Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
It is the issue of who can be appointed to the position that is in question.Perhaps Trump should have taken that to the Supreme Court right after Smith was "illegally" appointed. That would have saved him a ****ton of legal fees.
https://scholarship.law.bu.edu/faculty_scholarship/583/
Maybe not, but it was established long before Merrick Garland appointed Jack Smith to the position. What's your point?The Office of Special Counsel is not perpetual.The Attorney General did not create a federal office. The Office of Special Council already exists and has since 1979. The Attorney General simply appointed Jack Smith to serve in the role of Special Council for this investigation and prosecution. Perhaps you are confusing the office with the role.That code does not allow for the creation of a federal office by the Attorney General, something that only Congress can do.It has to do with the fact he was not working for the Justice Department when he was appointed.
Where in the code does it say that he has to?
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/515
https://www.justice.gov/d9/press-releases/attachments/2022/11/18/2022.11.18_order_5559-2022.pdf
The Attorney General did not create a federal office. The Office of Special Council already exists and has since 1979. The Attorney General simply appointed Jack Smith to serve in the role of Special Council for this investigation and prosecution. Perhaps you are confusing the office with the role.That code does not allow for the creation of a federal office by the Attorney General, something that only Congress can do.It has to do with the fact he was not working for the Justice Department when he was appointed.
Where in the code does it say that he has to?
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/515
It has to do with the fact he was not working for the Justice Department when he was appointed.
In the long run, the top-notch jackass will probably be found to have no legal standing to prosecute the case to begin with.Why would you say something silly like that? Why wouldn't he have any legal standing? It's not as if former presidents are immune from crimes commuted while in office.
No. Jack Smith asked SCOTUS to hear oral arguments and then rule on the appeal on Trump's motion to dismiss so that the actual trial can proceed.Wait... Do.. do you think Jack Smith was asking SCOTUS to rule on the case without an actual argument/trial being done? Because thats what you seem to imply above.That is exactly what happened.
Jack Smith already did and got "bitch slapped" for it.Tell that to SCOTUS.It so happens, he does not. Trump isn't the jackass bring stupid fucking arguments to the court.Whether or not Trump has presidential immunity is not a "stupid fucking argument". It's the heart of Trump's defense.
I will qualify it further by labeling it a stupidly ill-timed and ill-placed argument which was treated accordingly by SCOTUS.We all know that Trump's presidential immunity argument won't stand up in the lower courts and is headed to SCOTUS anyway, so Smith just wanted to save everyone some time. So SCOTUS said no. BFHD. In the long run it probably hurts Trump more than Smith.
It so happens, he does not. Trump isn't the jackass bring stupid fucking arguments to the court.Whether or not Trump has presidential immunity is not a "stupid fucking argument". It's the heart of Trump's defense.
The second line of the text you quoted.I think that the reason that A80 won't answer this question is because deep down he knows that Trump won't be exonerated by any court.
"Why wouldn't Trump take the opportunity to exonnerated by the highest, indesputable court?"
If wanting to keep a vindictive, egomaniacal, pathological liar out of the White House makes me an extremist, then sure, I'm an extremist.Well, your position is simply ridiculous and one that clearly identifies who is truly the extremist.Not if it means that Trump can escape justice by running out the clock, getting himself reelected and having the Justice Department drop all actions against him.*sigh*Wouldn't it be to every US Citizen's benefit to allow the conduct of due process within the courts and not have jackass top-notch prosecutors making jackassed arguments to the wrong court?
I'm trying to present my argument from Donald Trump's perspective, not from Jack Smith's.
Wouldn't it be to Trump's benefit to have the Supreme Court decide that he has presidential immunity as soon as possible so that all of those pesky felony charges would just go away?
Not if it means that Trump can escape justice by running out the clock, getting himself reelected and having the Justice Department drop all actions against him.*sigh*Wouldn't it be to every US Citizen's benefit to allow the conduct of due process within the courts and not have jackass top-notch prosecutors making jackassed arguments to the wrong court?
I'm trying to present my argument from Donald Trump's perspective, not from Jack Smith's.
Wouldn't it be to Trump's benefit to have the Supreme Court decide that he has presidential immunity as soon as possible so that all of those pesky felony charges would just go away?
How can a supposed "delay, delay, delay strategy," exercised by Trump possibly = a shit-ass argument posed by a top-notch federal prosecutor by the name of Jack Smith? Are you now claiming that Jack Smith is one of the "deplorables"?If the Supreme Court were to decide that Trump enjoys presidential immunity, then the 91 felony charges go away, right?
Nah, manufacture a fake scandal, keep talking about all the evidence you have when you have no evidence, and anybody could lose to Trump. Hillary wasn't special.With all of the reals scandals that Trump was (and still is) involved in at the time, Hillary must have been very special to lose.
Pfft. And dine with the peasants?Well, he does make you buy enough NFTs to assure him that you are at least an upper middle class peasant.
No no, you get the limited edition NTF, which is only limited because no one wanted to buy it.
https://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-selling-pieces-mugshot-suit-read-the-fine-print-2023-12
*sigh*Visual evidence of a rocket exhausting gas is not evidence.
FTFY.
You have not cited anything that says that a closed system can eject matter into the external environment. I have cited several examples saying that closed systems cannot eject matter into the external environment. I can cite more if you want. Can you cite any?You have not posted anything that disagrees with it.A rocket is a closed system.If that's true, then you shouldn't have any trouble citing a credible source that agrees with you. If you can't do that, then don't bother replying.
It is a fact it loses matter to its external environment.
It takes in nothing in exchange from its external environment.
All facts.
There are plenty of videos on this forum conclusively demonstrating rockets ejecting matter into the external environment.
It is established a rocket is a closed system.