The Politicization of the American Legal System | Mark Steyn

[Marener]

The accusations were from an illegally appointed lawyer.

None of which were found to be baseless. So you lied.

 

[Marener]

Mann sued NRO, Steyn and Simberg.
Mann won $2 in actual damages.
Now he has to pay $530K to NRO within 30 days.

What does that have to do with Steyn lying?

 

[struth]

None of which were found to be baseless. So you lied.

Huh? His appointment was baseless,

 

[gipper]

No. It’s not.

False.

The corruption of the legal system is undertaken deliberately by the DNC.

Lol. DumbAgain don’t be dumb. The uniparty rules and you ignorantly support it.

Ever read the Constitution? Rhetorical. It is the law of the land…well it’s supposed to be. Yet our government violates it every day all day. Hence by definition, our government is a criminal enterprise. Both sides of the uniparty are one, when it comes to violating the Constitution.

Think DumbAgain.

 

[Marener]

Huh? His appointment was baseless,

The accusations were not baseless, which is the topic.

 

[struth]

The accusations were not baseless, which is the topic.

Sure they were, they were from a illegally appointed lawyer from the get go

The entire thing was baseless

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

What does that have to do with Steyn lying?

I guess a $2 lie is worse than owing $530K in legal fees to one of the parties you sued.

Thanks for clearing that up.

 

[dudmuck]

She found he was baseless cause he was illegal

if youre referring to jack smith appointment.
He was appointed as an inferior officer by the attorney general.
Only officers that operate without oversight require senate confirmation.
but by contrast inferior officers need no such confirmation because they're always operating with oversight by the AG.

 

[BackAgain]

The uniparty rules

No. It doesn’t. Your say so is worthless.

and you ignorantly support it.

I support the U.S. Constitution. Beyond that, you’re just farting in your closet, gimp.

Ever read the Constitution?

yes. And unlike you, I understand it.

Rhetorical. It is the law of the land…well it’s supposed to be. Yet our government violates it every day all day.

Partially true. I would be pleased if we can somehow move back to compliance with the Constitution. You wouldn’t like that.

Hence by definition, our government is a criminal enterprise.

False. But, in many cases, our gbwrnmwnt may validly be said to be out of compliance with our national charter. That needs to be fixed.

Both sides of the uniparty are one, when it comes to violating the Constitution.

Ridiculously over-stated. As is your M.O.

Think

You really should give it a try someday.

 

[berg80]

like when he had to pay a climate scientist $1 million for defaming him?

Imagine my surprise. Another trumple "go to" hack who happens to be a climate change denier. Just like white supremacists it's amazing how many of these cretins have crawled out of the swamp since Dotard conned the rubes.

 

[struth]

if youre referring to jack smith appointment.
He was appointed as an inferior officer by the attorney general.
Only officers that operate without oversight require senate confirmation.
but by contrast inferior officers need no such confirmation because they're always operating with oversight by the AG.

No he wasn't. he was given the powers as a US Attorney and in fact acted as a US Attorney, hence why his role was illegal.

All US Attorneys are overseen by the AG, and the Deputy AG https://www.ojp.gov/sites/g/files/x...uides/financialguide06/part4/doj_orgchart.pdf

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Imagine my surprise. Another trumple "go to" hack who happens to be a climate change denier. Just like white supremacists it's amazing how many of these cretins have crawled out of the swamp since Dotard conned the rubes.

That was awful!
He was found to have damaged Mann's reputation.....by $1 worth.

 

[gipper]

No. It doesn’t. Your say so is worthless.

I support the U.S. Constitution. Beyond that, you’re just farting in your closet, gimp.

yes. And unlike you, I understand it.

Partially true. I would be pleased if we can somehow move back to compliance with the Constitution. You wouldn’t like that.


False. But, in many cases, our gbwrnmwnt may validly be said to be out of compliance with our national charter. That needs to be fixed.

Ridiculously over-stated. As is your M.O.


You really should give it a try someday.

Anyone who isn’t aware of the fact that both crime families are very much alike, is a dumb ****. I was there once, but overcame it. Maybe you can too, but I doubt it.

 

[BackAgain]

Anyone who isn’t aware of the fact that both crime families are very much alike, is a dumb ****.

Said the dumb **** ^ who refers to the main U.S. political Parties as “crime families.”

I was there once, but overcame it. Maybe you can too, but I doubt it.

No, gimp. You’re stuck on being a dumb ****.

 

[Marener]

Sure they were, they were from a illegally appointed lawyer from the get go

The entire thing was baseless

That does not make the allegations baseless. The allegations stand on their own with the factual findings and evidence gathered during the investigation.

The technicalities of smith’s appointment don’t change them.

 

[Marener]

I guess a $2 lie is worse than owing $530K in legal fees to one of the parties you sued.

Thanks for clearing that up.

I don’t really care what you’re guessing about.

I just want to know what it has to do with the fact that Steyn is a liar.

 

[struth]

That does not make the allegations baseless. The allegations stand on their own with the factual findings and evidence gathered during the investigation.

The technicalities of smith’s appointment don’t change them.

of course it does, the allegations were from an illegal lawyer. Totally corrupt

 

[Leo123]

Seems like trying to steal the presidential election should be illegal.

That’s all we are saying.

Biden should be in jail then.

 

[Marener]

of course it does, the allegations were from an illegal lawyer. Totally corrupt

How? All you’re doing is making an ad hominem attack.

Cannon said nothing about the factual basis of the allegations.

 

[struth]

How? All you’re doing is making an ad hominem attack.

Cannon said nothing about the factual basis of the allegations.

No I am not, I literally am simply repeating what happened in the case, the ruling of the court.