Documents case dismissed
gammanu95
My casual drinking is your alcohol poisoning.
Monday, July 15, 2024 2:49 PM
Little by little, common sense and law are being restored in this nation
https://thepostmillennial.com/breaking-b…
https://thepostmillennial.com/breaking-b…
Got something to say?
Start your own discussion
10 comments
Lawfare sucks.
The it will go to the Supreme Court and they will rule in favor of Trump as they always do. What a joke.
That headline is fucking stupid. "Bidens DOJ.....". C'mon, don't feed your implicit bias. But, I must say.....I appreciate clicking on that link because I've never used the news source you just cited.
I guess he should get all the boxes back? Maybe chip in for a POD?
Oh, yes, the disappointment and rage are building, LOL.
Here's a good article on how this ruling goes against decades of precedent.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/15/opini…
Even if there were a reversal before Inauguration Day, Trump’s lawyers have ample time to slow walk a petition for certiorari
Only way this actually gets considered by SCOTUS is if Trump loses the election. I’d be surprised if 5 justices would support Cannon’s whack ruling, but I would have said the same thing about the immunity issue
Meanwhile, back in DC, stand back and stand by while Chutkin schedules evidentiary hearings during the thick of the campaign so the special counsel can lay out all the evidence that would otherwise have been presented at trial, ostensibly to establish that immunity does not apply to most of the charged offenses
This was a 90-page opinion. Let it go up the chain, that is how it works. And sure, things get reversed all the time.
The problem is, Jack Smith admitted his crew manipulated evidence, and he was was not legally to appointed so he could be a "Special Prosecutor". Damn the "precedence", doesn't mean in the past it was right, someone finally said this Unconstitutional. Lots of Unconstitutional has been done for decades in the country, and eventually it is stopped.
From the judge's opinion: "The Appointments Clause says, "Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States be appointed by the President subject to the advice and consent of the Senate, although Congress may vest the appointment of inferior officers in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments." Smith, however, was never confirmed by the Senate." Here in lies the rub - it was illegal for the DoJ/Merrick Garland to use Smith, and if Garland wasn't aware that's a serious problem, or he rolled the dice and thought he'd win. And to think Garland was almost a SCJ.
The "Soros" DAs and this DoJ has put Lawfare into Warp Speed. I seriously doubt that the SC will opine that "Jack Smith was legally assigned." Good, let's see how this goes. And, why Biden was prosecuted for same as he had collected confidential documents for many decades when he had no legal authority, and he skated, as did Pence.
The Democrats treat the Constitution like a baby treats a diaper. When the Courts rule in the Dems favor, they are great, when they don't, they are evil.
Obama said in on 2000 Chicago PBS interview that the US Constitution is a negative document, it should state what the gov't will do for the people. He was a "Harvard Constitutional Professor". He took an oath to uphold the Constitution. The point of the Constitution to be a negative document was purposeful - TO LIMIT GOVERMENT - which at one point 250 years ago was like a baby alligator that today is a massive, uncontrollable beast that bureaucrats & lobbyists, not those elected, control. That's going to change over the coming years with the SC that is more Constitutional than ever.
So yes, I want this to be appealed as fast and as aggressively as possible. It's a POTUS election year. The Dems are putting a lot of stress on The Sword Of Damocles' hanging above their heads, and like an arsonist have started a wildfire they can't control.