DescentBB

Trump Document case tossed as special council Jack Smith appointment ruled unconstitutional .
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2024 ... itutional/
Sorry Trump haters.

We shall see. The 11th Circuit Court may have a say in that if Prosecutor Jack Smith appeals. Judge Cannon has been showing favoritism towards Trump ever since she got the case, so she threw aside her judicial professionalism and gave Trump preferential treatment. She's practically bent over backwards to hinder the whole trail and today she felt sorry for poor little Trumpkins for almost getting his head blown off and just unilaterally ruled against historical DOJ practice for keeping our presidents within the law.

So if this stands, Presidents are free to take whatever classified documents they desire home with them and even show those documents to anyone they please, including foreign adversaries, which Trump potentially did. How does this benefit the security of our country? Where is the Republican's sense of protecting our nation over the whims of a president who puts personal gain over national security? What if a Dem president does the same thing? Republicans have cheered the use of Special Counsels in the past, Clinton comes to mind. You OK with that woody? This is just one more Republican action towards making their favored jackass president king for life since they can't seem to win at the ballot box as the Founding Fathers intended.

And yet this same method of appointing a special council was okay when it came to Hunter Biden's conviction...

TC, POTUS has always had the right to de-classify documents and take them...as far as I know.

Read the memo. HE DID NOT OFFICIALLY DECLASSIFY ANYTHING! NADA, BUPKISS, ZIPPO! Waving his tiny hands in the air saying that he did was NOT following procedure, period. There is no record of any official declassifacation at all. Which means what he did was "unofficial" and outside the powers of the president. So he ★■◆●ing broke the law and put our national security at risk and a suckup judge just let him off. And conservatives wonder why people not in your circle of nutbags are pissed off.

And Biden didn't do that? But since he is elderly with dementia, Hir decided he wouldn't charge him.

Make Assassins Great Again

Probably a good thing if it gets the case away from that Trump-fellating hack Cannon.

woodchip wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2024 10:04 am And Biden didn't do that? But since he is elderly with dementia, Hir decided he wouldn't charge him.

Yes, they both screwed up and why Biden wasn't caught after he left office is unknown. But the big difference between Biden and Trump is that Biden let the FBI willingly into his home and offices to search and retrieve the documents. He didn't impede returning them to the government one bit and has not been charged. However, Trumpkins fought returning those docs back to the Archives tooth and nail and even claimed he owned them like some petulant child. He even told his attorneys and employees to lie about everything, which impeded their retrieval. So much so that the FBI finally had to obtain a ★■◆●ing SEARCH WARRANT just to retrieve them. I mean, the bastard hoarded docs in all sorts of places, even in a gold plated bathroom in front of the bathtub! Did he sit there and peruse those docs while taking a crap? Unless the 11th Circuit Court reprimands this ★■◆● judge who violated her oath of office to be impartial, we'll never know.

BTW, there's STILL classified docs from Trump's term that are unaccounted for. Where the ★■◆● are they hmmmm? Putin's hot little hands? He IS Trump's favorite strongman.

It's not over for Trump yet. However, it may be after the election that things get resolved. If Trump becomes president though, he can unilaterally decide to abolish the law as an official act, although he'd be torn since it would mean he could no longer rely on for his own suckup AG to appoint people to prosecute his political enemies.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/suprem ... rcna161975

At issue is whether Attorney General Merrick Garland had authority to appoint Smith to the post of special counsel so he could investigate Trump. Senior Justice Department officials and U.S. attorneys are all appointed by the president and subject to Senate confirmation.

Seligman said one of the statutes Garland cited is “crystal clear." It says the attorney general can appoint officials “to detect and prosecute crimes against the United States.”

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/533

The president can't abolish a law as an official act, that's not how immunity works...

At most they could "break" the law, but I have my doubts about even that.

So the question is, a law followed for decades by many different AG's and used to prosecute several presidents, including Bill Clinton, is NOW deemed unconstitutional by a federal judge? A judge who's already been admonished for her procedures in the courtroom? Why now? Why not question it back during the Nixon or Clinton episodes? One answer. Trump breaking long standing tradition to benefit himself.

Oh come on TC, you had no complaints about the judge in Trumps loan trial that fined Trump 450 million dollars nor the judge in the hooker case. Don't start crying crocodile tears now.

And the rape case. Don't forget about the rape case woodchip.

I'm not the only one who's noticed her tactics. She's pretty much blocked the trial from going forward from day one. She's even been asked to step aside from the trial and refused.

https://chicago.suntimes.com/democracy/ ... -precedent

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/pol ... 169206007/