Trump classified documents case dismissed. Jack Smith loses again.

[Nostra]

LOL

By his thinking I said Don Jr. could be appointed a Special Counsel?

Suck his dick harder, Dumbfuck. You're even dumber than he is.

At least you agree he's the world's shittiest lawyer.

You are still getting your ass kicked.

Cry more, loser.

 

[Faun]

I would explain it to you but deliberately rude people are not worth my time.

Stay ignorant then. No skin off my back.

 

[Faun]

You are still getting your ass kicked.

Cry more, loser.

 

[ozro]

Stay ignorant then. No skin off my back.

I'm laughing my ass off at the idea that an ignoramus such as you could inform anyone of anything. Go eat a .38 ralph.

 

[d0gbreath]

Biden's DNI did an assessment of the documents he had shortly after the raid. The results of the assessment has never been publicly disclosed - for a reason.

Probably because it would be embarrassing to say that there's really not much in them.

 

[Rawley]

Rawley, I found this link which explains the difference between US Attorneys who are appointed by Presidents with political leanings and considered principle officers vs. Assistant U.S.Attorneys which are civil servants and are ALSO CALLED Federal Prosecutors and are the inferior officers.

Appointed US Attorneys change with each president and are the Heads of Federal districts throughout the United States....like the Southern district of NY etc.... The Federal Prosecutors (or Assistant US Attorneys) work for the appointed US Attorney....who is the only appointed prosecutor in each one of these Federal judicial districts, all other prosecutors are career prosecutors, not appointed by each president....so not voted on in the Senate.

Assistant United States Attorney - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

An assistant United States attorney (AUSA) is an official career civil service position in the U.S. Department of Justice composed of lawyers working under the U.S. Attorney of each U.S. federal judicial district.[1] They represent the federal government of the United States in civil and appellate litigation and in federal criminal prosecutions. Assistant U.S. attorneys working in their office's criminal section are often called federal prosecutors.

You're actually making the case, the power given to Smith and other special prosecutors are the same (arguably more) than given to US Attorneys. THey get to decide which cases to bring, which to drop ... and only report to the AG. AUSAs are grunts a do what the US Attorney tells them to do.

 

[Rawley]

Probably because it would be embarrassing to say that there's really not much in them.

Yup

 

[Faun]

I'm laughing my ass off at the idea that an ignoramus such as you could inform anyone of anything. Go eat a .38 ralph.

Oh? You agree with para bellum's claim this statute has expired...?

28 CFR § 600.4 - Jurisdiction.

www.law.cornell.edu

 

[ozro]

Oh? You agree with para bellum's claim this statute has expired...?

28 CFR § 600.4 - Jurisdiction.

www.law.cornell.edu

What has that to do with the ussc decision
It doesn't apply herman

 

[Faun]

What has that to do with the ussc decision
It doesn't apply herman

LOL

Way to run away from the question.

That's part of the section Garland cited for appointing Smith. para bellum claims that law has expired. You jumped into this conversation and now you run from it.

*****.

 

[ozro]

LOL

Way to run away from the question.

That's part of the section Garland cited for appointing Smith. para bellum claims that law has expired. You jumped into this conversation and now you run from it.

*****.

You resorting to insults demonstrates you know you have lost homer

 

[Faun]

You resorting to insults demonstrates you know you have lost homer

LOLOL

That means you conceded on your first post to me here...

I'm laughing my ass off at the idea that an ignoramus such as you could inform anyone of anything. Go eat a .38 ralph.

...keep running, *****.

 

[Nostra]

Poor libturds. All there plans to keep Trump from being reelected are falling apart.

Failed court cases.
Failed assassination.
Failed attempts to claim the 2025 plan is his.

Whole lotta fail on the left these days.

 

[Rawley]

Oh? You agree with para bellum's claim this statute has expired...?

28 CFR § 600.4 - Jurisdiction.

www.law.cornell.edu

Still flaunting your ignorance. We love it. Keep it up

 

[Rawley]

Fa

You are still getting your ass kicked.

Cry more, loser.

Faun is not very bright. And parroting ignorant talking points from his masters doesn't help.

 

[struth]

LOL

Way to run away from the question.

That's part of the section Garland cited for appointing Smith. para bellum claims that law has expired. You jumped into this conversation and now you run from it.

*****.

how does it feel to be wrong all the time?

 

[Nostra]

Fa

Faun is not very bright. And parroting ignorant talking points from his masters doesn't help.

Add in the fact he is a habitual liar and you have a pretty sorry combination.

 

[Care4all]

You're actually making the case, the power given to Smith and other special prosecutors are the same (arguably more) than given to US Attorneys. THey get to decide which cases to bring, which to drop ... and only report to the AG. AUSAs are grunts a do what the US Attorney tells them to do.

Know, that I am not certain how it will turn out when it hits the Supreme court, I'm only arguing my and other Court's position on it the past few decades....with this court though, there only seems to be uncertainty, which for me, the instability of the Supreme Court has become frightening!

The Independent Counsel Prosecutors had that power, without need to report to the AG, but I believe that position of Independent prosecutor/counsel was let to expire in 1999....after that, it has been Special Counsels/prosecutors, which has less power than the Independent Counsel had....they do need to update the AG or the Asst or Deputy AG and FOLLOW the guidelines in their hire, and scope of investigating preauthorized. They can be fired by the AG, but not without cause or without a replacement...is my understanding...but not 100% certain.

The Senate can't confirm an executive branch position without a president nominating them....so what you are saying is basically, The President needs to pick the independent Special Counsel who is being hired to investigate the President's crimes or in this case, The president in power who is the opponent and enemy of the previous president, has to nominate the Special Counsel who will be investigating his past opponent and former president, and future opponent, in order for this position of Special Councel, needing Senate's approval....

That would be highly charged and unfair in the eyes of Americans in my opinion and that's why I do not support the stance that this position is one which can be granted only by a President nominating and the Senate to confirm...

 

[Rawley]

Know, that I am not certain how it will turn out when it hits the Supreme court, I'm only arguing my and other Court's position on it the past few decades....with this court though, there only seems to be uncertainty, which for me, the instability of the Supreme Court has become frightening!

There's no instability, other than liberals have dominated the court for 50 +years and now it tilts conservative. We've dealt with liberal opinions for that 50 years, it's time for you to put on your big girl panties and deal with opinion you might not like.

The Independent Counsel Prosecutors had that power, without need to report to the AG, but I believe that position of Independent prosecutor/counsel was let to expire in 1999....after that, it has been Special Counsels/prosecutors, which has less power than the Independent Counsel had....they do need to update the AG or the Asst or Deputy AG and FOLLOW the guidelines in their hire, and scope of investigating preauthorized. They can be fired by the AG, but not without cause or without a replacement...is my understanding...but not 100% certain.

The Senate can't confirm an executive branch position without a president nominating them....so what you are saying is basically, The President needs to pick the independent Special Counsel who is being hired to investigate the President's crimes or in this case, The president in power who is the opponent and enemy of the previous president, has to nominate the Special Counsel who will be investigating his past opponent and former president, and future opponent, in order for this position of Special Councel, needing Senate's approval....

That would be highly charged and unfair in the eyes of Americans in my opinion and that's why I do not support the stance that this position is one which can be granted only by a President nominating and the Senate to confirm...

I'm not seeing your confusion. The administration always picks special counsel. The only thing Cannon is saying is they have to be approved by the Senate - checks and balances, so you don't get hyperpartisan lunatics like Comrade Smith with unlimited investigative and prosecutorial powers.

 

[Care4all]

There's no instability, other than liberals have dominated the court for 50 +years and now it tilts conservative. We've dealt with liberal opinions for that 50 years, it's time for you to put on your big girl panties and deal with opinion you might not like.

I'm not seeing your confusion. The administration always picks special counsel. The only thing Cannon is saying is they have to be approved by the Senate - checks and balances, so you don't get hyperpartisan lunatics like Comrade Smith with unlimited investigative and prosecutorial powers.

Where in the world does she get that from? The Senate has no power to do that, at all! They can not advise and consent and approve the Special counsel position in the Executive Branch WITHOUT a Presidential nomination??

In the constitution, the Senate's power to give consent on the executive branch positions, comes only with principle officer nominations by the President. The the tens of thousands of other executive branch jobs and inferior officers are not given consent by the Senate, they do not have a say, they do not vote on them?

Unless I'm not understanding what Cannon is saying, it seems out of the norm whack O to me!

We haven't had a liberal court since it ended in 1959 I believe, the Warren Court....and Chief Justice Warren was appointed by a Republican, Dwight Eisenhower. We've had a Majority, Republican picked justices for over 60 years and a Republican supreme court Chief justice as well.

The things this extreme conservative court are doing and has done, has been reversing decisions by previous Supreme courts that were conservative republican justice majorities.