'Without Merit' Judge Shuts Down Trump's Latest Trial Requent.

[BULLDOG]

You truly don’t understand the SCOTUS decision.

Your display of ongoing ignorance is quite funny.

And we're back to how he is able to continue the case without authority to do so. It doesn't work like that.

 

[ThisIsMe]

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.

He was never legally appointed to act as special counsel. It doesn’t matter if Trump was acting as a private individual or president, the issue is with smith himself. He can’t act on behalf of the federal government if he was never legally appointed to the office of special counsel.

If smith was acting as any normal prosecuting attorney on behalf of a civilian client, then it would be different, but he’s acting as a federal special counsel working on behalf of the government, that’s where it goes afoul.

 

[BackAgain]

So he's allowed to continue making void accusations and having void rulings? You know that's crazy, right?

No. He’s not. You idiot.

The point a moron like you can’t grasp is that when her ruling gets affirmed (ultimately) on any appeal, all of his alleged official acts get negated.

You’re very slow and woefully ignorant, but you’re also willfully lacking in insight.

 

[The Irish Ram]

Haha, trumpanzee lies are the silliest and most transparent lies.

You guys have been bleeding from your wherevers since the day the orange rapist lost the election.

Was Joe being brain-dead worrisome? Hell yeah. Obama was right. Nobody can f things up better than Biden, and you voted for him anyway.

 

[Leo123]

34 felony counts of falsified business records. With multiple pending trials

34 sliced and diced fake felony counts that were magically elevated to felonies when a few were just misdemeanors if any crime at all. It's nothing but political lawfare. The prosecutors are biased as well as the judges chosen. This is just like Russia where one can be charged with anything if Putin wants it. Here, anyone can be charged with anything if the Democrats decide to. They control our legal system and all of our legacy media. They are tyrannical.

 

[BackAgain]

Hmm, yeah, ya kind of are.

No. Not kind of. Not at all. You're just wrong. As always.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

No. Not kind of. Not at all. You're just wrong. As always.

And here is why you are:

Her opinion, and your parroting of it, are up against 100% of the precedent, right now, in an appeals court

 

[BackAgain]

And we're back to how he is able to continue the case without authority to do so. It doesn't work like that.

You remain ignorant and wrong.

An act taken by some alleged official which is lacking in Constitutional validity is void. When that gets resolved, you dimwit, all such acts are simply nullified.

I know I can’t make you keep up.
But, that’s ok. Your massive ignorance doesn’t control anything.

 

[ThisIsMe]

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.

If they are appointed as special counsel, yes, they have to go through advice and consent.

Also, smith was a private citizen when garland appointed him, so, as far as I’m aware, he can’t take up federal cases…as a civilian attorney

 

[BackAgain]

And here is why you are:

Nope.

You won’t understand this cite, either.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/18/18-6774/72644/20181119183056358_Thompson.cert.pdf

Nor will you comprehend any part of this link:

Remand Without Vacatur and the Ab Initio Invalidity of Unlawful...

www.law.virginia.edu

And this one will mystify you:

Once A Law Is Declared Unconstitutional, It Becomes Inoperative From Its Inception; Void Ab Initio : Supreme Court

A constitution bench of the Supreme Court has reiterated that a declaration as to such unconstitutionality will relate back to the time of the law's enactment.

www.livelaw.in

 

[ThisIsMe]

Okay.

Easier to say than it is to argue as true, with examples or code of law.

As Trump's legal team just found out.

What would the code of law have to do with it my thoughts on why she released them. I even said I don’t know if it breaks any laws, though I do wonder if if there are laws about releasing case evidence and information to the public before the trial, as well as violating any due process rights trump has (she’s basically letting Trump be tried by court of public opinion, which I wonder if there are any violations of rights happening there)

 

[The Irish Ram]

Trump is a convicted criminal

It's called lawfare. And the world knows why they are pulled the bullshit. And we also know, it didn't work.

 

[IM2]

More than one. The lawfare has backfired.

The only lawfare has been done to Biden.

 

[BackAgain]

If they are appointed as special counsel, yes, they have to go through advice and consent.

If the AG truly delegated his authority to a special persecutor, then yes, Special persecutor Smith would need the advice and consent of the Senate.

But if there was never a need for such advice and consent, then it can only be because the actions of the special persecutor were always under the purview of the AG. But that would mean that Smith was never actually independent of the AG or the President.

Potato and Meritless Garland cannot have it both ways.

 

[BackAgain]

The only lawfare has been done to Biden.

None has been done to Biden. Ever.

IQ2 just makes shit up.

 

[struth]

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.

No, there is no ruling that Jack smith is legally appointed

You lie

 

[excalibur]

No it isn't, traitor.

Grow up.