2
- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Interesting situation down in Ft. Pierce
Posted on 9/25/26 at 6:14 am to SlowFlowPro
Posted on 9/25/26 at 6:14 am to SlowFlowPro
Jack Smith was appointed the same way Robert Hur was 
Posted on 9/25/26 at 6:16 am to boosiebadazz
How was Joe diGenova appointed?
Posted on 9/25/26 at 6:23 am to boosiebadazz
quote:The gag order would not appear to prevent their testimony. It prevents them from discussing Smith's ""findings."" Their treachery at MAL predated Smith's appt.
Would Judge Cannon be obstructing the grand jury by not letting these agents testify?
Posted on 9/25/26 at 6:40 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:No. There is not. You know that.
Sure there is
Cannon's ruling is what it is. There was no binding appellate precedent. Zero.
The only pertinent factset here is Cannon's own ruling. Her finding was that Smith was unlawfully appointed. All else follows in strict accordance with the law.
Posted on 9/25/26 at 6:50 am to boosiebadazz
I haven't kept up with this, so I need a bit of knowledge transfer.
1. What is GTOE?
2. Under what conditions is Cannon issuing the gag order?
3. I saw mention of the MAL warrant, is the warrant under this as well?
4. I wasn't aware a gag order could override a subpoena to testify. Is this new?
1. What is GTOE?
2. Under what conditions is Cannon issuing the gag order?
3. I saw mention of the MAL warrant, is the warrant under this as well?
4. I wasn't aware a gag order could override a subpoena to testify. Is this new?
Posted on 9/25/26 at 6:55 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
No. There is not. You know that.
Cannon's ruling is what it is. There was no binding appellate precedent. Zero.
Whoa whoa whoa
You previously said
quote:
There is no "gray area" here
If there was a direct, binding precedent you'd be correct, but, as you just said:
quote:
There was no binding appellate precedent
No binding precedent makes it a grey area, although a very light grey. She's currently in the extreme minority. There is appellate guidance that should have guided her decision. She's not bound to it, but typically courts rely on appellate decisions, even if non-binding, for their ruling.
quote:
Her finding was that Smith was unlawfully appointed. All else follows in strict accordance with the law.
Not entirely correct. The 11th should have been permitted to review her ruling as to the co-Defendants prior to dismissal. That would have been proper.
If her ruling has any value, then the what do we do with the current case? JDG oversaw the grand jury from a similarly illegal position. He was also not approved by Congress. He was not part of the DOJ prior to this appointment.
Posted on 9/25/26 at 6:59 am to Bard
quote:
1. What is GTOE?
The Grand Theory Of Everything.
This is the way they can prosecute Brennan in Florida for actions whose SOL have run and occurred in a different district court, which is an 8+ year conspiracy case trying to link every perceived grievance Trump has.
quote:
2. Under what conditions is Cannon issuing the gag order?
She already issued it as to the Trump prosecution. They did not want potential facts that made Trump look bad and would raise questions as to his innocence in the public sphere.
quote:
3. I saw mention of the MAL warrant, is the warrant under this as well?
That is a necessary component of the GTOE to get the jurisdiction/venue in this Florida court. The vast majority of actions occurred nowhere near Florida and have no jurisdictional nexus with Florida (almost all should be in DC), but if they extend the GTOE for long enough and over enough people, then the MAL raid becomes an act of the conspiracy. That's how they will argue this venue is legal.
quote:
I wasn't aware a gag order could override a subpoena to testify. Is this new?
You typically have to get permission when a ruling restricts dissemination
Posted on 9/25/26 at 7:30 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:Negative.
No binding precedent makes it a grey area
First off, let's be crystal clear, the activist "precedent" you're citing was a ridiculously weak finding which almost certainly would have been run through by SCOTUS.
Second, the gray area referenced pertains to the OP gag order assertions. There is no grey area. Smith was unlawfully appointed. Given that finding, the gag order is not "activism." It is the antithesis of activism.
quote:What an odd conjecture. By that rationale, SCOTUS should have been permitted to hear Miller as opposed to the absurd finding being left to whims of three nitwits in the DC circuit. That would have been proper.
The 11th should have been permitted to review her ruling as to the co-Defendants prior to dismissal. That would have been proper.
Posted on 9/25/26 at 7:34 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:Oh for Christ sakes! That would be why the DOJ is going after the conspiratorial POS's ... to force questioning of Trump's innocence in the public sphere? You have got to be joking.
They did not want potential facts that made Trump look bad and would raise questions as to his innocence in the public sphere.
Posted on 9/25/26 at 7:35 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
First off, let's be crystal clear, the activist "precedent" you're citing was a ridiculously weak finding which almost certainly would have been run through by SCOTUS.
Miller didn't think so. He decline the option to appeal (for obvious reasons)
quote:
There is no grey area. Smith was unlawfully appointed.
You're relying on this assertion which makes it a grey area.
quote:
Given that finding, the gag order is not "activism." It is the antithesis of activism.
Shouldn't have been permitted until the appellate court ruled to give actual guidance over a controversial decision in the extreme minority of American jurisprudence on the issue.
quote:
SCOTUS should have been permitted to hear Miller as opposed to the absurd finding being left to whims of three nitwits in the DC circuit.
They were permitted...
Also:
If her ruling has any value, then the what do we do with the current case? JDG oversaw the grand jury from a similarly illegal position. He was also not approved by Congress. He was not part of the DOJ prior to this appointment.
Posted on 9/25/26 at 7:40 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
That would be why the DOJ is going after the conspiratorial POS's ... to force questioning of Trump's innocence in the public sphere?
Then the current DOJ should have no problem releasing the full report and permitting it into the public sphere during these prosecutions, right?
Posted on 9/25/26 at 7:42 am to SlowFlowPro
It is rare to have two lawyers acting consecutively as idiots but this thread just showed it
Posted on 9/25/26 at 7:47 am to dafif
boosie and I have been on top of the GTOE silliness going on for some time, especially once they convened the GJ in Florida
Posted on 9/25/26 at 7:50 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:Oh my!
in the in the extreme minority of American jurisprudence
Maybe even in the super-duper, ultra-atomic, radical, uber extreme minority of American jurisprudence.
quote:
JDG oversaw the grand jury from a similarly illegal position.
As a special prosecutor? Really? The question hear is DOJ oversight, SFP.Posted on 9/25/26 at 7:52 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
As a special prosecutor? Really? The question hear is DOJ oversight, SFP.
Jack Smith had DOJ oversight
He was an inferior officer just like Mueller and JDG
There is no functional difference in JDG and Jack Smith. The only difference was title.
This post was edited on 9/25/26 at 7:53 am
Posted on 9/25/26 at 7:54 am to SlowFlowPro
Boosie, Bumk and SFP all slobbering on each others stomachs
Posted on 9/25/26 at 7:55 am to LChama
Intelligent contribution as always
Posted on 9/25/26 at 7:58 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:Not remotely in the same way. You know that. Jack Smith was a formally appointed Special Counsel, and as such, was granted independent and extraordinary prosecutorial authority.
Jack Smith had DOJ oversight
Joe diGenova headed his investigation under the ordinary chain of command as would any DOJ prosecutor.
There is no comparison.
Posted on 9/25/26 at 8:04 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Then the current DOJ should have no problem releasing the full report
You seem to be making an assumption there.
Posted on 9/25/26 at 8:12 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
Jack Smith was a formally appointed Special Counsel,
Nothing more than a title
He's was always an inferior officer, just like JDG
As I said earlier, you're only arguing titles and not functions or power
There's a conflation between the title used for Jack Smith and an old Congressional law that established an independent prosecutor. That position no longer exists because Congress let that statute lapse.
Now, independent prosecutors were autonomous and didn't answer directly to the DOJ. They were not inferior officers and required specific procedures. This does not have any overlap over Jack Smith or JDG because there are two completely different roles.
quote:
Joe diGenova headed his investigation under the ordinary chain of command as would any DOJ prosecutor.
Do you have anything to show the functional difference in his powers and subservience compared to Jack Smith's?
This post was edited on 9/25/26 at 8:13 am
Page 3 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News