Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
False. She didn’t “argue” her ruling. She made her ruling. And it absolutely did make sense. It found equitable jurisdiction based on the incredibly unique nature of a case involving the immediately prior President of the United States.
Yes, the appellate court shot that down. That doesn’t mean that their rational was necessarily correct. But because they are a higher court, their interpretation did necessarily prevail.
False dichotomy. She may even have been perfectly correct. That’s how case law gets made.
There is no doubt that you are a hack, however.
It found equitable jurisdiction based on the incredibly unique nature of a case involving the immediately prior President of the United States
There is no doubt that you are a hack, however.
False dichotomy. She may even have been perfectly correct.
It's the Walkback of Shame...Why did she need to be forced? A competent judge would have done their duty based on the law, not because they're afraid of disbarment or impeachment.
It is normal practice to credit your sources. Your source is the appellate court ruling."Incredibly unique"
"Immediately prior"
On the strength of the exceptions you listed above?
“The law is clear. We cannot write a rule that allows any subject of a search warrant to block government investigations after the execution of the warrant. Nor can we write a rule that allows only former presidents to do so.”
I doubt it.
That's obvious from looking at it.It is normal practice to credit your sources. Your source is the appellate court ruling.
We already established that they disagreed with the lower court. So your ignorant post adds exactly nothing to this conversation. Your posts rarely add anything of value.
So what?That's obvious from looking at it.
It wasn't just that they "disagreed", they rejected her improvisation unanimously and emphatically.
No. It’s not. And your effort to spin doesn’t work because you simply don’t know Wtf you’re bleating about.You can buff that turd all you want, but that's a spanking
The fuck I don't.So what?
No. It’s not. And your effort to spin doesn’t work because you simply don’t know Wtf you’re bleating about.
Not that there's a chance you'll answer..
Lol. This ^ coming from the pussy who can’t defend his own assertions and goes so far as to refuse to even try.Not that there's a chance you'll answer..
Where did you stand on the dismissal of Michael Flynn's case?
She is in the bag. Did her job, obstruct justice for as long as you can.
Judge Cannon Forced to Toss Trump’s Special Master Bid
Judge Aileen Cannon dismissed the case Monday morning.www.thedailybeast.com
But but but, I had been assured by our liberals that the judge was horrible and in the bag for Trump.
All that aside, Trump just can't catch a break with these knucklehead's. He'll have to leave it up to the house judiciary committee to get the investigation going against Hunter and the big guy, otherwise if there's any hope left in totally vindicating the himself. I hope the nation doesn't let Trump fall, because the choice of it being Biden and company over Trump is NOT a better alternative.Judge Cannon Forced to Toss Trump’s Special Master Bid
Judge Aileen Cannon dismissed the case Monday morning.www.thedailybeast.com
But but but, I had been assured by our liberals that the judge was horrible and in the bag for Trump.
Bluster on. I smell the fake.Lol. This ^ coming from the pussy who can’t defend his own assertions and goes so far as to refuse to even try.
Go start a thread instead of constantly going off topic. If your thread is of any interest, maybe I’ll step in.
Meanwhile, this thread is about how the judge allegedly in the tank for Trump adhered to the ruling calling for the case’s dismissal.
Big win when the SM was over, back to square one............DUHI'm coming in to this thread late, but in case no one told you, she was ORDERED TO drop the case by the Appeals court...12th curcuit, i believe?
He thinks right. After all the con artist poser's he's been fighting for the last 6+ years, he's got dam good experience with recognizing the crooks.Nope. I like the law. I also think most jurists work hard to follow the law. Trump's problem is that he doesn't believe in the law. He thinks everyone is a crook.
Then why so reluctant to speak out.....under oath?He thinks right. After all the con artist poser's he's been fighting for the last 6+ years, he's got dam good experience with recognizing the crooks.
He thinks right. After all the con artist poser's he's been fighting for the last 6+ years, he's got dam good experience with recognizing the crooks.
thehill.com
I don't know, why don't you ask any high profile citizen why they are reluctant to speak out in a kangaroo court ?? That's what representing lawyers that are paid huge big buck's are for. He's not hiding, he's just being a wise former President, and a wise CEO.Then why so reluctant to speak out.....under oath?
Everything they are attempting to do in order to stop Trump from running, just goes to show that they are terrified at being revealed in the ways that Elon Musk has been revealing them recently.Do you recognize the crooks?
House Democrats introduce legislation to bar Trump from office under 14th Amendment
A group of 40 House Democrats, led by Rep. David Cicilline (R.I.), introduced legislation on Thursday to bar former President Trump from holding future federal office under the 14th Amendment. Sect…
