How to drive an irrational leftist insane

[BackAgain]

Well, I made one, care to comment on it?

Nope. You haven’t yet made any points. That’s the comment. Toddle off, now.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Another one... "I think parents should have a say in what their children are taught"

They will f*cking lose it over that

 

[Billo_Really]

Squeal harder Stalinist piglet!!!

Don't need to be a Stalinist to know she has a conflict of interest.

 

[Billo_Really]

Nope. You haven’t yet made any points. That’s the comment. Toddle off, now.

No, I made a point. You're just too pussy to comment on it!

 

[BackAgain]

No, I made a point. You're just too pussy to comment on it!

No. You have never made a point. You’re just too stupid to know how to do so.

 

[Billo_Really]

No. You have never made a point. You’re just too stupid to know how to do so.

No, I made the point about Eileen Cannon. Do you care to comment on that?

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Another one......

"I think criminals cause more problems than the police do"

 

[BackAgain]

No, I made the point about Eileen Cannon. Do you care to comment on that?

No. You made no point about that judge. You merely referred to her as a **** and you bleated out your worthless opinion about her. That’s not the same thing as making a “point,” you pathetic twat.

 

[Skylar]

Really? You folks laud the 9th Circus Court, which is the most overturned court in the country. Hypocrites, the lot of you.

Yes, really.

Judge Cannon was tossed off the Mar-a-lago case so hard she bounced twice. The 11th circuit systematically dismantled her every pseudo-legal defense of Trump, going so far accusing her of rewriting the rules, radical reordering of caselaw, and inserting herself in the investigation of the case in a way that would violate bedrock separation-of-powers limitations.

I'm hoping she learned something from the drumming she received on appeal.

 

[Skylar]

She wasn’t biased in the slightest much less “egregiously” biased.

You clearly haven't read the 11th court's ruling. They literally cited her rewriting the rules and radically reordering caselaw, while injecting herself into the investigation of the case that was both improper AND violated bedrock principles of the separation of powers.

And that's after they took apart her every defense of Trump, point by point.

They tossed her ass off the case for reason.

But you know better than the 11th circuit, huh?

 

[Nuthin' Fancy]

I call bullshit, if they called or emailed them. Easily traceable, they would be in jail.

They are looking, dumbass.

DA Bragg, probing Trump, mailed death threat from Florida​

WESH
https://www.wesh.com › article › district-attorney-tru...
Mar 24, 2023 — The FBI and NYPD are investigating a death threat sent from Orlando to the New York prosecutor investigating former President Donald Trump.

But there was on of you loons that tried to kill Kavanaugh and protestors surrounded his house.

No fucking protesters surrounded Kavanaugh's house you lying dumbass.
They were protesting in the street.

Which is against the law.

NO, it isn't.............Dumbass.

 

[Nuthin' Fancy]

And yet you lunatics adamantly insist on going down that road.

That was YOUR people, dumbass.

Butler, although a self-described Republican, responded by supporting Franklin D. Roosevelt in the 1932 US presidential election.
By 1933, Butler started denouncing capitalism and bankers, going on to explain that for 33 years he had been a "high-class muscle man" for Wall Street, the bankers and big business, labeling himself as a "racketeer for Capitalism".
Roosevelt's election was upsetting for many conservative businessmen of the time, as his "campaign promise that the government would provide jobs for all the unemployed had the reverse effect of creating a new wave of unemployment by businessmen frightened by fears of socialism and reckless government spending."

Just like teabaggers are trying to do, 90 years later.

 

[DudleySmith]

That was YOUR people, dumbass.

Butler, although a self-described Republican, responded by supporting Franklin D. Roosevelt in the 1932 US presidential election.
By 1933, Butler started denouncing capitalism and bankers, going on to explain that for 33 years he had been a "high-class muscle man" for Wall Street, the bankers and big business, labeling himself as a "racketeer for Capitalism".
Roosevelt's election was upsetting for many conservative businessmen of the time, as his "campaign promise that the government would provide jobs for all the unemployed had the reverse effect of creating a new wave of unemployment by businessmen frightened by fears of socialism and reckless government spending."

Just like teabaggers are trying to do, 90 years later.

lol you know squat; just now discovering Smedley, are you? Did Che Lives run an article on him this week or something?

 

[konradv]

DNyuz - Latest Breaking U.S. News

Latest Breaking News, U.S. and World Politics, Crime, Business, Science, Technology, Autos, Entertainment, Culture, Movie, Music, Sports.

dnyuz.com

The left will now cry and weep and moan and groan that this judge shouldn’t be permitted to keep the case.



Oh no. A judge who might just take the job of reviewing a motion to dismiss an indictment on various legal grounds … seriously. How unfair.

She’s already been slapped down once in this matter and courts are usually sticklers for precedent. If she doesn’t do the right thing and recuse herself, of course the prosecution is going to file. To not do so would be a dereliction of duty. She’s already proven herself to be biased and reversed.

 

[Skylar]

She’s already been slapped down once in this matter and courts are usually sticklers for precedent. If she doesn’t do the right thing and recuse herself, of course the prosecution is going to file. To not do so would be a dereliction of duty. She’s already proven herself to be biased and reversed.

I'm not so sure. Recusal at the request of any of the litigants is comparatively rare. Its almost always done by the judge themselves.

And anyone willing to flagrantly violate judicial standards as Cannon did, rewrite the rules in favor of Trump, radically reordering caselaw, and violate bedrock principles of the separation of powers so severely that she was tossed off the case....

.....is most likely not going to recuse herself.

I think she's the judge on this one.

 

[konradv]

I'm not so sure. Recusal at the request of any of the litigants is comparatively rare. Its almost always done by the judge themselves.

And anyone willing to flagrantly violate judicial standards as Cannon did, rewrite the rules in favor of Trump, radically reordering caselaw, and violate bedrock principles of the separation of powers so severely that she was tossed off the case....

.....is most likely not going to recuse herself.

I think she's the judge on this one.

It’s rare only because most judges would have the integrity to recuse themselves in a situation like this.

 

[SavannahMann]

DNyuz - Latest Breaking U.S. News

Latest Breaking News, U.S. and World Politics, Crime, Business, Science, Technology, Autos, Entertainment, Culture, Movie, Music, Sports.

dnyuz.com

The left will now cry and weep and moan and groan that this judge shouldn’t be permitted to keep the case.



Oh no. A judge who might just take the job of reviewing a motion to dismiss an indictment on various legal grounds … seriously. How unfair.

Well speaking for myself, I think it should always be taken seriously. However if you think that is that, you are mistaken.

This is the Judge who granted Trump’s motion to appoint a Special Master. Before that decision was overturned. Trump was complaining about his victory in that motion.

The truth is that there are very few Precedent Setting decisions a Judge can make. Most things have been decided long before. Let’s take your implication that it would be fair to dismiss the charges.

Every decision a Judge makes is subject to review. We call it the appeal process. If the Judge grants the Dismissal and it is appealed. If the decision is not based in precedent, similar dismissals in history, or based upon either argument or sanctions. Then the appeals courts overturn the decision.

I’m sure you have seen videos of Judges getting angry and slapping down a lawyer on the Net. Or of Judges shouting at lawyers who have a witness lying. All that happens. And in those cases the decision of the Judge is based upon evidence.

Right now the argument for dismissal is that “they did it too” which is the worst possible argument. It is the idiotic claim made by someone who is caught speeding. Why didn’t you pull over those cars? They did it too.

For that actually admits you did it. You are guilty of speeding. Or in this case knowingly withholding documents you were not supposed to have. If the Judge bases the dismissal on that it is going to be overturned.

If Trump can show the Prosecution is withholding evidence. Exculpatory evidence. Or lying as in the Bundy case. Then a dismissal is appropriate.

The problem for Trump is that the evidence standards for an Espionage Act case are actually very strict for the Defense. They go back to the trial regarding the Pentagon Papers case. Ellsworth was charged in the theft of the papers. He was denied most of his motions regarding arguments on why he stole the papers. The case was dismissed when it was discovered the FBI had broken into several locations without a warrant searching for the documents.

So the motion for dismissal should be seriously considered. However granting that motion must be based in fact and the legal precedents that already exist.

 

[Skylar]

Well speaking for myself, I think it should always be taken seriously. However if you think that is that, you are mistaken.

This is the Judge who granted Trump’s motion to appoint a Special Master. Before that decision was overturned. Trump was complaining about his victory in that motion.

The truth is that there are very few Precedent Setting decisions a Judge can make. Most things have been decided long before. Let’s take your implication that it would be fair to dismiss the charges.

Every decision a Judge makes is subject to review. We call it the appeal process. If the Judge grants the Dismissal and it is appealed. If the decision is not based in precedent, similar dismissals in history, or based upon either argument or sanctions. Then the appeals courts overturn the decision.

I’m sure you have seen videos of Judges getting angry and slapping down a lawyer on the Net. Or of Judges shouting at lawyers who have a witness lying. All that happens. And in those cases the decision of the Judge is based upon evidence.

Right now the argument for dismissal is that “they did it too” which is the worst possible argument. It is the idiotic claim made by someone who is caught speeding. Why didn’t you pull over those cars? They did it too.

For that actually admits you did it. You are guilty of speeding. Or in this case knowingly withholding documents you were not supposed to have. If the Judge bases the dismissal on that it is going to be overturned.

If Trump can show the Prosecution is withholding evidence. Exculpatory evidence. Or lying as in the Bundy case. Then a dismissal is appropriate.

The problem for Trump is that the evidence standards for an Espionage Act case are actually very strict for the Defense. They go back to the trial regarding the Pentagon Papers case. Ellsworth was charged in the theft of the papers. He was denied most of his motions regarding arguments on why he stole the papers. The case was dismissed when it was discovered the FBI had broken into several locations without a warrant searching for the documents.

So the motion for dismissal should be seriously considered. However granting that motion must be based in fact and the legal precedents that already exist.

I think you're underestimating how thoroughly a trial judge can throw a trial.

Cannon could grand motions from the defense to throw out key evidence.

Should could dismiss charges.

She could allow utterly unsuppported allegations to stand without challenge or demands for evidence as she did with Trump's claim that documents were planted in Mar-a-lago.

She could apply requirements and restraints upon the prosecution that rewrite the rules and flagrantly violate bedrock principles of the separation of powers, as she did in the Mar-a-lago case.

She could rule witnesses are prejudicial

She could rule that the laws cited by the prosecution don't apply

She could give instruction to the jury that is wildly biased and radically reorder caselaw.

The defense can appeal a conviction. The prosecution cannot appeal an acquittal. No matter how egregious the violations of judicial standards by the judge.

 

[Nuthin' Fancy]

lol you know squat; just now discovering Smedley, are you?

No, you fucking moron.

Did Che Lives run an article on him this week or something?

Figures, a teabagger would insinuate a Marine for 34 years was actually a communist.

 

[SavannahMann]

I think you're underestimating how thoroughly a trial judge can throw a trial.

Cannon could grand motions from the defense to throw out key evidence.

Should could dismiss charges.

She could allow utterly unsuppported allegations to stand without challenge or demands for evidence as she did with Trump's claim that documents were planted in Mar-a-lago.

She could apply requirements and restraints upon the prosecution that are rewrite the rules and flagrantly violate bedrock principles of the separation of powers, as she did in the Mar-a-lago case.

She could rule witnesses are prejudicial

She could rule that the laws cited by the prosecution don't apply

She could give instruction to the jury that is wildly biased and radically reorder caselaw.

The defense can appeal a conviction. The prosecution cannot appeal an acquittal. No matter how egregious the violations of judicial standards by the judge.

For there to be an acquittal it isn’t just a dismissal. The defendant has to be found not guilty. That would be a bench verdict. And pretty much all of her statements and decisions were overturned. As the Special Master was.