Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Smith is prosecuting Trump for his personal actions as opposed to his official presidential actions. He has complete authority to do so. There is nothing unconstitutional about his charges or the prosecution of the case. If, as you claim, he didn't have legal authority to continue the case the courts not only wouldn't but couldn't schedule hearings and hear the case. Your conspiracy theory crap doesn't supersede the actions of the court.
Nah. I just need fair judges who grasp the law and apply it.You better pray that Trump's lawyers are better than you, haha
Wrong, obviously. That was literally the United point of the superseding indictment.
To wit: Showing Trump's illegal actions were not performed in any official capacity.
There’s only 2 ways a special counsel can be appointed. By the president through advice and consent of the senate, or by Congress, through law.The previous DC ruling forces Judge Chutkin to keep Jack Smith because the DC Circuit ruled the AG can appoint special prosecutors under the law/Constitution....so Chutkin has precedent that she has to follow.
The Cannon (wrong) decision is still on appeal....and likely will be over turned and she will once again be reprimanded for it by the higher court imo.
That's gonna take some splainin. How can he access the court without authority to access the court? Even if a crazy judge made up his own rules to allow it (that is as stupid as it sounds) the legitimate authorities would step in and stop it.He has been.
Like, the 100% of other judges that ruled in contradiction to Cannons ruling?Nah. I just need fair judges who grasp the law and apply it.
He was not legally authorized to prosecute trump for actions taken as president. That's why the Supremes refused to hear his case. He has perfect authority to prosecute him for actions taken as an individual.The superseding indictment is irrelevant, is smith acting as a federal special prosecutor and as special counsel in the case against Trump? Yes, he is, but he was not legally appointed. That’s where this is going n
No, I do assert that what she is doing is wrong, and against the rules…illegal? I can’t say, i don’t know if it borders on legality or bad practice.So you do not assert that what she is doing is wrong, against the rules, and maybe even illegal.
Huh, I must have just been imagining things.
Apologies.
You’re very slow.That's gonna take some splainin. How can he access the court without authority to access the court? Even if a crazy judge made up his own rules to allow it (that is as stupid as it sounds) the legitimate authorities would step in and stop it.
Of course it is a federal case. Federal cases are prosecuted every day. Do you think every federal prosecutor has to go through the advice and consent process? Of course they don't.The claim is that merrick garland didn’t have the authority to appoint smith as a federal prosecutor because he never went through the advice and consent process. It doesn’t matter if this was a presidential or personal issue for Trump, what matters is, was smith legally appointed as a federal prosecutor as a special counsel to do this case.
This is a federal case.
Okay.No, I do assert that what she is doing is wrong, and against the rules…illegal? I can’t say, i don’t know if it borders on legality or bad practice.
No, I do assert that what she is doing is wrong, and against the rules…illegal? I can’t say, i don’t know if it borders on legality or bad practice.
You can see the posts between bulldog and myself for information on why in think it’s wrong. Because I don’t think she is allowed, or at lease ethically able to release evidence of a case to the public before the trial
I do, however, think all of this was her trying to influence voters, because, as I asked you previously, and you refused to answer, but I can’t think of any other reason for her to make this release, other than she wanted to get this information out before the election, and I feel that is wrong, and if found to be election interference, could border on illegal.
You truly don’t understand the SCOTUS decision.He was not legally authorized to prosecute trump for actions taken as president. That's why the Supremes refused to hear his case. He has perfect authority to prosecute him for actions taken as an individual.
You’re very shallow.Like, the 100% of other judges that ruled in contradiction to Cannons ruling?
No?
Odd. So how do you decide which is which, while knowing much less about the law than any of them?
Not mine. The comprehension of 100% of the judges that ruled the other way.You’re very shallow.
Like the depth of your comprehension of how the law works.
I’m not up against anyone.Not mine. The comprehension of 100% of the judges that ruled the other way.
You're up against them, not me.
The actual evidence wasn't released...what he says he has as evidence is being discussed to support his view of why this case does not fall under presidential duties under the constitution.... and is personal, candidacy stuff.
And then Trump's team will argue against Smith's claims and say the whole case should be dismissed, it was all presidential duties.
Then the judge will decide, based on the Supreme court immunity ruling, whether the criminal actions alleged are personal and can go to trial or can not, because they fell under presidential duties.
This stuff going on in the courts NOW is due to the SC immunity ruling.
Most of this stuff was already in the original indictment...it is not new.
www.forbes.com
The actual evidence wasn't released...what he says he has as evidence is being discussed to support his view of why this case does not fall under presidential duties under the constitution.... and is personal, candidacy stuff.
And then Trump's team will argue against Smith's claims and say the whole case should be dismissed, it was all presidential duties.
Then the judge will decide, based on the Supreme court immunity ruling, whether the criminal actions alleged are personal and can go to trial or can not, because they fell under presidential duties.
This stuff going on in the courts NOW is due to the SC immunity ruling.
Most of this stuff was already in the original indictment...it is not new.
So he's allowed to continue making void accusations and having void rulings? You know that's crazy, right?You’re very slow.
It has belatedly been noted by a judge that his appointment was invalid.
In fact, it’s even worse than that. I’d explain why to you, but you’d never understand any of it.
For now it suffices to say that when an action is undertaken by an alleged official who doesn’t have actual authority, it is known as “void” ab initio. This, every action he took is already invalid. That includes going to a grand jury to seek any indictment. He got a few. But none of them are valid.
Watch. Learn. If you can.
Hmm, yeah, ya kind of are. As is the Honorable Aileen Cannon. Her opinion, and your parroting of it, are up against 100% of the precedent, right now, in an appeals court.I’m not up against anyone.
Of course he did – evidence that Trump is a criminal, evidence that Trump is an enemy of democracy, and evidence that Trump is unfit to be president.Trump had attempted to keep any further evidence against him in his criminal case out of the view of voters until after the Nov. 5 election.
