Judge Cannon has blown it.

[rampart]

I think, historically speaking, civilian courts have a much better record of exacting fairness in justice than the military tribunal.

If you ever were in the military, and were about to be tried on some charge, if they ever give you the option for a civilian court, take it.

Now, that opinion is subjective, but I was in the military, long ago, and one particular JAG told me this. So, I dunno. You're mileage may vary.

to be fair, i'm more concerned with the preservation of security and secrets than i am with "fairness" to a guy wo really has no concept of "justice" that does not exploit those less well positioned.

 

[jc456]

to be fair, i'm more concerned with the preservation of security and secrets than i am with "fairness" to a guy wo really has no concept of "justice" that does not exploit those less well positioned.

then you should learn how it all works. You'd be surprised how stupid and ignorant you really are.

 

[Rumpole]

Wrong.
A prosecutor is subordinate to the judge, and Jack Smith has no authority to try impose a "writ of mandamus".

Are you really that clueless?
A prosecutor petitions a writ of mandamus to the 11th circuit for a ruling.

That can only be issued by a superior judicial body.
There is no "chess game".
Clearly Jack Smith has no real legal authority.
He represents no one, and is clearly a partisan hack in total violation of the law, attempting to subvert the most basic institution of any democratic republic.

Are you really that dumb?

 

[rampart]

then you should learn how it all works. You'd be surprised how stupid and ignorant you really are.

i worked in a military comm center. if i am stupid or ignorant i have also been well drilled on national security.

enough to know that if every move trump made in this episode was totally legal, he still can never be trusted

 

[jc456]

i worked in a military comm center. if i am stupid or ignorant i have also been well drilled on national security.

enough to know that if every move trump made in this episode was totally legal, he still can never be trusted

So they told you the president was commander in chief right? Did you look up what that meant?

 

[rampart]

So they told you the president was commander in chief right? Did you look up what that meant?

it meant that he is a responsible person who could be trusted with secrets. until 2017 .

i don't buy you description of our secrets as "arbitrary. " that is why there are procedures that must be followed.

is "commander in chief" a relevant consideration in civilian courts? perhaps if trump were not so overtly anti american we might never know.

 

[Rumpole]

So they told you the president was commander in chief right? Did you look up what that meant?

You do realize that 'commander-in-chief' is a civilian post, right?

 

[jc456]

it meant that he is a responsible person who could be trusted with secrets. until 2017 .

Who has authority to determine responsibility?

i don't buy you description of our secrets as "arbitrary. " that is why there are procedures that must be followed.

Except there aren’t any. Period, been explained in this thread.

is "commander in chief" a relevant consideration in civilian courts? perhaps if trump were not so overtly anti american we might never know.

Because making America great is anti American huh? How did you get there?

 

[j-mac]

Not a hypocrite. Your whataboutism point was stupid and irrelevant.

Is that why you’re u won’t answer it either? Uh huh, yeah thought so…

 

[boevans]

to be fair, i'm more concerned with the preservation of security and secrets than i am with "fairness" to a guy wo really has no concept of "justice" that does not exploit those less well positioned.

Normally, take the court-martial.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

is it over?

Why didn’t he avoid trial altogether by proving they were declassified when asked to return them?

He couldn’t prove it. Not then and certainly not now.

 

[jc456]

Why didn’t he avoid trial altogether by proving they were declassified when asked to return them?

He couldn’t prove it. Not then and certainly not now.

No one has authority for him to respond to

 

[jc456]

again, there is no law to violate.

Hutch Starskey post the law then

 

[Hutch Starskey]

No one has authority for him to respond to

Nonsense. Use your noggin.
Obviously they do as a subpoena was issued, his properties searched to retrieve the docs and he was indicted for non compliance and obstruction.
That doesn’t happen frivolously.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Hutch Starskey post the law then

Read the indictment, fool.

 

[dudmuck]

Wrong.
A prosecutor is subordinate to the judge, and Jack Smith has no authority to try impose a "writ of mandamus".
That can only be issued by a superior judicial body.
There is no "chess game".
Clearly Jack Smith has no real legal authority.
He represents no one, and is clearly a partisan hack in total violation of the law, attempting to subvert the most basic institution of any democratic republic.

It doesn't get more pathetic than blaming the prosecution for not knowing how to do your job.

(see here)

 

[kyzr]

It doesn't get more pathetic than blaming the prosecution for not knowing how to do your job.

1. The judge is right until reversed by a higher court,
2. see #1
3. That decision is right until reversed by a higher court,
4. see #3
5. That decision is right until reversed by a higher court,
6. see #5

 

[Hutch Starskey]

1. The judge is right until reversed by a higher court,
2. see #1
3. That decision is right until reversed by a higher court,
4. see #3
5. That decision is right until reversed by a higher court,
6. see #5

The decision stands until reversed. That in no way makes it right.

 

[boevans]

Rumpole said:
I think, historically speaking, civilian courts have a much better record of exacting fairness in justice than the military tribunal.

If you ever were in the military, and were about to be tried on some charge, if they ever give you the option for a civilian court, take it.

Now, that opinion is subjective, but I was in the military, long ago, and one particular JAG told me this. So, I dunno. You're mileage may vary.

John Edgar Slow Horses:
Today maybe so. When was in the service, if the charges were anything but "against the good order and discipline of the service", such as stealing from a fellow solder, take the court-martial. I saw a guy convicted of doing his daughter and her friend get only seven years and a dishonerable discharge.

 

[kyzr]

The decision stands until reversed. That in no way makes it right.

Until it is reversed it is right. You may not like it, but its there.