swamp
Community Leader
Don't be a fool. Call me!
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 16:03:22 GMT -5
Posts: 45,568
Member is Online
|
Post by swamp on Jul 15, 2024 10:30:32 GMT -5
|
|
ken a.k.a OMK
Senior Associate
They killed Kenny, the bastards.
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 14:39:20 GMT -5
Posts: 14,197
Location: Maryland
|
Post by ken a.k.a OMK on Jul 15, 2024 10:32:38 GMT -5
She's making her move to get on the SC. A trump judge all the way.
|
|
pulmonarymd
Junior Associate
Joined: Feb 12, 2020 17:40:54 GMT -5
Posts: 7,689
|
Post by pulmonarymd on Jul 15, 2024 11:00:16 GMT -5
Well, if it doesn't get overturned, how is Trump going to prosecute Biden. Oh, the mixed emotions!
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 42,042
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on Jul 15, 2024 11:09:59 GMT -5
She's making her move to get on the SC. A trump judge all the way. I thought she was bailing under the cover of the shooting at Trump's rally. I think she should be impeached and pushed down to a lower court which might be more in her comfort zone. MO.
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 42,042
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on Jul 15, 2024 11:10:49 GMT -5
I so hope so. What do you think the odds are of that happening?
|
|
ken a.k.a OMK
Senior Associate
They killed Kenny, the bastards.
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 14:39:20 GMT -5
Posts: 14,197
Location: Maryland
|
Post by ken a.k.a OMK on Jul 15, 2024 11:30:55 GMT -5
She was biased from day one and many experts and judges called for her removal. Oh but not until she could do her final trump bidding.
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 21,384
|
Post by happyhoix on Jul 15, 2024 11:31:25 GMT -5
So who would normally prosecute someone for not securing classified documents? Plenty of people have gone to jail for much smaller infractions.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 38,131
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on Jul 15, 2024 11:45:37 GMT -5
So who would normally prosecute someone for not securing classified documents? Plenty of people have gone to jail for much smaller infractions. A prosecutor appointed and funded through routine processes.
|
|
swamp
Community Leader
Don't be a fool. Call me!
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 16:03:22 GMT -5
Posts: 45,568
Member is Online
|
Post by swamp on Jul 15, 2024 11:51:28 GMT -5
So who would normally prosecute someone for not securing classified documents? Plenty of people have gone to jail for much smaller infractions. A prosecutor appointed and funded through routine processes. But special prosecutors are the normal process when there is a conflict of interest.
|
|
ken a.k.a OMK
Senior Associate
They killed Kenny, the bastards.
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 14:39:20 GMT -5
Posts: 14,197
Location: Maryland
|
Post by ken a.k.a OMK on Jul 15, 2024 11:52:36 GMT -5
So who would normally prosecute someone for not securing classified documents? Plenty of people have gone to jail for much smaller infractions. A prosecutor appointed and funded through routine processes. And he should be found guilty. Some of the documents could not be declassified. There goes that excuse. He lied about having them then lied about not giving them all back. Remember Clinton didn't get into trouble because of his actions with the intern. He was found guilty of lying about it.
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 42,042
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on Jul 15, 2024 12:19:45 GMT -5
She was biased from day one and many experts and judges called for her removal. Oh but not until she could do her final trump bidding. Someone also posted an article that she was over her head and possibly to by the book to even be effective in such a high-profile case.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,207
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 15, 2024 13:36:25 GMT -5
of course. they might retry the case, as well, right?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,207
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 15, 2024 13:37:19 GMT -5
Well, if it doesn't get overturned, how is Trump going to prosecute Biden. Oh, the mixed emotions! i thought the same thing, but in a more petty way: there goes another campaign talking point.
|
|
scgal
Well-Known Member
Joined: Sept 18, 2020 16:56:48 GMT -5
Posts: 1,527
|
Post by scgal on Jul 15, 2024 15:27:44 GMT -5
It is an excellent ruling. Just because attorney generals appointed special councils in the past does not make it legal. It should have to go thru Congress and the Senate. It can be retried with the correct procedures being followed.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,207
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 15, 2024 15:35:14 GMT -5
It is an excellent ruling. Just because attorney generals appointed special councils in the past does not make it legal. It should have to go thru Congress and the Senate. It can be retried with the correct procedures being followed. just to be clear, you are for torching the perjury charge against Clinton, the Hunter Biden case, and half a dozen other cases, then? yes or no?
|
|
ken a.k.a OMK
Senior Associate
They killed Kenny, the bastards.
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 14:39:20 GMT -5
Posts: 14,197
Location: Maryland
|
Post by ken a.k.a OMK on Jul 15, 2024 15:36:44 GMT -5
You don't get it scgal. Trump's judge delayed it long enough to insure he will be elected and can cancel all pending legal actions against him and pardon everyone including himself. He has proven he is above the law.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,207
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 15, 2024 15:46:00 GMT -5
You don't get it scgal . Trump's judge delayed it long enough to insure he will be elected and can cancel all pending legal actions against him and pardon everyone including himself. He has proven he is above the law. it flies in the face of a half century of case law, but it also aligns nicely with the new Imperial President ruling. the SCOTUS might uphold it. it is certainly heading there.
|
|
pulmonarymd
Junior Associate
Joined: Feb 12, 2020 17:40:54 GMT -5
Posts: 7,689
|
Post by pulmonarymd on Jul 15, 2024 16:00:06 GMT -5
It is an excellent ruling. Just because attorney generals appointed special councils in the past does not make it legal. It should have to go thru Congress and the Senate. It can be retried with the correct procedures being followed. You have essentially said you are ok with a president doing anything illegal unless Congress appoints a special prosecutor. So if the presidents party controls one branch, there will never be a special prosecutor assigned. And all the Whitewater nonsense and the lying that Clinton did should not have been allowed because Congress did not appoint him? So much for law and order republicans, you just allowed corruption on a scale we haven’t seen before
|
|
scgal
Well-Known Member
Joined: Sept 18, 2020 16:56:48 GMT -5
Posts: 1,527
|
Post by scgal on Jul 15, 2024 17:04:19 GMT -5
It is an excellent ruling. Just because attorney generals appointed special councils in the past does not make it legal. It should have to go thru Congress and the Senate. It can be retried with the correct procedures being followed. just to be clear, you are for torching the perjury charge against Clinton, the Hunter Biden case, and half a dozen other cases, then? yes or no? absolutely if that is the route they wanted to go. It's like this if a police officer raided your house without a warrant anything that he finds would not be used and actually the whole case against you could be dismissed. This is no different he did not legally have the authority to be special council. Cannon never dismissed anything but said right now this is illegitimate try again. In another conversation about capital punishment I said if they are found guilty then so be it, am like this because I also feel that the standard for burden should be so high on the prosecutor and they must basically be perfect. I have been waiting for this to be thrown out on a technicality being how they wanted to rush this before the election. We all know that is the only reason why they prosecuted him anyway.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,207
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 15, 2024 17:07:13 GMT -5
just to be clear, you are for torching the perjury charge against Clinton, the Hunter Biden case, and half a dozen other cases, then? yes or no? absolutely if that is the route they wanted to go. . i don't need an explanation, but thanks. so i take it you have no problem with weaponizing the DOJ. that is where this ruling takes us, imo.
|
|
scgal
Well-Known Member
Joined: Sept 18, 2020 16:56:48 GMT -5
Posts: 1,527
|
Post by scgal on Jul 15, 2024 17:07:44 GMT -5
You don't get it scgal . Trump's judge delayed it long enough to insure he will be elected and can cancel all pending legal actions against him and pardon everyone including himself. He has proven he is above the law. it flies in the face of a half century of case law, but it also aligns nicely with the new Imperial President ruling. the SCOTUS might uphold it. it is certainly heading there. No it doesn't it shows a half century of case law not following the rules. The SCOTUS should uphold it and a new prosecutor should be appointed the correct way if they still want to prosecute. Which we know they won't.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,207
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 15, 2024 17:10:13 GMT -5
it flies in the face of a half century of case law, but it also aligns nicely with the new Imperial President ruling. the SCOTUS might uphold it. it is certainly heading there. No it doesn't it shows a half century of case law not following the rules. The SCOTUS should uphold it and a new prosecutor should be appointed the correct way if they still want to prosecute. Which we know they won't. you are just saying the same thing a different way, scgal. do you like finding disagreement? because i think we actually agree on the meat of this issue. for the record, i seem to get this a lot on this board. either people are not reading my conclusions as i intend them, or i am not writing them as i intend them. not sure which it is.
|
|
scgal
Well-Known Member
Joined: Sept 18, 2020 16:56:48 GMT -5
Posts: 1,527
|
Post by scgal on Jul 15, 2024 17:14:32 GMT -5
absolutely if that is the route they wanted to go. . i don't need an explanation, but thanks. so i take it you have no problem with weaponizing the DOJ. that is where this ruling takes us, imo. The DOJ has already been weaponized by the democrats. All of these cases which really should never seen the light of day was only to keep Trump from running and or winning. It was never about the law. I told you before I am good with the outcome if he is found guilty and I still am. I also know how weak the case was being handled. Everyone kept saying how Cannon was delying the trial no she wasn't she was giving the defendant every the consideration of motions allowed under the lawn. Frankly should should have been giving more consideration since he is a former president. She did a great job the only ones who should be sorry is the Democrats.
|
|
scgal
Well-Known Member
Joined: Sept 18, 2020 16:56:48 GMT -5
Posts: 1,527
|
Post by scgal on Jul 15, 2024 17:17:23 GMT -5
No it doesn't it shows a half century of case law not following the rules. The SCOTUS should uphold it and a new prosecutor should be appointed the correct way if they still want to prosecute. Which we know they won't. you are just saying the same thing a different way, scgal . do you like finding disagreement? because i think we actually agree on the meat of this issue. for the record, i seem to get this a lot on this board. either people are not reading my conclusions as i intend them, or i am not writing them as i intend them. not sure which it is. I thought you were saying since there was a half century of doing it this way that it is ok and i'm saying its not.
|
|
dondubble
Established Member
Joined: Apr 6, 2023 16:25:46 GMT -5
Posts: 298
Member is Online
|
Post by dondubble on Jul 15, 2024 17:17:31 GMT -5
i don't need an explanation, but thanks. so i take it you have no problem with weaponizing the DOJ. that is where this ruling takes us, imo. The DOJ has already been weaponized by the democrats. All of these cases which really should never seen the light of day was only to keep Trump from running and or winning. It was never about the law. I told you before I am good with the outcome if he is found guilty and I still am. I also know how weak the case was being handled. Everyone kept saying how Cannon was delying the trial no she wasn't she was giving the defendant every the consideration of motions allowed under the lawn. Frankly should should have been giving more consideration since he is a former president. She did a great job the only ones who should be sorry is the Democrats. Trump signed the law that made what he did a felony. Not a weak case at all, just a weak Trump appointed judge. And now a completely corrupt SCOTUS that has put the presidency above the law.
|
|
swamp
Community Leader
Don't be a fool. Call me!
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 16:03:22 GMT -5
Posts: 45,568
Member is Online
|
Post by swamp on Jul 15, 2024 18:03:38 GMT -5
of course. they might retry the case, as well, right? The hasn’t been a trial yet, so it cam still go to trial if dismissal is overturned on appeal.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,207
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 15, 2024 19:30:34 GMT -5
i don't need an explanation, but thanks. so i take it you have no problem with weaponizing the DOJ. that is where this ruling takes us, imo. The DOJ has already been weaponized by the democrats. fervently disagree, but you didn't answer the inquiry. do you have a problem with it?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,207
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 15, 2024 19:31:30 GMT -5
of course. they might retry the case, as well, right? The hasn’t been a trial yet, so it cam still go to trial if dismissal is overturned on appeal. this will get appealed all the way to the SCOTUS, imo. if they fail to overturn it, it is dead, right?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,207
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 15, 2024 19:36:10 GMT -5
you are just saying the same thing a different way, scgal . do you like finding disagreement? because i think we actually agree on the meat of this issue. for the record, i seem to get this a lot on this board. either people are not reading my conclusions as i intend them, or i am not writing them as i intend them. not sure which it is. I thought you were saying since there was a half century of doing it this way that it is ok and i'm saying its not. i am not expressing an opinion, just a fact. in ruling as she did, she is overturning considerable amount of precedent. i have reason to believe it will stand, as i have already expressed. so i SUSPECT this will become law, just as anything else the SCOTUS decides becomes law. so why are you coming at me as if we disagree, when we clearly agree? facts are facts. i don't like debating them.
|
|
scgal
Well-Known Member
Joined: Sept 18, 2020 16:56:48 GMT -5
Posts: 1,527
|
Post by scgal on Jul 16, 2024 9:37:33 GMT -5
I thought you were saying since there was a half century of doing it this way that it is ok and i'm saying its not. i am not expressing an opinion, just a fact. in ruling as she did, she is overturning considerable amount of precedent. i have reason to believe it will stand, as i have already expressed. so i SUSPECT this will become law, just as anything else the SCOTUS decides becomes law. so why are you coming at me as if we disagree, when we clearly agree? facts are facts. i don't like debating them. you are correct facts are facts. I just see it as not overturning precedent but rather saying the so called precedent was wrong. She is actually following the law. Democrats don't like that.
|
|