BREAKING NEWS: Trump document case dropped

[Clipper]

Was the Special Counsel legally appointed in the Hunter Biden case? Or only in Trump's case because that incompetent hack, Trump's asseating judge says so?

Cannon will never get the stink of Trump:s ass off her face.

 

[airplanemechanic]

Please, in the future, when politicians of any party rip us off, please don't complain. You voted for it. Stupid bastard.

I have no complaints with our SCOTUS. They seem to be ruling right down the middle. What does this thread about Trump's document case have to do with politicians ripping us off? Are you capable of staying on topic or you'd rather run down rabbit holes hoping people follow you?

 

[Flopper]

Lost behind all of this is the fact that a judge threw out and dismissed the case against Trump accusing him of mishandling classified documents.
What's interesting to me is that the reason was not the gerrymandering and forgery that the FBI went after Trump's house, but that the prosecutor was improperly appointed.
Judges don't go against the FBI. This is scary because this criminal agency feels safe. They get away with everything, just as they probably got away with participating in the attempted assassination of Trump (alleged by me), just as they got away with the January 6 provocation, just as they got away with the false signatures on the letter accusing Trump of ties to Russia, just as they got away with Biden's laptop hidden under a cloth for two years. The FBI stands at the center of the DNC-run deep state.
This permissiveness of the intelligence agencies is not compatible with law and order. Trump poses an existential threat to them. They will not give up trying to kill him.

Thomas expressed his opinion that appointments of a Special Counsel required the authorization of the Senate, .Article II, Section 2, Clause 2. Cannon saw her way out of a case with strong political overtones by following Thomas's opinion and declaring that Smith's appointment was unconstitutional and dismissing the case.

Was the appointment unconstitutional? Possibly, but Cannon should not have dismissed the case. She should have followed precedence and asked the AG, to remedy the situation.

The procedure for approving special counsels has been in effect for over 50 years. This same procedure was used to appoint Special Counsel in the Watergate investigation and Clinton and numerous other high goverment officials. The procedure has also been approved by the high court.

Imagine what would happen if ever appointment of a Special Counsel required the written approval of the president and approval by the Senate. A president may find the appointment to be too politically toxic. If the opposition controlled the Senate, approved would likely be impossible. Whether the procedure is technically constitution or not, it needs to say in place.

We may never know what Cannon's motives were. Maybe she really believed the appointment was unconstitutional and dismissing the case was the property action. Or maybe she just wanted to rid herself of the case. Or maybe someone in high places mentioned to her that there would likely be two Supreme Justice seats opening up during the next administration.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Thomas expressed his opinion that appointments of a Special Counsel required the authorization of the Senate, .Article II, Section 2, Clause 2. Cannon saw her way out of a case with strong political overtones by following Thomas's opinion and declaring that Smith's appointment was unconstitutional and dismissing the case.

Was the appointment unconstitutional? Possibly, but Cannon should not have dismissed the case. She should have followed precedence and asked the AG, to remedy the situation.

The procedure for approving special counsels has been in effect for over 50 years. This same procedure was used to appoint Special Counsel in the Watergate investigation and Clinton and numerous other high goverment officials. The procedure has also been approved by the high court.

Imagine what would happen if ever appointment of a Special Counsel required the written approval of the president and approval by the Senate. A president may find the appoint to be too politically toxic. If the opposition controlled the Senate, approved would likely be impossible. Whether the procedure is technically constitution or not, it needs to say in place.

We may never know what Cannon's motives were. Maybe she really believed the appointment was unconstitutional and dismissing the case was the property action. Or maybe she just wanted to rid herself of the case. Or maybe someone in high places mentioned to her that there would likely be two Supreme Justice seats opening up during the next administration.

Only two practical options exist:

1) we apparently have a judge that was willing to proceed with a trial on an unconstutional foundation, until Trump's lawyers brought this to her attention. If her decision is valid.

2) we have a judge making wildly anomalous decisions that show bias to one party

Which makes her, AT BEST, incompetent and not appropriate for handling such an important trial.