How to drive an irrational leftist insane

[BackAgain]

That would be a contradiction in itself

No. It wouldn’t.

 

[bripat9643]

Yes, Bragg is biased.
Attorney generals are usually biased against criminals.
Otherwise they wouldn't be attorney generals.

Democrat attorney generals are biased in in favor of Dim criminals.

Who are you trying to kid?

 

[bripat9643]

How to drive an irrational leftist insane​

Okay, - so there are rational lefty&libs as well?

No.

 

[Kruska]

No. It wouldn’t.

Off course it is: if a person aka a lefty&Lib would be rational - he would be a "normal" person - taking ideas, observation and wisdom from Left and Right.

 

[BackAgain]

Off course it is: if a person aka a lefty&Lib would be rational - he would be a "normal" person - taking ideas, observation and wisdom from Left and Right.

What I’m saying: a few do.

 

[Kruska]

What I’m saying: a few do.

Then those few would be "normal" people and not Lefty&Libs. Ergo there is no such thing as a rational Lefty&Lib. Just as there is no rational MAGA person.

 

[The Duke]

They can receive classified briefings only IF the current president let's them. Biden said "no" to Trump, for example.

Aren't you so proud that Democrats cheated in a pedo potato?

 

[themirrorthief]

DNyuz - Latest Breaking U.S. News

Latest Breaking News, U.S. and World Politics, Crime, Business, Science, Technology, Autos, Entertainment, Culture, Movie, Music, Sports.

dnyuz.com

The left will now cry and weep and moan and groan that this judge shouldn’t be permitted to keep the case.



Oh no. A judge who might just take the job of reviewing a motion to dismiss an indictment on various legal grounds … seriously. How unfair.

dude, the left is already insane....even that great queer beer cant calm them down

 

[CowboyTed]

She was?

Listen, it’s clear that your brain functions exactly like Sen. Festerlurch’s does.

So, with all due respect (ie, none whatsoever) just stfu. You’re an idiot.

Well Done...

You know you are on a looser and all you got is to be a grammar police....

You seem to use gaslighting, is this because you are frustrated with the weakness of your argument...

The judge in question is poorly qualified for a case of this size and Jack Smith has a strong case to have her removed if he chooses too...

"Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned."
In reality this rule that Judges are meant to follow...

Smith just has to show that the Judge impartiality might reasonably be questioned...

 

[Smokin' OP]

Democrat attorney generals are biased in in favor of Dim criminals.

Sure .......Q-NUT.

Who are you trying to kid?

Trump already has that market cornered on his cult.

 

[j-mac]

I am saying she is a bad Judge to being over ruled so convincingly... She got severely embarrassed by the 11th district...

That I know... A good biased Judge would have found better reasons...

She will not be given this much patience in the trail... She makes a stupid ruling, Smith will appeal, it will be overruled and she would be taken off the case. The 11th Circuit doesn't want this shame..

You seem to be arguing that this case should be rubber stamped by the judge, and that the only proper outcome is Trump’s conviction…While that may be your dream, that’s not how it works.

 

[berg80]

The left will now cry and weep and moan and groan that this judge shouldn’t be permitted to keep the case.

That's because the judge shouldn't be permitted to keep the case. Not just because she's a Trump appointee, which creates the appearance of a conflict of interest. Because she has already made a ruling in the case that's so egregiously outside the law it can only be explained by bias or incompetence. Either one being disqualifying.

“For our part, we cannot discern why [Trump] would have an individual interest in or need for any of the one-hundred documents with classification markings,” the court wrote, noting that the stay it issued is temporary and should not be considered a final decision on the merits of the case.

The lower court “abused its discretion in exercising jurisdiction ... as it concerns the classified documents,” the panel wrote in a 29-page opinion. Two judges on the panel were appointed by Trump; the third was appointed by President Barack Obama.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2022/09/21/mar-a-lago-appeal-court-ruling/

 

[themirrorthief]

Yep, we spiked the ball when NY indicted Trump.
We spiked the ball when Florida indicted Trump.
We will spike the ball again when Georgia indicts Trump.

So are teabaggers.
So much that they sent death threats and are calling for civil war because Trump got indicted.
So...........what are they assuming?

why is it JOey can get away with hiding coke in the white house but trump gets indicted for farting

 

[Smokin' OP]

why is it JOey can get away with hiding coke in the white house

Well. indict him for it.

but trump gets indicted for farting

Let the other 18 defendants explain that to the judge.
I'm sure they will let him go.

 

[Skylar]

That's because the judge shouldn't be permitted to keep the case. Not just because she's a Trump appointee, which creates the appearance of a conflict of interest. Because she has already made a ruling in the case that's so egregiously outside the law it can only be explained by bias or incompetence. Either one being disqualifying.

“For our part, we cannot discern why [Trump] would have an individual interest in or need for any of the one-hundred documents with classification markings,” the court wrote, noting that the stay it issued is temporary and should not be considered a final decision on the merits of the case.

The lower court “abused its discretion in exercising jurisdiction ... as it concerns the classified documents,” the panel wrote in a 29-page opinion. Two judges on the panel were appointed by Trump; the third was appointed by President Barack Obama.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2022/09/21/mar-a-lago-appeal-court-ruling/

I suspect Cannon is going to overplay her hand. Her demand for an explanation about the grand juries, within hours after Trump's attorney complaining on Fox about the issue is not a great sign.

It demonstrates that she hasn't learned her lesson that as a judge, she plays no role in the prosecution or investigation of the case. She was brutally slapped down by the appellant court for trying to violate the separation of powers and attempting to re-write the law on exactly this topic.

And here she is, once again demanding answers for the grand jury process which she is no part of. That's strictly a matter for the prosecutors. This wasn't an issue brought up by ANYONE in court. But on TV.

If she approves Trump's request to gain access to the classified docs again in the very place authorities seized them from.......she's probably getting thrown off the case.