait.
In any case it is an embarrassment that a federal judge in the USA would >> pull >> such a stunt.
Toss a case because the special council was not properly appointed?
That is not what happened.
Federal judge dismisses Trump classified documents case over concerns with prosecutor's appointment
SOURCE: The Associated Press https://apnews.com/article/trump-classified-doc
ents-smith-c66d5ffb7ba86c1b991f95e89bdeba0c
[...]
That is not what happened.
IB Joe, Pronouns (FJB/LGB)
Phrases aren't pronouns. You need to take remedial English.
-╟╢âlian
That is not what happened.
Pull your head out of the sand and read the order. On the very first page, it reads in part:
The Superseding Indictment is *DISMISSED* because Special Counsel Smith's
appointment violates the Appointments Clause of the Untied States
Constitution. U.S. Const., Art. II, [Sec.] 2, cl. 2. Special Counsel
Smith's use of a permanent indefinite appropriation also violates the
Appropriations Clause, U.S. Const., Art. I, [Sec.] 9, cl. 7, but the Court >> need not address the proper remedy for that funding violation given the
dismissal on Appointments Clause grounds.
(source: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/24807236-trump-classified-doc
ments-cas
e-dismissed, linked to in above-mentioned AP article; can't type the section symbol)
[...]
That is not what happened.
Sorry, several reputable news sources say that *is* what happened. You don't seem to have a (non-op-ed) source that says otherwise. I don't take your word for anything without verifying it, and all reputable sources say you
are incorrect.
Republicans, MAGAs, and conservatives are not the only ones who won't
accept reality when it doesn't suit them. Neither do you.
So now you are the pronoun Queen!!!
Reality is there was/is nothing wrong with Jack Smith's appointment as special prosecutor.
Aileen acted on bad advice given to her by Clarence.
Reality is there was/is nothing wrong with Jack Smith's appointment asIs that what she said? What was the advice? What did Clarence say to her exactly?
special prosecutor.
Aileen acted on bad advice given to her by Clarence.
Reality is there was/is nothing wrong with Jack Smith's appointment as >> special prosecutor.Is that what she said? What was the advice? What did Clarence say to her exactly?
Aileen acted on bad advice given to her by Clarence.
I hope you are kidding me.
Try this.
https://tinyurl.com/45sfcvcr
This Newsweek article says that Cannon is the one who made the decision, and
that Thomas "agrees" with Cannon's decision. But Judge Cannon is a US District
Judge and Clarence Thomas is a US Supreme Court Justice. Newsweek can quote
Justice Clarence Thomas all they want, but understand that Clarence Thomas has
no say in the matter at this time, because so far the case is not being escalated to the US Supreme Court.
And even if the case did end up there, this black guy that you're oppressing is only 1 vote out of 9.
That is not what happened.
Pull your head out of the sand and read the order. On the very first page, it reads in part:
The Superseding Indictment is *DISMISSED* because Special Counsel Smith's
appointment violates the Appointments Clause of the Untied States
Constitution. U.S. Const., Art. II, [Sec.] 2, cl. 2. Special Counsel
Smith's use of a permanent indefinite appropriation also violates the
Appropriations Clause, U.S. Const., Art. I, [Sec.] 9, cl. 7, but the Court
need not address the proper remedy for that funding violation given the
dismissal on Appointments Clause grounds.
Hello Halian,
[..]
That is not what happened.
Pull your head out of the sand and read the order. On the very first p it reads in part:
[snip]
On Wednesday, Special Counsel Jack Smith filed an appeal to the
11th Court of Appeals based in Atlanta. The three-judge panel will
review the case and matters will be taken from there.
That is not what happened.
Sorry, several reputable news sources say that *is* what happened. You don'
seem to have a (non-op-ed) source that says otherwise. I don't take your word for anything without verifying it, and all reputable sources say you are incorrect.
Republicans, MAGAs, and conservatives are not the only ones who won't accept reality when it doesn't suit them. Neither do you.
Reality is there was/is nothing wrong with Jack Smith's appointment as special
prosecutor.
Aileen acted on bad advice given to her by Clarence.
That is not what happened.
Pull your head out of the sand and read the order. On the very first page, i
reads in part:
Pull your head out of the sand and read what I said.
I said this is not about the prosecution. This is about the appointment of the
special prosecutor.
Reality is there was/is nothing wrong with Jack Smith's appointment as
special prosecutor.
That is an opinion,
and it is one that higher courts could agree with. But
that doesn't mean that what happened *didn't happen*.
Aileen acted on bad advice given to her by Clarence.
That is hearsay.
The special prosecutor (noun) = the prosecution (also a noun).
Basically you don't like what happened, which caused you to have an
emotional reaction and claim that something didn't happen.
Then, when you got called out on it,
Aileen copy/pasted Clarence's instruction into here dismissal.
Aileen acted on bad advice given to her by Clarence.
That is hearsay.
Not at all. Compare Clarence's writings with Aileen's writings.
The special prosecutor (noun) = the prosecution (also a noun).
Wrong. A prosecution and a special prosecutor are in fact two different things
So you believe the special prosecutor is not a member of the prosecution?
There is your problem right there.
Wrong. A prosecution and a special prosecutor are in fact two differentthings
So you believe the special prosecutor is not a member of the prosecution?
There is your problem right there.
So you believe the special prosecutor is not a member of the prosecution?
I never said that, you did.
There is your problem right there.
This is my last attempt..
The issue is not about any prosecution or who the prosecutor is.
The issue (for Aileen) is that a special prosecution is unconstitutional and that Jack Smith was wrongly appointed.
I never said that, you did.
No, you did.
The issue (for Aileen) is that a special prosecution is unconstitutional and >> that Jack Smith was wrongly appointed.
NO, it isn't. The issue, per the ruling, is that the special prosecution
was improperly appointed and said appointment is therefore unconsitutional.
The issue (for Aileen) is that a special prosecution is unconstitutional an
that Jack Smith was wrongly appointed.
NO, it isn't. The issue, per the ruling, is that the special prosecution was improperly appointed and said appointment is therefore unconsitutional.
That's what I said.
Not at all. Compare Clarence's writings with Aileen's writings.
But neither Aileen Cannon nor Clarence Thomas are writers..
Don't be silly.
Check Mike's writings and mine. Me and him are writers.
Don't be silly.
Aileen acted on bad advice given to her by Clarence.
That is hearsay.
Not at all. Compare Clarence's writings with Aileen's writings.
But neither Aileen Cannon nor Clarence Thomas are writers..
Check Mike's writings and mine. Me and him are writers.
The issue is not about any prosecution or who the prosecutor is.
The issue (for Aileen) is that a special prosecution is unconstitutional and
that Jack Smith was wrongly appointed.
It's a silly argument to make.
| Sysop: | deepend |
|---|---|
| Location: | Calgary, Alberta |
| Users: | 311 |
| Nodes: | 10 (0 / 10) |
| Uptime: | 110:28:03 |
| Calls: | 2,555 |
| Files: | 5,980 |
| D/L today: |
190 files (59,269K bytes) |
| Messages: | 473,335 |