Trump Classified Documents case dismissed
- Thread starter tlwwake
- Start date
ok progressive pukes, any thots?
all that is left is the sex scandal voter crapola case. can't convict and sentence him? just kill him. you scumbags should all rot in hell for eternity.
come to confiscate my guns, come heavy mofo, come heavy
all that is left is the sex scandal voter crapola case. can't convict and sentence him? just kill him. you scumbags should all rot in hell for eternity.
come to confiscate my guns, come heavy mofo, come heavy
Lib-yards going ballistic. MSNBC is in meltdown mode.
Leftist have a hard time facing reality.
Reeeeeeeeeeeee!!!!!!! Due process bad!!!!!!!!!
Cowboys 24/7 Politics!!! What a joy! I can't wait to read comments from the slow.
The regressives! 😂
The overall reason the case was dismissed was because Jack Smith's office was not constitutionaly appointed. He had no authority to bring the case. This brings up a problem for all the other cases Smith and Smith's office brought to court. Smith is dancing with disbarment at the very least.
Add in that Trump has not been sentenced, and there is a good chance he will never be, then he is not a convicted felon. Evey time someone calls him that is grounds for liable as there is harm that can be proven.
This has been a very bad day, week, month, year for Democrats. Pray for them as thier world starts to collapse it's not going to be easy for them. They will need God's love, even if they dont want it.
The Eleventh Circuit will reverse the judge once again on this, probably fairly quickly.
I believe it is also time for the Eleventh Circuit to consider whether Cannon should be removed from this case. I'm not sure if Special Counsel Jack Smith will ask them to consider this (he can and be should) but the Eleventh Circuit has the ability to remove her even without Smith asking.
I believe it is also time for the Eleventh Circuit to consider whether Cannon should be removed from this case. I'm not sure if Special Counsel Jack Smith will ask them to consider this (he can and be should) but the Eleventh Circuit has the ability to remove her even without Smith asking.
This ruling isn't the final word on the case, not even close. This is just a legal delay tactic that Cannon has apparently agreed to play along with.
This ruling will almost certainly be reversed by the 11th Circuit.
Never has the appointment of a Special Counsel been found to be Unconstitutional (despite the dozens and dozens of times it has been applied and prosecutions carried out under it.)
Never has the appointment of a Special Counsel been found to be Unconstitutional (despite the dozens and dozens of times it has been applied and prosecutions carried out under it.)
Cluster B traits - How many does your Libtard exhibit?
- Borderline Personality Disorder
- Narcissism
- Anti-Social Behavior
- Histrionics
- Borderline Personality Disorder
- Narcissism
- Anti-Social Behavior
- Histrionics
How many Special Counsel's have been appointed to investigate a President?
Did you have any thoughts on how/why the judge was able to claim the special counsel violated the appointment clause?
Yeah, this is a very bad legal ruling by Cannon and in my opinion, it seriously calls into question her ability to be a neutral party in this case.
She clearly took her marching orders from Clarence Thomas here, but it is important to note that only one other Supreme Court justice agrees to signed on to Thomas' concurrence. Not to mention that, of course, concurrences aren't legal precedents.
Another tactic Smith could take here is to just simply join another United States Attorney's Office and re-indict.
Which is what Garland should have done to begin with but he allowed politics to enter into it, proving Garland is not an AG, he's a politician.
Allow me to ask a question. Say the 11th Circuit Court does overturn the ruling can that ruling be appealed to the SCOTUS?
Last edited:
Every President since Nixon, with the exception of one (Obama), has had to deal with a special counsel. Before that I'd have to go back and look, but there have been special prosecutors appointed as far back as President Grant I believe.
Your second question has already been addressed above.
Definitely will be appealed. That was evident as soon as this news came out this morning. I could see it going all the way to the Supreme Court. Safe to say special counsels have really framed politics in America for the last 5 years… for better or worse (on both sides of the aisle too)
I disagree. AG Garland did nothing out of the ordinary, illegal, or unconstitutional here. As for allowing politics to enter into this, that is why AG Garland appointed a special counsel. That is why we have special counsels.
This is just a bad legal ruling and again, one that in my opinion, seriously calls into question Cannon's neutrality.
btw, Hunter Biden's attorneys sought to dismiss his case citing the same Appropriations Clause that is being cited here. The Judge in that case, correctly, fairly quickly rejected their legal argument.
Yes, but the Court would have to agree to hear it. And remember, most of the Supreme Court justices have already accepted that the appointment was valid in a previous case!
Justice Thomas gave Judge Cannon the cover to issue this ruling in his concurrence. However, as I noted, concurrences are not precedents, they are not binding. And only one other Supreme Court justice agree to sign on to Thomas' concurrence.
Last edited:
Beside now when was hunter president?
Maybe. I don't know if the Supreme Court would be willing or would want to take on this. Not to mention that most of the Supreme Court justices have already accepted that the appointment of Smith was valid in a previous case! And there was no rush by most of the justices to agree with Thomas' thoughts on this in his concurrence.
With that said, this Supreme Court is clearly very right-wing at the moment so I guess we can't put anything past them as it relates to Trump. But I don't know how they agree with Cannon given their recent actions.
Special counsels have framed politics in this country for longer than just the last five years. They have often framed political and legal action all the way back to Nixon. And even before that at certain points in our nation's history.
Last edited:
And if it is? Be overturned by SCOTUS.
I’m very aware we’ve had other special counsels in our history.
My point.. which I think is correct… is that special counsels have really defined the last few years more than most other short periods in our history. I’m not criticizing. It’s a fact of the matter.
But Weiss is a special counsel as well. Judge Cannon's ruling is related to the appointment of Smith as special counsel.
How?
The majority of SCOTUS have already accepted that the appointment of Smith was valid in a previous case! What are they going to do, completely legally undercut their immunity ruling they just issued?
I don't think the special counsel has been challenged until now. Add into that before the last 20 years there was only a couple, then all of sudden we have special counsels everywhere.
CT even challenged their constitutionality in one of his recent opinions. In fact, Cannon cited him in her conclusion. Guess who's in charge of the 11th circuit? If you guessed CT then you get a cookie. I would say this has a better chance of standing than getting overturned.
I understand. I just disagree with your claim limiting special counsel impact to the past few years.
A special counsel investigation help lead to a President resigning in 1974. Remember Iran/Contra? Clinton and Ken Starr? Just to name a few.
Special counsels have defined a lot of our political/legal history since the early 1970s.
You’re naming singular situations. We’ve had several different appointments in a very short amount of time.. with big consequences. That’s my argument. The ones you mentioned were massive for US history as well.
Thomas didn't not write about this in an opinion. He commented on it in his concurrence. A concurrence is not an opinion. It is not precedent. It is not binding. Only one other Supreme Court justice agreed to sign on to Thomas' concurrence.
On top of that, once again, in the case where Thomas wrote his concurrence, a majority of the Supreme Court accepted that the appointment of Smith was valid. In order for them to now agree with Cannon, they would have to legally undercut their immunity ruling.
Now, how do you think they are going to do that?
Yes, I'm claiming that special counsels have help to frame politics (and legal issues) in America since the early 1970s. I'm essentially agreeing with you, just saying that their impact has existed for longer than five years.
I’m doubting the SCOTUS ever took a case by an appointment of Smith. Details? It’ll go to the SCOTUS and that will be it. Game, set, match.
They just ruled on a case that Smith is involved in! The immunity case.
I mean, are you even paying attention?
How does SCOTUS do this without legally undercutting their immunity ruling?
As soon as Trump is elected, Jack Smith will be dismissed. Inevitable.
Which is just another reason among many why Trump must never be elected in November.
Appointing a private citizen and given them unlimited powers to prosecute a former President is legal in your opinion? Sorry but I don't think the AG has the authority to grant those powers to a private citizen that is not confirmed by the Senate. The President of the US doesn't have that authority, neither does someone working for him.
Funny how you didn't call into question or criticize the Judge in the case they managed to convict Trump but you do Cannon. That guy was a left wing judicial activist whose daughter was making/raising millions on the case and made several questionable rulings. The judge also allowed testimony that wasn't supposed to be allowed according to the recent immunity ruling.
David Weiss is an employee of the DOJ not a private citizen like Jack Smith. Tad but of difference.
As to the SCOTUS ruling it would be Constitutional I don't think the issue is fully resolved. Ed Meese is making a good case against it. I don't think the SCOTUS will have a choice but to hear it even though they do not want to get involved.
All in all I don't know how it will work out but isn't this exactly how the judicial process is designed to work? Oh and I thought you were not supposed to question Judges or the judicial system.
Similar threads
