Jack Smith's cases in jeopardy because he was NOT legally appointed. (Poll)

[Rambunctious]

Provide your evidence, Troll.

His evidence....

 

[Marener]

Her action was perfectly appropriate.

The fact that it was overruled by a higher court doesn’t change that fact. They were wrong.

The higher court did a thorough job explaining how incredibly wrong she was.

You’re nothing but a hack like her.

 

[Nostra]

Eileen Cannon delayed the trial by months with her inappropriate attempt to appoint a special master to help her boss.

Cry more.

 

[BackAgain]

The higher court did a thorough job explaining how incredibly wrong she was.

You’re nothing but a hack like her.

Yes. They did explain their ruling. It’s kind of required.

That doesn’t mean you need to buy it.

Of course, you’re a hack and extremely gullible, so analysis is beyond your skill set.

 

[Marener]

Yes. They did explain their ruling. It’s kind of required.

That doesn’t mean you need to buy it.

Of course, you’re a hack and extremely gullible, so analysis is beyond your skill set.

Sure dude. Sure. Rookie Cannon is smarter than the unanimous ruling from a three judge appellate panel.

Because you say so.

 

[BackAgain]

Sure dude. Sure. Rookie Cannon is smarter than the unanimous ruling from a three judge appellate panel.

Because you say so.

You’re a light weight.

Here’s a fun fact which could educate even a moron like you if you had any ability to contemplate:

Even a young judge can be right and even experienced older judges on a higher court can be wrong.

Now, go play in some sandbox.

 

[Marener]

You’re a light weight.

Here’s a fun fact which could educate even a moron like you if you had any ability to contemplate:

Even a young judge can be right and even experienced older judges on a higher court can be wrong.

Now, go play in some sandbox.

Sure dude. Sure.

Because you say so.

 

[BackAgain]

Sure dude. Sure.

Because you say so.

Denying reality (as you do) doesn’t change it.

Get back to your sandbox

 

[Marener]

Denying reality (as you do) doesn’t change it.

Get back to your sandbox

This isn’t reality. Is just your fringe uninformed and unsupported opinion.

Stop wasting everyone’s time.

 

[BackAgain]

This isn’t reality. Is just your fringe uninformed and unsupported opinion.

Stop wasting everyone’s time.

No it is reality.

Now, get back in your sandbox.

 

[kyzr]

The voters have rights and his artificial and pointless delays are depriving us of essential information for the election.

What rights do voters have? How about a "right" to know that Hunter's laptop was real and not "Russian Disinformation".

We needed to know about Biden's crimes before the 2020 election, but the "deep state" lied to voters about it, so don't try to play the "injured party" card.

 

[Clipper]

Nah,, that didn't back up you lies, Troll.

Was the SC in the Hunter & Joe Biden investigations appointed legally, Sparky? Or are those cases different, because they just are, Bugsy?

 

[Marener]

What rights do voters have? How about a "right" to know that Hunter's laptop was real and not "Russian Disinformation".

We needed to know about Biden's crimes before the 2020 election, but the "deep state" lied to voters about it, so don't try to play the "injured party" card.

Not sure what you’re blabbering about the “deep state” who did nothing of the sort in 2020.

All we see are Trump’s judges bending the law and the process to protect him by keeping the facts away from the voters. They’re protecting Trump and harming the country.

You really think the voters don’t deserve to know the truth about Trump?

 

[kyzr]

Not sure what you’re blabbering about the “deep state” who did nothing of the sort in 2020.

All we see are Trump’s judges bending the law and the process to protect him by keeping the facts away from the voters. They’re protecting Trump and harming the country. You really think the voters don’t deserve to know the truth about Trump?

1. like you never heard of this story before?! Lie to voters, it wins, with help from the "deep state".

Hunter Biden story is Russian disinfo, dozens of former intel officials say

More than 50 former intelligence officials signed a letter casting doubt on the provenance of a New York Post story on the former vice president's son.

www.politico.com

Hunter Biden story is Russian disinfo, dozens of former intel officials say​

2. Bending what law? Bending what process? Did they let Trump charges expire, like for Hunter? Did the DOJ write up a sweetheart deal like for Hunter? Did Joe Biden get indicted for having classified documents, or did the DOJ say he was too mentally incompetent to stand trial?

3. Protecting Trump how? By enforcing the LAW equitably? Harming the country how? In your imagination?

4. The voters will learn about the truth about Trump as the legal system allows.

 

[Marener]

1. like you never heard of this story before?! Lie to voters, it wins, with help from the "deep state".

Hunter Biden story is Russian disinfo, dozens of former intel officials say

More than 50 former intelligence officials signed a letter casting doubt on the provenance of a New York Post story on the former vice president's son.

www.politico.com

Hunter Biden story is Russian disinfo, dozens of former intel officials say​

2. Bending what law? Bending what process? Did they let Trump charges expire, like for Hunter? Did the DOJ write up a sweetheart deal like for Hunter? Did Joe Biden get indicted for having classified documents, or did the DOJ say he was too mentally incompetent to stand trial?

3. Protecting Trump how? By enforcing the LAW equitably? Harming the country how? In your imagination?

4. The voters will learn about the truth about Trump as the legal system allows.

1. Those are private citizens expressing their opinions. It has nothing to do with the government.

2. The artificial delays in Trump’s trials to take months to entertain frivolous motions and grant him relief he’s not entitled to (like the special master).

3. No one is “protecting the law equally” by delaying his trial to entertain the nutty idea of presidential immunity.

4. Trump’s judges are helping prevent the voters from knowing the damning truth.

 

[kyzr]

1. Those are private citizens expressing their opinions. It has nothing to do with the government.
2. The artificial delays in Trump’s trials to take months to entertain frivolous motions and grant him relief he’s not entitled to (like the special master).
3. No one is “protecting the law equally” by delaying his trial to entertain the nutty idea of presidential immunity.
4. Trump’s judges are helping prevent the voters from knowing the damning truth.

1. Private citizens that were "national security experts, like the head of the CIA", and coordinated a "big lie" to mislead voters, magnified by the MSM. So you support lying to voters, i.e. "preventing the voters from knowing the damn truth?"

2. Presidential Immunity is hardly "frivolous". An illegal prosecutor is hardly frivolous. Constitutional protections are not frivolous.

3. Trying to protect an 81 year old who is obviously too old to be president is "FRIVOLOUS". Good luck with that.

 

[Marener]

1. Private citizens that were "national security experts, like the head of the CIA", and coordinated a "big lie" to mislead voters, magnified by the MSM. So you support lying to voters, i.e. "preventing the voters from knowing the damn truth?"

2. Presidential Immunity is hardly "frivolous". An illegal prosecutor is hardly frivolous. Constitutional protections are not frivolous.

3. Trying to protect an 81 year old who is obviously too old to be president is "FRIVOLOUS". Good luck with that.

1. You’re the liar, because if you read their letter you’d know that they expressed it was their suspicion based on available information. Still has nothing to do with the government. That would be more like when Trump’s DNI lied to voters about election interference for political reasons.

Trump Administration Politicized Some Intelligence on Foreign Election Influence, Report Finds (Published 2021)

A report to lawmakers from a watchdog in the Office of the Director of National Intelligence criticizes how threat intelligence was analyzed and presented.

www.nytimes.com

2. The constitution has no mention of presidential immunity.

3. The only one being protected is Trump. You don’t care because like Trump, you really don’t want the facts to be “allowed”.

 

[kyzr]

1. You’re the liar, because if you read their letter you’d know that they expressed it was their suspicion based on available information. Still has nothing to do with the government. That would be more like when Trump’s DNI lied to voters about election interference for political reasons.
2. The constitution has no mention of presidential immunity.
3. The only one being protected is Trump. You don’t care because like Trump, you really don’t want the facts to be “allowed”.

1. The 51 National Security Experts blunted the explosive crimes in Hunter's laptop as "Russian Disinformation". The MSM spread the lie to fool voters into voting for Biden. The DOJ & FBI ignored the crimes proven in the laptop.

2. The USSC will tell us what the Constitution says.

https://constitution.findlaw.com/article2/article-ii--presidential-immunity-to-criminal-and-civil-suits.html

3. Just because you want more Kangaroo Courts to hang Trump doesn't mean that the courts can ignore Trump's Constitutional rights.

 

[Marener]

1. The 51 National Security Experts blunted the explosive crimes in Hunter's laptop as "Russian Disinformation". The MSM spread the lie to fool voters into voting for Biden. The DOJ & FBI ignored the crimes proven in the laptop.

2. The USSC will tell us what the Constitution says.

https://constitution.findlaw.com/article2/article-ii--presidential-immunity-to-criminal-and-civil-suits.html

3. Just because you want more Kangaroo Courts to hang Trump doesn't mean that the courts can ignore Trump's Constitutional rights.

1. Not part of the state so your attempt to deflect and distract falls apart.

2. Why? Can’t read it yourself? If they invent a new doctrine of presidential immunity with no basis in the constitution, they are the kangaroo court.

3. I want to hear both sides. Let the American people decide.

 

[kyzr]

1. Not part of the state so your attempt to deflect and distract falls apart.
2. Why? Can’t read it yourself? If they invent a new doctrine of presidential immunity with no basis in the constitution, they are the kangaroo court.
3. I want to hear both sides. Let the American people decide.

1. What part of 51 NATIONAL SECURITY EXPERTS escapes you? Their credentials are that they have security clearances, duh.

2. You didn't read the article.

3. True. We never hear both sides. The DOJ & MSM always protects the democrats.