Judge Aileen Cannon

[Rawley]

150 years of Special Counsels. No problem.

Look at Trump for crimes SPECIAL COUNSELS are UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!!

WW


View attachment 967310

United States Department of Justice Office of Special Counsel - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

You seem butthurt

 

[WorldWatcher]

Yeah for the purpose of that order, and she highlights that was contested when she wrote that order

She has since ruled on the issue and ruled he was in fact a principal officer

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.648653/gov.uscourts.flsd.648653.673.0.pdf

And the notice of appeal has already been filed letting her know that the country will see what the 11th Circuit has to say on the matter. The 11th Circuit of course already having overturned her on rulings in the case - twice.

Will this be the third?

Will three strikes means she's off the case?

WW

 

[struth]

150 years of Special Counsels. No problem.

Look at Trump for crimes SPECIAL COUNSELS are UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!!

WW


View attachment 967310

United States Department of Justice Office of Special Counsel - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Maybe they all weren’t illegally appointed like Jack

 

[struth]

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.648653/gov.uscourts.flsd.648653.673.0.pdf

And the notice of appeal has already been filed letting her know that the country will see what the 11th Circuit has to say on the matter. The 11th Circuit of course already having overturned her on rulings in the case - twice.

Will this be the third?

Will three strikes means she's off the case?

WW

I don’t know, and I am sure if it is the scotus will have a say. The 11th has a reversal rate of 66.7 since 2007.

 

[lantern2814]

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.648653/gov.uscourts.flsd.648653.673.0.pdf

And the notice of appeal has already been filed letting her know that the country will see what the 11th Circuit has to say on the matter. The 11th Circuit of course already having overturned her on rulings in the case - twice.

Will this be the third?

Will three strikes means she's off the case?

WW

Won't be overturned. No matter how much you hold about it. Smith is fired. His case is done after ADMITTING the FBI staged the photos anyway. Cry harder.

 

[Faun]

Yeah for the purpose of that order, and she highlights that was contested when she wrote that order

She has since ruled on the issue and ruled he was in fact a principal officer

Quote her ruling stating he was a principal officer...

 

[struth]

Quote her ruling stating he was a principal officer...

That’s what she said in the dismissal order you idiot, when she said he had to be confirmed like every other US Attorney

 

[Faun]

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.648653/gov.uscourts.flsd.648653.673.0.pdf

And the notice of appeal has already been filed letting her know that the country will see what the 11th Circuit has to say on the matter. The 11th Circuit of course already having overturned her on rulings in the case - twice.

Will this be the third?

Will three strikes means she's off the case?

WW

She did it to stall for time. She doesn't care if she gets reversed. She stalled as long as she could. Now she throws this out there knowing even if it gets reversed, it stalls the trial until after the election.

 

[Faun]

That’s what she said in the dismissal order you idiot, when she said he had to be confirmed like every other US Attorney

LOLOL

Thanks for admitting you can't actually quote her saying what you claim she said.

I already knew that. What she actually said was...

"the Court turns to the question whether Special Counsel Smith is a principal officer requiring Presidential nomination and Senatorial consent. On that issue, although there are compelling arguments in favor of a principal-officer designation given the regulatory framework under which he operates, the Court rejects the position based on the available Supreme Court guidance."​

 

[struth]

LOLOL

Thanks for admitting you can't actually quote her saying what you claim she said.

I already knew that. What she actually said was...

"the Court turns to the question whether Special Counsel Smith is a principal officer requiring Presidential nomination and Senatorial consent. On that issue, although there are compelling arguments in favor of a principal-officer designation given the regulatory framework under which he operates, the Court rejects the position based on the available Supreme Court guidance."​

Was that the dismissal order? Link please

 

[Faun]

Was that the dismissal order? Link please

Yes, it's in her ruling.

 

[struth]

Yes, it's in her ruling.

Link please

 

[Faun]

Link please

Don't be such a lazy fuck.

 

[struth]

Don't be such a lazy fuck.

I didn’t think you would actually link to the dismissal order that found Jack Smith was illegally appointed because he wasn’t confirmed by the senate like a US attorney and any other principal officer

 

[Faun]

I didn’t think you would actually link to the dismissal order that found Jack Smith was illegally appointed because he wasn’t confirmed by the senate like a US attorney and any other principal officer

LOLOL

When I challenged you to produce a quote from her ruling, you said it was in it that she ruled Smith was a principal officer.

Now you admit you haven't actually seen her ruling.

You just made that up out of whole cloth.

 

[struth]

LOLOL

When I challenged you to produce a quote from her ruling, you said it was in it that she ruled Smith was a principal officer.

Now you admit you haven't actually seen her ruling.

You just made that up out of whole cloth.

I have seen it, I just told you what it said

 

[Faun]

I have seen it, I just told you what it said

LOL

If you saw it, why on Earth did you need me to link it for you?

You lied. As evidenced by you asking for a link AND for it saying the opposite of what you claimed it says AND by you failing to produce a quote from it supporting your bullshit claim.

 

[struth]

LOL

If you saw it, why on Earth did you need me to link it for you?

You lied. As evidenced by you asking for a link AND for it saying the opposite of what you claimed it says AND by you failing to produce a quote from it supporting your bullshit claim.

I didn’t. Hence why I told you what it said

 

[Faun]

I didn’t. Hence why I told you what it said

I said quote it stating what you claim it said. You couldn't because you lied.

 

[struth]

I said quote it stating what you claim it said. You couldn't because you lied.

Nope she really dismissed it because she said he was illegally appointed because they didn’t get him confirmed

The case is really dismissed