Letitia James receives SUBPOENA from the DOJ for violating President Trumps' civil rights.

You go ahead and do just that while you excuse the lies and crimes of your buddies.
I didnt do that. That's the strawman you invented to justify your own poor behavior and to change the subject away from Dear Rapist.

And to desperately maintain all false equivalence at all times, as is your way.

These behaviors do give insight into you, but not the type you are thinking.
 
I didnt do that. That's the strawman you invented to justify your own poor behavior and to change the subject away from Dear Rapist.

And to desperately maintain all false equivalence at all times, as is your way.

These behaviors do give insight into you, but not the type you are thinking.
I didn’t vote or support Trump, and I didn’t vote for Harris, they both have lied out their asses to try to win, you are an idiot that voted for a woman that supported suppression of free speech.
 
You are pretty much fucked in the head so I don't really care what you think about it. When you say he is a rapist and he is not that pretty much destroys your credibility.
They seem to have stopped thinking altogether and just chirp "RAPIST! RACIST! CONVICTED FELON!! BWWWWAAAAWK!!!
 
Aileen Cannon didn’t. That’s how she justified dismissing the case against Trump in Florida.
Inferior officers....vs superior officers..
 
Inferior officers....vs superior officers..
Aileen Cannon found no legal basis for the AG appointing an inferior officer to special attorney.

She never determined if Smith was an inferior officer vs superior officer and it had no bearing on the outcome of the case.
 
Aileen Cannon found no legal basis for the AG appointing an inferior officer to special attorney.

She never determined if Smith was an inferior officer vs superior officer and it had no bearing on the outcome of the case.
Smith was considered a superior officer because of the broad powers he had, and that he wasnt being directly supervised by anyone.
 
Smith was considered a superior officer because of the broad powers he had, and that he wasnt being directly supervised by anyone.
Considered by who? Not Aileen Cannon.
 
Considered by who? Not Aileen Cannon.
That was the precise reason cannon ruled as she did.

Jack Smith claimed to be an “Inferior Officer” appointed under law by Attorney General Garland, who is an Officer appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. Judge Cannon held that the legislation cited for Smith’s appointment does not apply, and suggests that the broad unsupervised powers given to the Special Counsel might make him a “Superior Officer”

 
That was the precise reason cannon ruled as she did.



.
Read the quote again.

suggests that the broad unsupervised powers given to the Special Counsel might make him a “Superior Officer”

Clearly you're incorrect because the basis of her ruling cannot be found on something that is SUGGESTED MIGHT be the case.

No, the basis of the case is that even if he was an inferior officer, there is no legal authority to appoint such an inferior officer.
 
Aileen Cannon found no legal basis for the AG appointing an inferior officer to special attorney.

She never determined if Smith was an inferior officer vs superior officer and it had no bearing on the outcome of the case.
Her opinion is she believed he acted as a primary but would let another court decide because she believed his appointment was unconstitutional even as an inferior and whether he was primary or inferior, had no bearing on her decision. I pretty much disagree with her but .Congress needs to clarify the law or the potential for all special prosecutors cases could be thrown out. I do think the Senate would confirm a special prosecutor for this case.
 
Smith was considered a superior officer because of the broad powers he had, and that he wasnt being directly supervised by anyone.
If you read her ruling it was based on most all of the past special prosecutors exceeded the autho and all but one special prosecutor did not have the authority because they did not have Senate approval.

In her decision, she believed that Smith operated as a primary officer however she declined to include it in her decision and left it to a higher court to decide.

I’m really not liking her decision because I think the laws are fairly laid out for an AG to appoint special counsel.
 
Her opinion is she believed he acted as a primary but would let another court decide because she believed his appointment was unconstitutional even as an inferior and whether he was primary or inferior, had no bearing on her decision. I pretty much disagree with her but .Congress needs to clarify the law or the potential for all special prosecutors cases could be thrown out. I do think the Senate would confirm a special prosecutor for this case.
The purpose of a special prosecutor is to remove cases from politics.

The only solution now is to just prosecute political cases out of main justice with political appointees.

Congress won’t fix it. They don’t fix anything anymore.
 
The purpose of a special prosecutor is to remove cases from politics.

The only solution now is to just prosecute political cases out of main justice with political appointees.

Congress won’t fix it. They don’t fix anything anymore.
The main justice system is political, look at Trump and Hunter Biden prosecutions, both were politically motivated and the judges went along with them. I am not sure what the answer is, the far left and right are running the political parties and that is obvious, it is so polarized anymore that lines are blurred. Even sound decisions are being criticized by either the far left or far right.
 
15th post
The purpose of a special prosecutor is to remove cases from politics.

The only solution now is to just prosecute political cases out of main justice with political appointees.

Congress won’t fix it. They don’t fix anything anymore.

What a happy thread. 😃
 
Back
Top Bottom