against Donald Trump’:
https://www.cnn.com/2024/07/15/poli...case-trump-dismissed-aileen-cannon/index.html
https://www.cnn.com/2024/07/15/poli...case-trump-dismissed-aileen-cannon/index.html
“Elections matter”??…..what do you mean, expand.Elections Matter
My guess is that she will be first in line for a Supreme Court spot if Trump wins
Actually, this may be a win for Biden and the dems. As of today, it appears the Dems will be losing the exec branch and limiting the ability to open politically motivated investigation will be good for them and quite frankly the country.Elections Matter
My guess is that she will be first in line for a Supreme Court spot if Trump wins
Maybe…..but if all of this has been contrived like some believe, don’t won’t anyone to “turn the other cheek”.Actually, this may be a win for Biden and the dems. As of today, it appears the Dems will be losing the exec branch and limiting the ability to open politically motivated investigation will be good for them and quite frankly the country.
I agree that if there is strong evidence of crimes committed, investigations are warranted. Otoh, we shouldnt be using special prosecutors to go on fishing expeditions.Maybe…..but if all of this has been contrived like some believe, don’t won’t anyone to “turn the other cheek”.
Go after their azzes……there should be a price to pay.
Trump won the Presidency and appointed this women.“Elections matter”??…..what do you mean, expand.
OR…..it could be that the prosecutor for the case “violated the appointments clause of the U.S. Constitution??”Trump won the Presidency and appointed this women.
Trump is favored to win in November, and Cannon knows there are many opportunities for appointment that would be much more compelling than a federal judge in south Florida. Appeals court, maybe even the big prize if one of the Supremes passes away.
She is setting herself up for advancement.
Speculating or regurgitating what they heard from the loser TV media at CNN/MSNBC?OR…..it could be that the prosecutor for the case “violated the appointments clause of the U.S. Constitution??”
Boy, some of y’all are just some “speculating” mofo’s aren’t you, always drama……..”whatever it takes”, hey?
Clearly, some can’t think & process independently or they think you can’t…..either way is bad.Speculating or regurgitating what they heard from the loser TV media at CNN/MSNBC?
What do you mean. This decision just laid a few speed bumps in Smith's path at worst. He now has to win on appeal and then still has Cannon as the judge.She might as well have recused.
I'm curious here, what is the difference in the appointment of Mr. Smith from all the other special counsels that have been appointed over the years?OR…..it could be that the prosecutor for the case “violated the appointments clause of the U.S. Constitution??”
Boy, some of y’all are just some “speculating” mofo’s aren’t you, always drama……..”whatever it takes”, hey?
He was a private citizen. From Andrew McCarthyI'm curious here, what is the difference in the appointment of Mr. Smith from all the other special counsels that have been appointed over the years?
Have they all been illegal as well, and now some brilliant jurist has figured it out?
He reasoned:In the coming weeks, there is a very real possibility that the federal district court in Florida will rule that Attorney General Merrick Garland’s appointment of Jack Smith as a special counsel (SC) violated the Constitution’s appointments clause (Art. II, §2, cl.2).
For those looking for a deeper explanation of the reasoning that led to today’s ruling, I encourage you to read the whole thing, as well as a follow up piece with more historical context, going back to Watergate.Attorneys who authorize the investigation and prosecution of federal crimes must be officers of the United States because they wield significant government power. Under the clause, there are just two ways of qualifying as an officer of the United States: the appointee must either be (a) nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate, or (b) appointed to a position that “shall be established by law” — which is to say, by a congressional statute.
Smith, who has run the Trump investigations since his SC appointment by Garland on November 18, 2022, was not appointed under either of those procedures. To the contrary, he was purportedly appointed under the Justice Department’s SC regulations.
Why are you asking me, I didn’t make the ruling.I'm curious here, what is the difference in the appointment of Mr. Smith from all the other special counsels that have been appointed over the years?
Have they all been illegal as well, and now some brilliant jurist has figured it out?
In a word...maybe. I've linked an article by a writer that is no fan of Trump that explains it fairly well.I'm curious here, what is the difference in the appointment of Mr. Smith from all the other special counsels that have been appointed over the years?
Have they all been illegal as well, and now some brilliant jurist has figured it out?
So then you are okay with the rest of Trump's convictions and trials. Right?Why are you asking me, I didn’t make the ruling.
I certainly don’t know all of the details as some pretend to know. But I do believe in our court system, gotta go with it.
DOJ doesn't need spec prosecutors to investigate crimes and was free to conduct the Mueller and Smith investgations in house. The ONLY purpose of a spec prosecutor is to avoid claims of partisanship because the CIA, DOJ and FBI don't need spec prosecutors to effectively investigate. Bringing in a guy like Jack Smith or Andrew Weissman is actually the opposite of what the special prosecutor role is supposed to fill.OK, I read the article.
If a Special Prosecutor has to be confirmed by the Senate, won't the side in power try to block the appointment if the person being prosecuted is one of their own?
Thought politics was supposed to be kept out of prosecutions, guess not.
To answer your question, in short-yes.So then you are okay with the rest of Trump's convictions and trials. Right?
They don’t want the truth if it does not fit their narrative.He was a private citizen. From Andrew McCarthy
Last month, Andy wrote:
He reasoned:
For those looking for a deeper explanation of the reasoning that led to today’s ruling, I encourage you to read the whole thing, as well as a follow up piece with more historical context, going back to Watergate.
MERRICK GARLAND AGAIN…so butt hurt! Shi+s all over the laws he is supposed to be protectingHe was a private citizen. From Andrew McCarthy
Last month, Andy wrote:
He reasoned:
For those looking for a deeper explanation of the reasoning that led to today’s ruling, I encourage you to read the whole thing, as well as a follow up piece with more historical context, going back to Watergate.