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

[struth]

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.

1) yes the election did! Thank you! It was a polltical prosecution, elections end them
2) there is no federal bar, the regulation applies to federal employees and requires them to follow local state laws in regards to practice
3) he didnt need one, the law requires either a license or being authorized. Try and keep up dembot

 

[Marener]

1) yes the election did! Thank you! It was a polltical prosecution, elections end them
2) there is no federal bar, the regulation applies to federal employees and requires them to follow local state laws in regards to practice
3) he didnt need one, the law requires either a license or being authorized. Try and keep up dembot

1. Nope. Elections end all prosecutions for presidents. Even the prosecutions that are slam dunks because the future president is a criminal.
2. Not what the regulation is for, but this belief of yours only makes this worse.
3. You have to be license to be authorized to practice law in California. That’s the rule in California. I can’t keep up because you keep moving the goalposts.

 

[struth]

1. Nope. Elections end all prosecutions for presidents. Even the prosecutions that are slam dunks because the future president is a criminal.
2. Not what the regulation is for, but this belief of yours only makes this worse.
3. You have to be license to be authorized to practice law in California. That’s the rule in California. I can’t keep up because you keep moving the goalposts.

1) we never had a pollcisl prosecution of a president until now. I’ll give you that
2) yep yoj got to read it
3) no you don’t have to have California license to be authorized, you can be authorized to practice via being a US Attorney practicing i. Federal court

I never said anything about being licensed, I said the unauthorized practice of law. A license obviously will authorize you. You can also be authorized if you are waived in, or serve pro hoc vice etc

You just can’t keep up with reality.

 

[Marener]

1) we never had a pollcisl prosecution of a president until now. I’ll give you that
2) yep yoj got to read it
3) no you don’t have to have California license to be authorized, you can be authorized to practice via being a US Attorney practicing i. Federal court

I never said anything about being licensed, I said the unauthorized practice of law. A license obviously will authorize you. You can also be authorized if you are waived in, or serve pro hoc vice etc

You just can’t keep up with reality.

1. He wasn’t persecuted. He’s a criminal.
2. I did. You didn’t.
3. You said that Jack Smith had to be licensed to practice in Florida. Your standards change all the time. Who authorized Weiss to practice in California?

 

[struth]

1. He wasn’t persecuted. He’s a criminal.
2. I did. You didn’t.
3. You said that Jack Smith had to be licensed to practice in Florida. Your standards change all the time.

1) Jack smith didn’t get a conviction stop lying
2) I did
3) no provided the code, the Fl law for unauthorized practice of law. Try again

 

[Marener]

1) Jack smith didn’t get a conviction stop lying
2) I did
3) no provided the code, the Fl law for unauthorized practice of law. Try again

1. He would have.
2. Apparently not otherwise you would have seen it refers to law practices.
3. Who authorized Weiss to practice in California?

 

[struth]

1. He would have.
2. Apparently not otherwise you would have seen it refers to law practices.
3. Who authorized Weiss to practice in California?

1) but he didn’t. The Ravens would if beat the bills if they did, but they didn’t m, cause they lost.
2) I saw where it referred to practitioners as well
3) the US senate when he was approved to be a US attorney, and then the DOJ when they made him a special prosecutor to go prosecute Hunter for his crimes against the United States in federal court in Cali

Jack smith was never authorized his appointment was illegal. Try and keep you dembot

 

[Marener]

1) but he didn’t. The Ravens would if beat the bills if they did, but they didn’t m, cause they lost.
2) I saw where it referred to practitioners as well
3) the US senate when he was approved to be a US attorney, and then the DOJ when they made him a special prosecutor to go prosecute Hunter for his crimes against the United States in federal court in Cali

Jack smith was never authorized his appointment was illegal. Try and keep you dembot

1. He didn’t lose either.
2. In law firms.
3. The Senate didn’t say he could be a prosecutor in California. They said he could be a prosecutor in Delaware.

 

[struth]

1. He didn’t lose either.
2. In law firms.
3. The Senate didn’t say he could be a prosecutor in California. They said he could be a prosecutor in Delaware.

1) haha oook
2) federal employees don’t work in law firms they work for the federal govt
3) the senate said he was a US Attorney and Garland made him a special prosecutor he therefore had the authorization to practice in federal court against Hunter. This really isn’t a hard concept but then again you said the illegally appointed Jack smith won…so you are an idiot

 

[Marener]

1) haha oook
2) federal employees don’t work in law firms they work for the federal govt
3) the senate said he was a US Attorney and Garland made him a special prosecutor he therefore had the authorization to practice in federal court against Hunter. This really isn’t a hard concept but then again you said the illegally appointed Jack smith won…so you are an idiot

1. It’s just a fact. You lied.
2. Yep. That’s why it’s obvious that the regulation doesn’t apply.
3. The constitution doesn’t give Garland the ability to make him a special prosecutor without senate approval. So says Judge Cannon.

 

[struth]

1. It’s just a fact. You lied.
2. Yep. That’s why it’s obvious that the regulation doesn’t apply.
3. The constitution doesn’t give Garland the ability to make him a special prosecutor without senate approval. So says Judge Cannon.

1). It’s a fact you lied, Jack smith didn’t win! Haha
2) lawyers for the govt are practitioners
3) he was confirmed by the senate you idiot. The court ruled that a special procecuto can’t act as a us attorney without approval, Weiss was

 

[Marener]

1). It’s a fact you lied, Jack smith didn’t win! Haha
2) lawyers for the govt are practitioners
3) he was confirmed by the senate you idiot. The court ruled that a special procecuto can’t act as a us attorney without approval, Weiss was

1. I never said he did win. You lied in saying it was dismissed because there as no case.
2. Still the regulation is for law firms.
3. He wasn’t confirmed as special counsel. Cannon ruled you can’t be a special counsel without being confirmed as a special counsel. So he was acting illegally.

 

[struth]

1. I never said he did win. You lied in saying it was dismissed because there as no case.
2. Still the regulation is for law firms.
3. He wasn’t confirmed as special counsel. Cannon ruled you can’t be a special counsel without being confirmed as a special counsel. So he was acting illegally.

1) I said he lost, you said he didn’t. When someone doesn’t lose what do they do?
2) it literally says discusses practitioners
3) he didn’t have to be, he was confirmed as a US attorney. Anyone can be appointed to be a special prosecute, but if the special prosecutor is going to be acting as a US attorney the need confirmation. Clearly you didn’t understand the ruling…but then again you didn’t think Jack smith lost either

You aren’t competent to have this discussion

 

[Marener]

1) I said he lost, you said he didn’t. When someone doesn’t lose what do they do?
2) it literally says discusses practitioners
3) he didn’t have to be, he was confirmed as a US attorney. Anyone can be appointed to be a special prosecute, but if the special prosecutor is going to be acting as a US attorney the need confirmation. Clearly you didn’t understand the ruling…but then again you didn’t think Jack smith lost either

You aren’t competent to have this discussion

1. Don’t be binary. If a ballgame is cancelled in the third inning because of a rain storm, does it count as a win or loss? It’s neither.
2. For law firms.
3. Yes, they had to according to Cannon. Being confirmed for one office does not magically give you the ability to transferred into any other office. Cannon pointed out that any office needs to be legislated and there is no legislation creating a special counsel office. Cannon is saying that there can only be a special counsel by authorization of Congress.

 

[struth]

1. Don’t be binary. If a ballgame is cancelled in the third inning because of a rain storm, does it count as a win or loss? It’s neither.
2. For law firms.
3. Yes, they had to according to Cannon. Being confirmed for one office does not magically give you the ability to transferred into any other office. Cannon pointed out that any office needs to be legislated and there is no legislation creating a special counsel office. Cannon is saying that there can only be a special counsel by authorization of Congress.

1) it’s the legal system you either wi. Or lose. He lost
2) you’ve proven you are an idiot
3) no they didn’t you didn’t. Read the ruling

 

[alang1216]

There has been a great deal of evidence of crime. Concealing or destroying governmentally collected “evidence” isn’t actually legal.

Who determines what is 'evidence' and what is not?

 

[alang1216]

Yeah, here's one of those extremely violent right wingers that got pardoned by OMB

Pro-life activist prosecuted by Biden DOJ reacts to Trump pardon: 'I want to give him a hug'

Pro-life grandmother Joan Bell, sentenced in November 2023 for blocking a D.C. abortion clinic in 2020, was one of the nearly two dozen activists pardoned by President Donald Trump.

www.foxnews.com

She was arrested for praying in front of an abortion clinic. What a criminal, huh!!?!

Bell, who lives in New Jersey, was sentenced to more than two years in prison in November 2023 for participating in a "blockade," conspiring with other activists at a Washington D.C. abortion clinic in October 2020, according to President Biden's Department of Justice (DOJ).

When Joan Bell, 76, was given the news she was one of the pro-life activists pardoned by President Donald Trump Thursday afternoon, she was in disbelief

"Many, many of them are elderly people," Trump said in the Oval Office. "They should not have been prosecuted. This is a great honor to sign this. They'll be very happy."

Bell, along with Paula Paulette Harlow, Jean Marshall and John Hinshaw, were all around 70 years old when they were imprisoned.

Yeah, lock those dangerous criminals up!!!

And here's your very brave, extremely courageous Law Enforcement and Persecution Types giving us their unbiased opinions. I feel so much safer now

Prosecutors from the DOJ's Civil Rights Division and U.S. attorney's office for the District of Columbia argued the pro-life activists violated the 1994 FACE Act, a federal law that prohibits physical force, threats of force or intentionally damaging property to prevent someone from obtaining or providing abortion services.

Yeah, dangerous criminals those grandmas and grandpas. Lock 'em up!!

dimocraps are the scum of the Earth. The worst ones are the ones that vote gutless scum into Office

When did the GOP stop being the party of law and order? How old do you have to be before you can break laws and not pay the consequences?

 

[alang1216]

The ones xiden’s issued pardons for

He didn't name any specific crimes, can you?

 

[struth]

When did the GOP stop being the party of law and order? How old do you have to be before you can break laws and not pay the consequences?

How old is Adam shifty? Liz? Xiden? Xiden’s brother? And the rest of his family he gave 11 year long blanket pardons for crimes against the United States?

 

[struth]

He didn't name any specific crimes, can you?

No I can’t, I can only imagine at this point, we will need a through investigation

Then it begs the question, are blanket pardons those don’t name specific crimes legal?

Lots to unpack with these admissions of guilt of unspecific crimes