Offline Action80

  • *
  • Posts: 2957
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #11520 on: July 16, 2024, 11:06:59 AM »
https://edition.cnn.com/politics/live-news/trump-classified-documents-case-dismissed-07-15-24/index.html

Trump wins.  His Judge has basically said all special appointments are unconstitutional and thus the case is dismissed, which breaks from every other judge whose had this. Also, she did this after over a year!  Why didn't she dismiss it sooner?  Because she's corrupt.


Mark my words: if Trump wins, he'll appointment her to SCOTUS.
Jack Smith had no standing, AT ALL.

Ok, so what was the correct, proper, standing person or group that should have been used?  The DoJ?  The President?  Mitch McConnel?
The correct proper way to appoint special counsel is for Congress to approve the appointment.

That is why Mueller never went anywhere and why Smith was going nowhere.

Truman Show shit.
But that wasn't the ruling. The ruling was that all special counsels were unconstitutional.  All of them.
" ...is there a statute in the United States Code that authorizes the appointment of Special Counsel Smith to conduct this prosecution? After careful study of this seminal issue, the answer is no."

"If the political branches wish to grant the Attorney General power to appoint Special Counsel Smith to investigate and prosecute this action with the full powers of a United States Attorney, there is a valid means by which to do so. He can be appointed and confirmed through the default method prescribed in the Appointments Clause, as Congress has directed for United States Attorneys throughout
American history, see 28 U.S.C. § 541, or Congress can authorize his appointment through enactment of positive statutory law consistent with the Appointments Clause."

Maybe you can find something in the ruling that mentions ALL special counsels.
To be honest I am getting pretty bored of this place.

Offline Action80

  • *
  • Posts: 2957
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #11521 on: July 16, 2024, 11:27:37 AM »
Why would he need to pardon himself if he can just order the DoJ to drop charges?

But he's correct: it's unknown if they can.  Never been done before.  And as we know... Trump can do no wrong.  His impeachment would never go through.  Not unless democrats controlled both houses.  Nor would he lose support.  Why would he?  None of his supporters care if he's guilty of some made up, witch-hunt crime.  Hell, they don't even care that he pushed to make the covid vaccine that's part of the plan to wipe out humanity.  Never even mention it.  Because they are loyal.  Blind loyalty.  They'd kill for him.  Wouldn't you?
You can ask the other bot as to why he believes Trump would choose to pardon himself.

The charges are bogus to begin with, they never would have been brought against him had he not decided to run again for president.

Whether you like it or not, presidents cannot pardon themselves for the exact reason I wrote before.

An application for pardon needs to be made. An application for pardon is essentially an admission of criminal guilt. Once an admission of guilt exists, that proves a criminal act was committed. Criminal acts are impeachable offenses.

All the numbnuts will continue the handwringing and lamentations of "OMB" until the next big thing comes around.

So far, I have yet to read about any Trump supporters going around killing people.

Typical bullshit.

Try harder, please.
« Last Edit: July 16, 2024, 12:07:57 PM by Action80 »
To be honest I am getting pretty bored of this place.

*

Online honk

  • *
  • Posts: 3469
  • resident goose
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #11522 on: July 16, 2024, 03:59:24 PM »
It's far from clear-cut that applying for or accepting a pardon constitutes an admission of guilt. That idea comes from a line of dicta from an old case where it was originally meant in a different context, and a federal court fairly recently rejected that interpretation. And even it were firmly established that accepting a plea bargain constituted an admission of guilt, why would Congress impreach him for that? They don't have to impeach him if they don't want to, and I think Republicans have made it very clear by now that they will stand behind Trump no matter what he says or does.

But of course, he doesn't really need a pardon. Once he's the president, he can make all of his federal charges go away, and even if he's immediately followed by a president who's willing to resume the prosecutions, it'll be years before they can bring charges against him again. Honestly, even if Trump loses the election, I think it's very likely he'll be able to continue to postpone his trials until either he dies or the government figures he's too old to be worth prosecuting. The Supreme Court have shown that they're willing to play along with Trump's ridiculous delay tactics.
ur retartet but u donut even no it and i walnut tell u y

Offline Action80

  • *
  • Posts: 2957
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #11523 on: July 16, 2024, 07:55:08 PM »
So, everyone crying about the ability of a president to pardon his/her/them/they/it selves just need to STFU and go away.

Saddam to the rescue again!

[/sarcasm]
To be honest I am getting pretty bored of this place.

*

Offline AATW

  • *
  • Posts: 6625
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #11524 on: July 18, 2024, 11:58:43 AM »
Tom: "Claiming incredulity is a pretty bad argument. Calling it "insane" or "ridiculous" is not a good argument at all."

TFES Wiki Occam's Razor page, by Tom: "What's the simplest explanation; that NASA has successfully designed and invented never before seen rocket technologies from scratch which can accelerate 100 tons of matter to an escape velocity of 7 miles per second"

*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 7817
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #11525 on: July 18, 2024, 09:07:13 PM »
https://edition.cnn.com/politics/live-news/trump-classified-documents-case-dismissed-07-15-24/index.html

Trump wins.  His Judge has basically said all special appointments are unconstitutional and thus the case is dismissed, which breaks from every other judge whose had this. Also, she did this after over a year!  Why didn't she dismiss it sooner?  Because she's corrupt.


Mark my words: if Trump wins, he'll appointment her to SCOTUS.
Jack Smith had no standing, AT ALL.

Ok, so what was the correct, proper, standing person or group that should have been used?  The DoJ?  The President?  Mitch McConnel?
The correct proper way to appoint special counsel is for Congress to approve the appointment.

That is why Mueller never went anywhere and why Smith was going nowhere.

Truman Show shit.
But that wasn't the ruling. The ruling was that all special counsels were unconstitutional.  All of them.
" ...is there a statute in the United States Code that authorizes the appointment of Special Counsel Smith to conduct this prosecution? After careful study of this seminal issue, the answer is no."

"If the political branches wish to grant the Attorney General power to appoint Special Counsel Smith to investigate and prosecute this action with the full powers of a United States Attorney, there is a valid means by which to do so. He can be appointed and confirmed through the default method prescribed in the Appointments Clause, as Congress has directed for United States Attorneys throughout
American history, see 28 U.S.C. § 541, or Congress can authorize his appointment through enactment of positive statutory law consistent with the Appointments Clause."

Maybe you can find something in the ruling that mentions ALL special counsels.

Oh hey, found the authority.
28USC 533.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/533#:~:text=28%20U.S.%20Code%20%C2%A7%20533%20%2D%20Investigative%20and%20other%20officials%3B%20appointment,-U.S.%20Code&text=to%20conduct%20such%20other%20investigations,directed%20by%20the%20Attorney%20General.

You know, in case you weren't trolling.
The conviction will get overturned on appeal.

*

Offline AATW

  • *
  • Posts: 6625
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #11526 on: July 19, 2024, 11:11:25 AM »
Holy shit...

Tom: "Claiming incredulity is a pretty bad argument. Calling it "insane" or "ridiculous" is not a good argument at all."

TFES Wiki Occam's Razor page, by Tom: "What's the simplest explanation; that NASA has successfully designed and invented never before seen rocket technologies from scratch which can accelerate 100 tons of matter to an escape velocity of 7 miles per second"

*

Offline Rushy

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8758
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #11527 on: July 19, 2024, 05:47:49 PM »
T R U M P  2 0 2 4

Hulk Hogan is going to destroy anyone who has a problem with Project 2025.

*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 7817
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #11528 on: July 20, 2024, 07:31:39 PM »
https://x.com/mattgaetz/status/1812850083269845272

Does he know something or just shilling?
The conviction will get overturned on appeal.

*

Offline Rushy

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8758
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #11529 on: July 20, 2024, 11:37:47 PM »
https://x.com/mattgaetz/status/1812850083269845272

Does he know something or just shilling?

Shilling? I think you mean "trolling". It's just rage bait, and judging by the comments, it worked.

Offline Action80

  • *
  • Posts: 2957
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #11530 on: July 22, 2024, 08:31:39 AM »
To be honest I am getting pretty bored of this place.

*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 7817
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #11531 on: July 22, 2024, 09:02:07 AM »

Oh hey, found the authority.
28USC 533.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/533#:~:text=28%20U.S.%20Code%20%C2%A7%20533%20%2D%20Investigative%20and%20other%20officials%3B%20appointment,-U.S.%20Code&text=to%20conduct%20such%20other%20investigations,directed%20by%20the%20Attorney%20General.

You know, in case you weren't trolling.
Oh hey, let's forget the confirmation process all together, right?

Hawk tuah...
Which does not apply since congress already made that unnecessary for special prosecutors.  So try again.
The conviction will get overturned on appeal.

Offline Action80

  • *
  • Posts: 2957
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #11532 on: July 22, 2024, 09:33:57 AM »

Oh hey, found the authority.
28USC 533.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/533#:~:text=28%20U.S.%20Code%20%C2%A7%20533%20%2D%20Investigative%20and%20other%20officials%3B%20appointment,-U.S.%20Code&text=to%20conduct%20such%20other%20investigations,directed%20by%20the%20Attorney%20General.

You know, in case you weren't trolling.
Oh hey, let's forget the confirmation process all together, right?

Hawk tuah...
Which does not apply since congress already made that unnecessary for special prosecutors.  So try again.
I do not need to try that again, since the persons running the show declared it does apply.

Hawk tuah...
To be honest I am getting pretty bored of this place.

*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 7817
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #11533 on: July 22, 2024, 10:04:28 AM »

Oh hey, found the authority.
28USC 533.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/533#:~:text=28%20U.S.%20Code%20%C2%A7%20533%20%2D%20Investigative%20and%20other%20officials%3B%20appointment,-U.S.%20Code&text=to%20conduct%20such%20other%20investigations,directed%20by%20the%20Attorney%20General.

You know, in case you weren't trolling.
Oh hey, let's forget the confirmation process all together, right?

Hawk tuah...
Which does not apply since congress already made that unnecessary for special prosecutors.  So try again.
I do not need to try that again, since the persons running the show declared it does apply.

Hawk tuah...
With no legal standing.  And ignoring precident from the last 100+ years.

But sure, she's in charge and if she wants to help Trump, that's her business, right?
The conviction will get overturned on appeal.

Offline Action80

  • *
  • Posts: 2957
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #11534 on: July 22, 2024, 10:37:50 AM »
With no legal standing.  And ignoring precident from the last 100+ years.

But sure, she's in charge and if she wants to help Trump, that's her business, right?
With plenty of legal standing and change has always been your baby (as in the diapers on Joe).

I cannot help it if a bot is incapable of understanding issues of appropriations and the like.

Hawk tuah...
To be honest I am getting pretty bored of this place.

*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 7817
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #11535 on: July 22, 2024, 02:16:30 PM »
With no legal standing.  And ignoring precident from the last 100+ years.

But sure, she's in charge and if she wants to help Trump, that's her business, right?
With plenty of legal standing and change has always been your baby (as in the diapers on Joe).

I cannot help it if a bot is incapable of understanding issues of appropriations and the like.

Hawk tuah...

And what is the legal basis of her ruling and why was the trial allowed to even start?
The conviction will get overturned on appeal.

Offline Action80

  • *
  • Posts: 2957
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #11536 on: July 23, 2024, 09:50:57 AM »
And what is the legal basis of her ruling and why was the trial allowed to even start?
I thought you claimed you read the ruling?

Got to have fodder for the evening news.
To be honest I am getting pretty bored of this place.

*

Offline Roundy

  • Abdicator of the Zetetic Council
  • *
  • Posts: 4233
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #11537 on: July 23, 2024, 01:24:47 PM »
Well, now that there's definitively only one senile old pedophile in the race, who are YOU voting for?
Dr. Frank is a physicist. He says it's impossible. So it's impossible.
My friends, please remember Tom said this the next time you fall into the trap of engaging him, and thank you. :)

*

Offline Rushy

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8758
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #11538 on: July 23, 2024, 01:33:27 PM »
Well, now that there's definitively only one senile old pedophile in the race, who are YOU voting for?

Pretty tough for a lot of people to answer when one of the parties hasn't chosen a candidate to be voted for yet.

*

Offline AATW

  • *
  • Posts: 6625
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #11539 on: July 23, 2024, 01:58:05 PM »
Well, now that there's definitively only one senile old pedophile in the race, who are YOU voting for?

Pretty tough for a lot of people to answer when one of the parties hasn't chosen a candidate to be voted for yet.
Yeah, we really have no idea who it will be do we? Such a mystery.
Tom: "Claiming incredulity is a pretty bad argument. Calling it "insane" or "ridiculous" is not a good argument at all."

TFES Wiki Occam's Razor page, by Tom: "What's the simplest explanation; that NASA has successfully designed and invented never before seen rocket technologies from scratch which can accelerate 100 tons of matter to an escape velocity of 7 miles per second"