How to drive an irrational leftist insane

[konradv]

By who? Name names. And for what, specifically?

By a three judge appellate panel, when she ordered a special master. They reversed her decision and I doubt the prosecutor would consider her impartial.

 

[miketx]

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.

They're already insane.

 

[DudleySmith]

By a three judge appellate panel, when she ordered a special master. They reversed her decision and I doubt the prosecutor would consider her impartial.

And the judges?

 

[DudleySmith]

Prove it.

Why? You avoid being informed, so what would be the point?

 

[Pete7469]

I know it has been said, but leftists begin from irrational. The word "irrational" itself asserts the person being described is likely a leftist.

Just as with terms like "bed wetter", when used to describe an "adult" the assumption should be that the subject is a liberal.

 

[Nuthin' Fancy]

Why? You avoid being informed, so what would be the point?

WTF?
I don't chase rabbitt's or steal their holes.............TROLL.

 

[jknowgood]

They are looking, dumbass.

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

View attachment 794336
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.

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

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

Protesting in front of a Supreme Court justices house is illegal.

 

[Nuthin' Fancy]

Protesting in front of a Supreme Court justices house is illegal.

Well then.............WHY weren't they arrested?
The Chevy Chase police department must be the "DEEP STATE" too.

 

[konradv]

And the judges?

Three Republicans from what I heard. It was all in the news when it happened. Your memory that bad?

 

[DudleySmith]

Three Republicans from what I heard. It was all in the news when it happened. Your memory that bad?

You heard, eh? That's specific.

 

[DudleySmith]

I know it has been said, but leftists begin from irrational. The word "irrational" itself asserts the person being described is likely a leftist.

Just as with terms like "bed wetter", when used to describe an "adult" the assumption should be that the subject is a liberal.View attachment 794351

lol I like the Rittenhouse --- 2.5 Vermin --- 0 thing. they're still crying for 'justice' over their kiddie raping gun thug getting shot by one of its victims.

 

[whitehall]

Driving an irrational leftie insane is an oxymoron isn't it?

 

[Pete7469]

Driving an irrational leftie insane is an oxymoron isn't it?

A double oxymoron I think.

 

[BackAgain]

You clearly haven't read the 11th court's ruling.

I did. Although it’s just political hack crap in some respects, the appellate court was entitled to correct her view of what the law allowed. Again. BFD. She got reversed. Ho hum.

Thanks for your amateur-hour analysis though.

 

[BackAgain]

A double oxymoron I think.

Or maybe a combo of redundancy and oxymoron.

 

[BackAgain]

She’s already been slapped down once in this matter

Nope. She had a ruling reversed. Not the same thing.

and courts are usually sticklers for precedent.

Not really. Maybe they should be. But you clearly don’t grasp how courts actually work in the real world.

If she doesn’t do the right thing and recuse herself, of course the prosecution is going to file.

Yeah yeah. No kidding.

To not do so would be a dereliction of duty.

Nonsense.

She’s already proven herself to be biased and reversed.

False. She showed herself willing to make a ruling. The ruling got reversed. That’s all.

 

[BackAgain]

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.

Zzz. Verbosity doesn’t equal persuasiveness.

She’s a fine judge and shouldn’t recuse herself. The horrifying notion in your weak mind is that she might actually be fair to the defense.

 

[konradv]

Nope. She had a ruling reversed. Not the same thing.

Not really. Maybe they should be. But you clearly don’t grasp how courts actually work in the real world.

Yeah yeah. No kidding.

Nonsense.

False. She showed herself willing to make a ruling. The ruling got reversed. That’s all.

Do you have a legal definition of “slapped down”? Hint: It’s a colloquialism, so your comment is ridiculous!

 

[BackAgain]

Do you have a legal definition of “slapped down”? Hint: It’s a colloquialism, so your comment is ridiculous!

I know it’s colloquial you dimwit. Fuck sake. Even you grasp that.

It is your misuse of the term which is ridiculous. So is assuming with zero intelligent basis that I ever suggested that it requires a “legal definition,” you twerp.

Go forth now and muddle on.

 

[konradv]

I know it’s colloquial you dimwit. Fuck sake. Even you grasp that.

It is your misuse of the term which is ridiculous. So is assuming with zero intelligent basis that I ever suggested that it requires a “legal definition,” you twerp.

Go forth now and muddle on.

If you knew it was colloquial, what was the point of your half-assed message, except to show how clueless you are? If you ask me, you’re the one going irrationally insane!