Judge Aileen Cannon

[Rawley]

150 years of Special Counsels. No problem.

Look at Trump for crimes SPECIAL COUNSELS are UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!!

WW


View attachment 967310

United States Department of Justice Office of Special Counsel - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

You seem butthurt

 

[WorldWatcher]

Yeah for the purpose of that order, and she highlights that was contested when she wrote that order

She has since ruled on the issue and ruled he was in fact a principal officer

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.648653/gov.uscourts.flsd.648653.673.0.pdf

And the notice of appeal has already been filed letting her know that the country will see what the 11th Circuit has to say on the matter. The 11th Circuit of course already having overturned her on rulings in the case - twice.

Will this be the third?

Will three strikes means she's off the case?

WW

 

[struth]

150 years of Special Counsels. No problem.

Look at Trump for crimes SPECIAL COUNSELS are UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!!

WW


View attachment 967310

United States Department of Justice Office of Special Counsel - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Maybe they all weren’t illegally appointed like Jack

 

[struth]

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.648653/gov.uscourts.flsd.648653.673.0.pdf

And the notice of appeal has already been filed letting her know that the country will see what the 11th Circuit has to say on the matter. The 11th Circuit of course already having overturned her on rulings in the case - twice.

Will this be the third?

Will three strikes means she's off the case?

WW

I don’t know, and I am sure if it is the scotus will have a say. The 11th has a reversal rate of 66.7 since 2007.

 

[lantern2814]

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.648653/gov.uscourts.flsd.648653.673.0.pdf

And the notice of appeal has already been filed letting her know that the country will see what the 11th Circuit has to say on the matter. The 11th Circuit of course already having overturned her on rulings in the case - twice.

Will this be the third?

Will three strikes means she's off the case?

WW

Won't be overturned. No matter how much you hold about it. Smith is fired. His case is done after ADMITTING the FBI staged the photos anyway. Cry harder.

 

[Faun]

Yeah for the purpose of that order, and she highlights that was contested when she wrote that order

She has since ruled on the issue and ruled he was in fact a principal officer

Quote her ruling stating he was a principal officer...

 

[struth]

Quote her ruling stating he was a principal officer...

That’s what she said in the dismissal order you idiot, when she said he had to be confirmed like every other US Attorney

 

[Faun]

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.648653/gov.uscourts.flsd.648653.673.0.pdf

And the notice of appeal has already been filed letting her know that the country will see what the 11th Circuit has to say on the matter. The 11th Circuit of course already having overturned her on rulings in the case - twice.

Will this be the third?

Will three strikes means she's off the case?

WW

She did it to stall for time. She doesn't care if she gets reversed. She stalled as long as she could. Now she throws this out there knowing even if it gets reversed, it stalls the trial until after the election.

 

[Faun]

That’s what she said in the dismissal order you idiot, when she said he had to be confirmed like every other US Attorney

LOLOL

Thanks for admitting you can't actually quote her saying what you claim she said.

I already knew that. What she actually said was...

"the Court turns to the question whether Special Counsel Smith is a principal officer requiring Presidential nomination and Senatorial consent. On that issue, although there are compelling arguments in favor of a principal-officer designation given the regulatory framework under which he operates, the Court rejects the position based on the available Supreme Court guidance."​

 

[struth]

LOLOL

Thanks for admitting you can't actually quote her saying what you claim she said.

I already knew that. What she actually said was...

"the Court turns to the question whether Special Counsel Smith is a principal officer requiring Presidential nomination and Senatorial consent. On that issue, although there are compelling arguments in favor of a principal-officer designation given the regulatory framework under which he operates, the Court rejects the position based on the available Supreme Court guidance."​

Was that the dismissal order? Link please