|
|
Post by stiffy1957 on Jul 16, 2024 22:18:44 GMT -6
Trump has corrupted this court. No president is supposed to have the court in their back pocket. yet you see nothing wrong here. This is what makes his dictatoship one step closer.  Maybe we need to find that camp for you, after all! We'll make sure the walls are padded. Judge Cannon referenced the CONSTITUTION in her decision and showed where the Appointments Clause was violated by Garland and the Biden Administration but what do you care about facts? It's probably more fun, for you, to be a whiny bitch than someone who knows WTF they are talking about And lower courts disagreed. what about the case of Bill Clinton? He was appointed a special council. I guess you think it only counts when it is a Democrat involved? Try again. |
|
|
|
Post by captbudman on Jul 16, 2024 23:38:09 GMT -6
Maybe we need to find that camp for you, after all! We'll make sure the walls are padded. Judge Cannon referenced the CONSTITUTION in her decision and showed where the Appointments Clause was violated by Garland and the Biden Administration but what do you care about facts? It's probably more fun, for you, to be a whiny bitch than someone who knows WTF they are talking about And lower courts disagreed. what about the case of Bill Clinton? He was appointed a special council. I guess you think it only counts when it is a Democrat involved? Try again. Bill Clinton was investigated when there was a Special Counsel law authorizing one. Democrats originally passed it years ago, and loved the law when Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush administration figures were investigated. Once Bill and "Friends of Bill" became targets of men who were unaccountable to anyone and had unlimited budgets, Democrats joined with Republicans and said "let's end this." Hence, Congress let the Special Counsel law expire. What came next was that Janet Reno (the evil person responsible for killing 76 men, women, and children in Waco and sending Elian Gonzales back to Cuba) created the regulations that authorized the Special Counsel, despite no law allowing a special counsel. The reason for that was to claim "independence" from the Attorney General, so a prosecution couldn't be accused of being political. The only legal way to prosecute anyone at the federal level (since the special counsel law expired) is for a district attorney, nominated by the President and approved by the Senate, to indict and try him/her -- just like what happened to Sen. Bob Menendez... |
|
|
|
Post by stargatebabe on Jul 17, 2024 6:51:43 GMT -6
Maybe we need to find that camp for you, after all! We'll make sure the walls are padded. Judge Cannon referenced the CONSTITUTION in her decision and showed where the Appointments Clause was violated by Garland and the Biden Administration but what do you care about facts? It's probably more fun, for you, to be a whiny bitch than someone who knows WTF they are talking about And lower courts disagreed. what about the case of Bill Clinton? He was appointed a special council. I guess you think it only counts when it is a Democrat involved? Try again. We talking about Judge Cannon and the case she ruled on - I'm not talking ancient history with you since you can't even keep the present straight in your mind! If ANY court disagrees with the Constitution, the judges/justices need to be removed immediately and replaced by those that use the Constitution to rule and not wipe their ass. |
|
|
|
Post by lighthouse on Jul 22, 2024 8:14:35 GMT -6
Newt Gingrich was the Speaker of the House when the Independent Counsel Act lapsed, but it had bi-partisan support. This will affect all of Jack Smith's cases, especially the one's he was advising on in New York, and Georgia. The independent counsel statute was largely pushed by the Democrat Majority in Congress. Democrats loved the law when the targets were the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations. Once it was used against Bill Clinton and Democrats, there was bipartisan agreement the law should die. Janet Reno issued the regulation creating the new "independent counsel," but I suspect that when this ruling gets appealed to SCOTUS, Judge Cannon will be confirmed. After Chevron, it's clear that the Court isn't going to allow Bureaucrats usurp Congress's power and write their own laws. isn't it ironic, how the Judicial Branch take steps to protect the Legislative Branch, yet the Executive Branch wants to reassemble the Judicial Branch |
|
|
|
Post by captbudman on Jul 22, 2024 8:19:07 GMT -6
The independent counsel statute was largely pushed by the Democrat Majority in Congress. Democrats loved the law when the targets were the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations. Once it was used against Bill Clinton and Democrats, there was bipartisan agreement the law should die. Janet Reno issued the regulation creating the new "independent counsel," but I suspect that when this ruling gets appealed to SCOTUS, Judge Cannon will be confirmed. After Chevron, it's clear that the Court isn't going to allow Bureaucrats usurp Congress's power and write their own laws. isn't it ironic, how the Judicial Branch take steps to protect the Legislative Branch, yet the Executive Branch wants to reassemble the Judicial Branch Under the Marxist Dems, the Executive Branch wants to unify all three branches into one... |
|
|
|
Post by lighthouse on Jul 22, 2024 8:51:56 GMT -6
You're too stupid to understand the appointments clause Trump has corrupted this court. No president is supposed to have the court in their back pocket. yet you see nothing wrong here. This is what makes his dictatoship one step closer. Do you see any corruption, of Joe Biden's DOJ? How they're assisting other democrats' state attorneys, judges? take note: Even though AG Garland gave permission, to appeal Judge Cannon's decision, to the unconstitutional appointed Jack Smith. Judge Cannon's decision appears to be sound to Hunter Biden’s lawyers have made a similar claim regarding Special Counsel David Weiss. |
|
|
|
Post by Billy John Davy on Jul 22, 2024 8:53:55 GMT -6
Trump has corrupted this court. No president is supposed to have the court in their back pocket. yet you see nothing wrong here. This is what makes his dictatoship one step closer. Do you see any corruption, of Joe Biden's DOJ? How they're assisting other democrats' state attorneys, judges? take note: Even though AG Garland gave permission, to appeal Judge Cannon's decision, to the unconstitutional appointed Jack Smith. Judge Cannon's decision appears to be sound to Hunter Biden’s lawyers have made a similar claim regarding Special Counsel David Weiss. 1 small difference, Weiss was appointed and confirmed by the Senate where smith wasnt |
|
|
|
Post by captbudman on Jul 22, 2024 11:15:50 GMT -6
Do you see any corruption, of Joe Biden's DOJ? How they're assisting other democrats' state attorneys, judges? take note: Even though AG Garland gave permission, to appeal Judge Cannon's decision, to the unconstitutional appointed Jack Smith. Judge Cannon's decision appears to be sound to Hunter Biden’s lawyers have made a similar claim regarding Special Counsel David Weiss. 1 small difference, Weiss was appointed and confirmed by the Senate where smith wasnt That's not just a "small" difference. That's the key point of the Clarence Thomas ruling in Deranged Jack Smith being unconstitutional. AG Garland could have had Trump indicted by his Asst District Attorney in the Southern District of Florida and it would have been constitutionally legal (although the funding would still be a legal issue); however, it would have removed all fake efforts to say that indicting Trump had nothing to do with Joe Biden. |
|
Maybe we need to find that camp for you, after all! We'll make sure the walls are padded.
