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

[struth]

1. He needed to complete a thorough investigation before filing charges. That's what a proper prosecutor does. Jack Smith wasn't even appointed until he announced he was running, so you're way off base.
2. She didn't make the ruling because Cannon's ruling had no effect. In fact, I believe DC Circuit precedent would prevent her from making a ruling. Unlike Cannon, precedent in the DC Circuit is binding.
3. The judge said his appointment wasn't only invalid, it was ILLEGAL.

He concluded, "Wolf was not lawfully serving as Acting Secretary of Homeland Security under the HSA [Homeland Security Act] when he issued the Wolf Memorandum" that suspended DACA.

He broke the law and should be in jail. Right?

1) yes Xiden had to wait til Trump announced he. Was running…
2) yes she could have ruled but didn’t, see number 1
3) invalid and illegal are two different things

 

[Marener]

1) yes Xiden had to wait til Trump announced he. Was running…
2) yes she could have ruled but didn’t, see number 1
3) invalid and illegal are two different things

1. Good, so we agree that you lied.
2. She didn't, which means Smith was properly appointed.
3. The ruling said unlawful. Not invalid. Unlawful means illegal

 

[struth]

1. Good, so we agree that you lied.
2. She didn't, which means Smith was properly appointed.
3. The ruling said unlawful. Not invalid. Unlawful means illegal

1) about what? I am glad we agree it was an illegal political prosecution
2) her lack of ruling doesn’t change the fact the other court did rule
3) The GAO said it was invalid, and and judge Xinus said likely unlawful, he was resubmitted, but resigned. With that said much of what he did as acting secretary was found to be invalid…like Jack smith illegally appointed, what he did was illegal, the unauthorized practice of law is a crime every state and dc

 

[Marener]

1) about what? I am glad we agree it was an illegal political prosecution
2) her lack of ruling doesn’t change the fact the other court did rule
3) The GAO said it was invalid, and and judge Xinus said likely unlawful, he was resubmitted, but resigned. With that said much of what he did as acting secretary was found to be invalid…like Jack smith illegally appointed, what he did was illegal, the unauthorized practice of law is a crime every state and dc

1. We didn’t agree it was an illegal prosecution. It was never decided that in DC. You lied about the reason that Smith dropped the case.
2. The fact that the other court did rule is meaningless to DC. If it were meaningful, the case in DC would have been dismissed.
3. He said it WAS unlawful which is why all of his actions were vacated. So you think that Jack Wolf should be prosecuted for illegally acting as DHS secretary?

 

[struth]

1. We didn’t agree it was an illegal prosecution. It was never decided that in DC. You lied about the reason that Smith dropped the case.
2. The fact that the other court did rule is meaningless to DC. If it were meaningful, the case in DC would have been dismissed.
3. He said it WAS unlawful which is why all of his actions were vacated. So you think that Jack Wolf should be prosecuted for illegally acting as DHS secretary?

1) no I didn’t.
2) as we discussed it’s not meaningless it’s caselaw
3) no, that’s not a crime. The unauthorized practice of law is.

 

[Marener]

1) no I didn’t.
2) as we discussed it’s not meaningless it’s caselaw
3) no, that’s not a crime. The unauthorized practice of law is.

1. Yep. You said repeatedly he dropped it because he had no case. That’s a lie.
2. Clearly it was meaningless or else Chutkan would have acted on it.
3. Unauthorized attempt to exercise government authority is just as illegal.

 

[struth]

1. Yep. You said repeatedly he dropped it because he had no case. That’s a lie.
2. Clearly it was meaningless or else Chutkan would have acted on it.
3. Unauthorized attempt to exercise government authority is just as illegal.

1) no it’s not, if he had a case it would of gone to trial and not dropped before hand
2) not when she wanted to try and impact the election in Nov
3) cite the code…

 

[Marener]

1) no it’s not, if he had a case it would of gone to trial and not dropped before hand
2) not when she wanted to try and impact the election in Nov
3) cite the code…

1. False. Totally illogical.
2. Make up whatever excuse you want, the fact remains it was irrelevant.
3. Same one you think Jack Smith broke.

 

[struth]

1. False. Totally illogical.
2. Make up whatever excuse you want, the fact remains it was irrelevant.
3. Same one you think Jack Smith broke.

1) how’s it illogical? If you have a case you go to trial or get a guilt plea
2) I’m not making any excuses, the cases were dismissed
3) the unauthorized practice of law? He wasn’t practicing law. He was appointed by the senate to be under sec, and took the acting role, but the succession plan was invalidly changed by his former boss, and Trump resubmitted him to the senate for confirmation. Jack and xiden didn’t do anything like that. Why didn’t xiden just appoint an actual legal US attorney to do it? I think the answer is pretty obvious

 

[Marener]

1) how’s it illogical? If you have a case you go to trial or get a guilt plea
2) I’m not making any excuses, the cases were dismissed
3) the unauthorized practice of law? He wasn’t practicing law. He was appointed by the senate to be under sec, and took the acting role, but the succession plan was invalidly changed by his former boss, and Trump resubmitted him to the senate for confirmation. Jack and xiden didn’t do anything like that. Why didn’t xiden just appoint an actual legal US attorney to do it? I think the answer is pretty obvious

1. Because you continually ignore that the case was interrupted midway through lengthy pretrial proceedings.
2. Yep. But it wasn’t dismissed because of Jack Smiths appointment.
3. Show the code. Your claim the succession was invalidly changed failed to convince the court so you’re wrong.

 

[struth]

1. Because you continually ignore that the case was interrupted midway through lengthy pretrial proceedings.
2. Yep. But it wasn’t dismissed because of Jack Smiths appointment.
3. Show the code. Your claim the succession was invalidly changed failed to convince the court so you’re wrong.

1).no I don’t. Xiden’s illegal political prosecution fell apart due to the law, that those proceeding exposed
2) sure it was in Florida. DC was dismissed before that could be litigated there, but a large part was dismissed already due immunity of a president acting within his duties that xiden tried to criminalize in his political protection
3) 28 USC 568 and 454…plus every state has a law against it. You can’t practice law simply because you want to

 

[Marener]

1).no I don’t. Xiden’s illegal political prosecution fell apart due to the law, that those proceeding exposed
2) sure it was in Florida. DC was dismissed before that could be litigated there, but a large part was dismissed already due immunity of a president acting within his duties that xiden tried to criminalize in his political protection
3) 28 USC 568 and 454…plus every state has a law against it. You can’t practice law simply because you want to

1. Nope. Both cases were still in process at the time of Trump's winning the election and the only reason they were halted was because of the election. It had nothing to do with the case falling apart due to the law.
2. Only a small part of the DC case was dismissed, the rest continued in litigation untouched. So we agree that Cannon's ruling had no effect in the DC case and was irrelevant.
3. 28 USC 568 say US marshals can't practice law. Do you think that Jack Smith is a US marshal? 454 says judges can't practice law. Do you think that Jack Smith is a judge? Two swings. Two misses. You really don't have a clue what you're talking about. It's embarrassing to watch.

 

[struth]

1. Nope. Both cases were still in process at the time of Trump's winning the election and the only reason they were halted was because of the election. It had nothing to do with the case falling apart due to the law.
2. Only a small part of the DC case was dismissed, the rest continued in litigation untouched. So we agree that Cannon's ruling had no effect in the DC case and was irrelevant.
3. 28 USC 568 say US marshals can't practice law. Do you think that Jack Smith is a US marshal? 454 says judges can't practice law. Do you think that Jack Smith is a judge? Two swings. Two misses. You really don't have a clue what you're talking about. It's embarrassing to watch.

1) well of course, the point was to try and impact the election. That’s what political b prosecutions are all about
2) no they were all touched by litigation
3) also Fl code 454.23…it’s s felony there

 

[Marener]

1) well of course, the point was to try and impact the election. That’s what political b prosecutions are all about
2) no they were all touched by litigation
3) also Fl code 454.23…it’s s felony there

1. Which means you’re wrong about they were dismissed.
2. Barely. Only small parts of the indictments needed to be excluded.
3. Doesn’t apply in federal court. States can’t regulate the federal government.

 

[struth]

1. Which means you’re wrong about they were dismissed.
2. Barely. Only small parts of the indictments needed to be excluded.
3. Doesn’t apply in federal court. States can’t regulate the federal government.

1) nope, nothings changed…he couldn’t prove his accusations
2) he literally had to redo most of them…
3) sorry yes practicing law in Florida applies in federal court in Florida too, check federal code of regulation 11.505

Smith also violated DOJ policies, see section 9 85.500 of the DoJ manual

Once again you just can’t keep up with reality

 

[Marener]

1) nope, nothings changed…he couldn’t prove his accusations
2) he literally had to redo most of them…
3) sorry yes practicing law in Florida applies in federal court in Florida too, check federal code of regulation 11.505

Smith also violated DOJ policies, see section 9 85.500 of the DoJ manual

Once again you just can’t keep up with reality

1. Undetermined, he wasn’t done yet.
2. He made minor changes. Almost all the conduct fell outside official duties.
3. That applied to law firms. Not to federal employees.

Federal Register :: Request Access

www.ecfr.gov

I guess that we can say that Hunter Biden’s prosecution in California was illegal because David Weiss doesn’t have a California law license. Joe Biden’s pardon therefore corrects an unjust violation of law.

Violating DoJ policies is not a crime.

 

[struth]

1. Undetermined, he wasn’t done yet.
2. He made minor changes. Almost all the conduct fell outside official duties.
3. That applied to law firms. Not to federal employees.

Federal Register :: Request Access

www.ecfr.gov

I guess that we can say that Hunter Biden’s prosecution in California was illegal because David Weiss doesn’t have a California law license. Joe Biden’s pardon therefore corrects an unjust violation of law.

Violating DoJ policies is not a crime.

Undermined??? Hahab by the rule of law, yes. Haha
He needed completely new indictments!
Haha no the federal rules don’t apply to law firms but to federal employees! Haha

Weiss wasn’t illegally appointed, he was confirmed by the senate, and asked to stay on as US attorney by Xiden, therreifr authorized to practice law there

Didn’t say it was, but it further shows how unprecedented this political prosecution was

 

[Marener]

Undermined??? Hahab by the rule of law, yes. Haha
He needed completely new indictments!
Haha no the federal rules don’t apply to law firms but to federal employees! Haha

Weiss wasn’t illegally appointed, he was confirmed by the senate, and asked to stay on as US attorney by Xiden, therreifr authorized to practice law there

Didn’t say it was, but it further shows how unprecedented this political prosecution was

1. Undetermined, which means your claim is a lie.
2. That code refers to regulations for law firms practicing under the patent office. You’re such a dope.

Weiss has no law license in the state of California. That means, according to you, Weiss should be prosecuted for illegally practicing law.

 

[struth]

1. Undetermined, which means your claim is a lie.
2. That code refers to regulations for law firms practicing under the patent office. You’re such a dope.

Weiss has no law license in the state of California. That means, according to you, Weiss should be prosecuted for illegally practicing law.

1) I agree the rule of law undermined Jack
2) nope it deals with federal employees, it regulate federal employees

3) he didn’t need one if he was authorized to practice law there. Which he was by virtue of his legal appointment and following Cali laws. Jack smith wasn’t licensed and not authorized since he was illegally appointed

 

[Marener]

1) I agree the rule of law undermined Jack
2) nope it deals with federal employees, it regulate federal employees

3) he didn’t need one if he was authorized to practice law there. Which he was by virtue of his legal appointment and following Cali laws. Jack smith wasn’t licensed and not authorized since he was illegally appointed

1. Nope. The election did. If not for the election, the cases would be going to trial.
2. Nope. Read the heading of the section. It refers to law practices, not federal employees.
3. He has no license in California to practice law. That’s a fact. You’re saying prosecutors have to have state licenses to practice law in the state. So Weiss illegally prosecuted Hunter.