Who shall investigate the investigators (a J6 committee update)!

[Marener]

So, your understanding of the Costitutional speech and debate clause protections is essentially the same as complete immunity from investigation and prosecution even if the member has committed criminal acts in that capacity?

I doubt your view carries much weight.

SCOTUS gave that to the president, so what’s in the constitution doesn’t really seem to make any difference anyway.

 

[konradv]

Neither does the Jan 6th committee when it comes to defying Congressional subpeonas.

I’m sure Joe accounted for that. He’s not as dumb as he looks and SCOTUS said POTUS can do anything. Pound sand, MAGA!

 

[konradv]

Wrong again, konnie.

You out don’t understand what preemptive even means.

It means Joe was a step ahead.

 

[struth]

You lied about why he dropped the case.

No I didn’t. You keep lying to yourself, you claimed a president is immune from crimes they committed while out of office.

 

[Marener]

No I didn’t.

Yep.

Jack dismissed his case cause he was illegally appointed

That’s not why he dismissed it.

 

[struth]

Yep.

That’s not why he dismissed it.

Yes it was. The law of the case was he was illegally appointed. That’s the ruling and it won’t be overturned

 

[Marener]

Yes it was. The law of the case was he was illegally appointed. That’s the ruling and it won’t be overturned

Where did Judge Chutkan rule that he was illegally appointed?

 

[struth]

Where did Judge Chutkan rule that he was illegally appointed?

Didn’t say she did. The court in his Florida case did. When was that overturned?

Oh it wasn’t

 

[Marener]

Didn’t say she did. The court in his Florida case did. When was that overturned?

It was on appeal. What did the appeals court rule?

Did you know there were two cases? It appears you didn’t know that.

 

[BackAgain]

It means Joe was a step ahead.

Nope.

Keep flailing and failing.

 

[struth]

It was on appeal. What did the appeals court rule?

Did you know there were two cases? It appears you didn’t know that.

They didn’t, the lower court ruling still stands.

Yes I knew he was engaged in both jurisdictions, did you know he was illegally appointed?

 

[Marener]

They didn’t, the lower court ruling still stands.

Why was the appeal dropped?

He wasn’t illegally appointed in the DC case. Did you know that?

 

[struth]

Why was the appeal dropped?

He wasn’t illegally appointed in the DC case. Did you know that?

Because Jack had no case

Yes he was. His appointment was illegal that ruling stands.

Jack smith is fleeing to Europe again

 

[Marener]

Because Jack had no case

Did Jack Smith say that or is they just your uninformed opinion?

Yes he was. His appointment was illegal that ruling stands.

That ruling has no effect in DC. Cannon isn’t the Supreme Court.

Jack smith is fleeing to Europe again

People fleeing fascist regimes is nothing new.

 

[struth]

Did Jack Smith say that or is they just your uninformed opinion?

That ruling has no effect in DC. Cannon isn’t the Supreme Court.

People fleeing fascist regimes is nothing new.

1) the results say it, he couldn’t even get to trial
2) of course court rulings have effects on other courts.
3) people fleeing prosecution is nothing new. Many national socialist in fact did that after the war.

 

[Marener]

1) the results say it, he couldn’t even get to trial

What’s the reason he could get to trial?

2) of course court rulings have effects on other courts

Oh god. You don’t understand how courts work. Higher courts affect lower courts. Cannon is not above Chutkan. Her ruling has absolutely no effect anywhere outside her jurisdiction, which is a little corner of Florida.

3) people fleeing prosecution is nothing new. Many national socialist in fact did that after the war.

He’s not being prosecuted. That would be very fascist of you.

 

[struth]

What’s the reason he could get to trial?

Oh god. You don’t understand how courts work. Higher courts affect lower courts. Cannon is not above Chutkan. Her ruling has absolutely no effect anywhere outside her jurisdiction, which is a little corner of Florida.

He’s not being prosecuted. That would be very fascist of you.

1) he could get to trial if he had a case
2) of course I do, case law and be binding or persuasive…but it has an effect.
3) well not at the moment

 

[Marener]

1) he could get to trial if he had a case
2) of course I do, case law and be binding or persuasive…but it has an effect.
3) well not at the moment

1. How can he get to trial if he’s not allowed to prosecute the president?
2. Case law is not binding. Precedent is binding. Cannon’s ruling has ZERO effect in DC.
3. Are you guys figuring out how fascist you want to be? So far pretty fascist.

 

[struth]

1. How can he get to trial if he’s not allowed to prosecute the president?
2. Case law is not binding. Precedent is binding. Cannon’s ruling has ZERO effect in DC.
3. Are you guys figuring out how fascist you want to be? So far pretty fascist.

1) he wasn’t president when the indictments were brought and wasn’t for a while…
2) case law can be, case law from the Supreme Court is, for example. cannons ruling is highly persuasive case law, and certainly had an impact
3) what guys? What are you talking about? You think Jack is sad he didn’t get a blanket pardon like xiden’s other brownshirts?

 

[Marener]

1) he wasn’t president when the indictments were brought and wasn’t for a while…
2) case law can be, case law from the Supreme Court is, for example. cannons ruling is highly persuasive case law, and certainly had an impact
3) what guys? What are you talking about? You think Jack is sad he didn’t get a blanket pardon like xiden’s other brownshirts?

1. You didn’t answer the question. How can he get to trial if he’s not allowed to prosecute the president?
2. It has zero impact. Case law does not work that way.
3. The hacks that Trump installs in the DoJ.