Is this the worst time in history to be a Democrat?

[Marener]

You keep saying that but the facts show you are wrong

When the senate voted, did the resolution have Cox’s name on it?

 

[struth]

When the senate voted, did the resolution have Cox’s name on it?

What resolution?

 

[Marener]

What resolution?

The resolution that the Senate votes on to confirm someone.

Did it say Archibald Cox on it?

 

[struth]

The resolution that the Senate votes on to confirm someone.

Did it say Archibald Cox on it?

Not sure, and not sure it had to since Richardson made it a condition of his appointment, to appoint him special counsel, and the US Senate had a chance to meet him through the confirmation hearings.

Nixon fired him, so it was moot really.

 

[Marener]

Not sure, and not sure it had to since Richardson made it a condition of his appointment, to appoint him special counsel, and the US Senate had a chance to meet him through the confirmation hearings.

Nixon fired him, so it was moot really.

If he was appointed by Richardson, he wasn’t confirmed by the senate.

Give it up, this is idiotic.

 

[struth]

If he was appointed by Richardson, he wasn’t confirmed by the senate.

Give it up, this is idiotic.

He was appointed by Richardson, which was a condition of Richardson's confirmation by the Senate, and why he was in fact at the confirmation hearings

 

[Marener]

He was appointed by Richardson, which was a condition of Richardson's confirmation by the Senate, and why he was in fact at the confirmation hearings

Which means Cox wasn’t confirmed by the Senate.

 

[struth]

Which means Cox wasn’t confirmed by the Senate.

no, it literally means he was. Cox came to the confirmation hearings, was asked questions.....what part of that don't you understand?

Jack never did

 

[Marener]

no, it literally means he was. Cox came to the confirmation hearings, was asked questions.....what part of that don't you understand?

Jack never did

The party where you think Cox was confirmed BEFORE he was nominated. That makes absolutely no sense.

Richardson was confirmed. Cox wasn’t.

 

[struth]

The party where you think Cox was confirmed BEFORE he was nominated. That makes absolutely no sense.

Richardson was confirmed. Cox wasn’t.

what party are you talking about? Richardson annoucned Cox nomination prior to him even being confirmed, hence why Cox was at the confirmation hearing

 

[berg80]

no, it literally means he was. Cox came to the confirmation hearings, was asked questions.....what part of that don't you understand?

Jack never did

No, it literally means he wasn't. If a vote was not taken to confirm Cox, and it wasn't, then he was not confirmed by the Senate.

What surprised you most about the decision?

One very surprising thing is how Cannon deals with the Supreme Court precedent in United States v. Nixon. There’s a sentence in that 9-0 opinion which resolves this issue entirely. The sentence says that Archibald Cox, who was one of the prosecutors of Nixon, was appropriately appointed pursuant to the statute. And you would have thought that would have ended this inquiry. Cannon does something I think I’ve never seen a district judge do before, which is that she looks into the history of the Nixon case, decides the issue wasn’t particularly briefed, and as a result determines that a sentence in a Supreme Court opinion that was decided 9-0 was, in fact, “dicta,” which means that it is not binding in subsequent cases as legal precedent. And as a result, she as a district judge was entitled to disregard it. I’ve never seen a district court conclude that a portion of a Supreme Court opinion is not binding; that was a first for me.

What the judge was thinking and what’s next in Trump documents case — Harvard Gazette

Obama-era White House counsel says key point in Nixon decision should have ended inquiry

news.harvard.edu

 

[Marener]

what party are you talking about? Richardson annoucned Cox nomination prior to him even being confirmed, hence why Cox was at the confirmation hearing

Richardson couldn’t appoint or nominate anyone until after he was confirmed.

 

[struth]

No, it literally means he wasn't. If a vote was not taken to confirm Cox, and it wasn't, then he was not confirmed by the Senate.

What surprised you most about the decision?

One very surprising thing is how Cannon deals with the Supreme Court precedent in United States v. Nixon. There’s a sentence in that 9-0 opinion which resolves this issue entirely. The sentence says that Archibald Cox, who was one of the prosecutors of Nixon, was appropriately appointed pursuant to the statute. And you would have thought that would have ended this inquiry. Cannon does something I think I’ve never seen a district judge do before, which is that she looks into the history of the Nixon case, decides the issue wasn’t particularly briefed, and as a result determines that a sentence in a Supreme Court opinion that was decided 9-0 was, in fact, “dicta,” which means that it is not binding in subsequent cases as legal precedent. And as a result, she as a district judge was entitled to disregard it. I’ve never seen a district court conclude that a portion of a Supreme Court opinion is not binding; that was a first for me.

What the judge was thinking and what’s next in Trump documents case — Harvard Gazette

Obama-era White House counsel says key point in Nixon decision should have ended inquiry

news.harvard.edu

The problem with Jack's appointment is that it violated the US Constitution, not some Federal Stat

 

[struth]

Richardson couldn’t appoint or nominate anyone until after he was confirmed.

Hence why he announced it prior to his appointment, and why Congress wanted Cox there at the confirmation hearing, and made it a condition of his appointment,

 

[Marener]

Hence why he announced it prior to his appointment, and why Congress wanted Cox there at the confirmation hearing, and made it a condition of his appointment,

Announcing he would do something in the future is not the same as actually doing it.

So the point remains that Cox wasn’t appointed until after Richardson was confirmed.

Did you ever find the Senate resolution?

 

[Skylar]

The Democrat party, the most racist organization in the history of the United States, is in utter collapse.

For only the second time in our 250+ year history, we're on the verge of a president resigning the office.

It's very likely high-ranking members of the party colluded in an effort to murder their chief opposition.

It's certain the party engaged in lawfare to imprison their chief opposition.

Polling has never been worse.

The party's current leader has one of the lowest approval ratings of any president in history.

The party's second in command has THE worst approval rating of any VP in history.

Once-guaranteed voting blocks are abandoning the party en masse.

Two-thirds of the party believes their current leader is too old and infirm to remain employed.

It's very likely the current winner of the primaries is going to abandon the race, leading to an unprecedented attack on our democracy, wherein party elites rather than voters will nominate the candidate.

Total disaster, and they deserve every bit of it.

And by 'verge of resigning' you mean y'all are demanding it. But there's zero evidence it will ever actually happen.

And remember, the only time a president has ACTUALLY resigned was a republican.

With Biden having abandoned his re-election bid, and support crystalizing behind VP Harris, you've got a young, vibrant candidate against one of the oldest men to ever run for the presidency.

A candidate who is fumbling words, rambling incoherently, and drifting off in the middle of sentences and generally demonstrating every one of his 78 years.

 

[Frankenstein]

Everyone running for office says they’re going to win.

They care about beating Trump. We all do.

I pick who I vote for, that occurs in November.

Yes, all Marxist no nothing about anything wants Trump to lose.
You will vote for who the left has told you you will vote for, you are a slave to your misguided hate

 

[Marener]

Yes, all Marxist no nothing about anything wants Trump to lose.
You will vote for who the left has told you you will vote for, you are a slave to your misguided hate

If the left manages to nominate someone worse than Trump, I’ll probably abstain from voting.

But it’ll be incredibly difficult to do so.

There’s nothing misguided about wanting to keep a wanna be fascist like Trump out of the most important office in the country.

 

[Frankenstein]

If the left manages to nominate someone worse than Trump, I’ll probably abstain from voting.

But it’ll be incredibly difficult to do so.

There’s nothing misguided about wanting to keep a wanna be fascist like Trump out of the most important office in the country.

You are projecting the Democrat policies onto Trump! Fascists are the ones who will not allow you to pick your candidate, they will tell you who to vote for!

 

[struth]

Announcing he would do something in the future is not the same as actually doing it.

So the point remains that Cox wasn’t appointed until after Richardson was confirmed.

Did you ever find the Senate resolution?

He had confirmation hearing