- 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: Judge Cannon Hands Trump His Second Major Win in 24 Hours
Posted on 6/5/24 at 5:40 pm to ReauxlTide222
Posted on 6/5/24 at 5:40 pm to ReauxlTide222
quote:
Many think it’s toting water if you’re not 100% against the 34 felony counts and how they reached them.
It is.
1
Posted on 6/5/24 at 5:40 pm to ReauxlTide222
quote:
Many think it’s toting water if you’re not 100% against the 34 felony counts and how they reached them.
Problem with this argument, is the DA never stated the underlying crime that made this a felony out of a misdemeanor that was cleared of statute of limitations. Also, why do we not understand “how the reached them”? Why did the judge just allow them to make up shite in their own mind of what they think could have been a law, and accept that? You can hate Trump all you want, but the ignorance of agreeing to this lawfare is beyond anything in our history politically
Posted on 6/5/24 at 5:41 pm to udtiger
quote:
That an AG has the constitutional authority to create an equivalent Executive Branch officer without congressional authorization or nomination and appointment?
Case citation, sir?
The same law professors have tried this numerous times, last with Mueller
Case
quote:
The question whether Congress has “by law” vested appointment of Special Counsel Mueller in the Attorney General has already been decided by the Supreme Court. In United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 694 (1974), the Court stated: “[Congress] has also vested in [the Attorney General] the power to appoint subordinate officers to assist him in the discharge of his duties. 28 U.S.C. §§ 509, 510, 515, 533.” In acting pursuant to those statutes, the Court held, the Attorney General validly delegated authority to a special prosecutor to investigate offenses arising out of the 1972 presidential election and allegations involving President Richard M. Nixon. Id.
quote:
The Supreme Court held there was a justiciable controversy because the regulations issued by the Attorney General gave the Special Prosecutor authority to contest the President’s invocation of executive privilege during the investigation. Id. at 695–97. In this analysis, the Attorney General’s statutory authority to issue the regulations was a necessary antecedent to determining whether the regulations were valid, and, therefore, was necessary to the decision that a justiciable controversy existed. The Supreme Court’s quoted statement regarding the Attorney General’s power to appoint subordinate officers is, therefore, not dictum. Moreover, under this court’s precedent, “carefully considered language of the Supreme Court, even if technically dictum, generally must be treated as authoritative.” United States v. Fields, 699 F.3d 518, 522 (D.C. Cir. 2012).
quote:
Because binding precedent establishes that Congress has “by law” vested authority in the Attorney General to appoint the Special Counsel as an inferior officer, this court has no need to go further to identify the specific sources of this authority. See generally Grand Jury Investigation, 315 F. Supp. 3d at 651–58; see also 28 U.S.C. §§ 515(b), 533(1). Miller’s cursory references to a “clear statement” argument he presented to the district court are insufficient to preserve that issue for appeal and it is forfeited. New York Rehab. Care Mgmt., LLC v. NLRB, 506 F.3d 1070, 1076 (D.C. Cir. 2007); Carducci v. Regan, 714 F.2d 171, 177 (D.C. Cir. 1983); see United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 733 (1993).
Goes back to USSC precedent with the Nixon investigation declaring it an inferior office.
Hunter Biden tried (and failed, obviously) with the same argument in Delaware
Manafort tried it, too, among others.
Calebresi and Lawson created this and keep pushing it (and losing).
Posted on 6/5/24 at 5:41 pm to loogaroo
quote:
Cannon, appointed by Trump after serving as a federal prosecutor, has come under fire for her conduct during the trial. She has reportedly been confused by court proceedings, requiring explanations from counsel on both sides, and has, since May 16, inspired more than 1,000 complaints filed against her with the 11th Circuit Judicial Court for delaying rulings.
Dear Politico (you fricking brainwashed democrats):
There are 2 sides to a criminal proceeding. The judge isn’t confused when she listens to both of them, that’s what judges do. They do the opposite of what Juan Mechan did. This does not mean they are confused. This means they are giving the criminal defendant notice, and opportunity to be heard. Otherwise known as due process.
Actual lawyers and judges know that these “over 1000 complaints” are manufactured political stunts made solely so that you rubes could print the words “more than 1000 complaints” which is why all 1000 of them have been rejected.
To place a finer point on it, it is not jusdicial misconduct for a judge to solicit input from
Both sides of the litigation. It is judicial misconduct for the judge (eg Marchan/Chutkin) to be on the same side as the prosecution.
Posted on 6/5/24 at 5:42 pm to moneyg
quote:
It's your insinuation that his rulings were done in good faith, in an attempt to follow the law and not based on something else.
There is that liberal mind reading the Left is so famous for.
Posted on 6/5/24 at 5:42 pm to Riverside
quote:
Those cheering the 34 felonies can’t articulate the government’s theory of the case against Trump.
I called one of them an idiot yesterday
Posted on 6/5/24 at 5:43 pm to reddy tiger
Posted on 6/5/24 at 5:43 pm to loogaroo
quote:
In her latest round of judicial Calvinball on Wednesday
fantastic line... love it.
Posted on 6/5/24 at 5:43 pm to SlowFlowPro
“Yeah me saying I think a bunch of his rulings are all but guaranteed to be overturned is the upmost support of him”
I bet you think this is a slick little post. Yes you said they’d be overturned but you absolutely agreed with him on everything too. You’ll have to be more clever with your deceptions.
I bet you think this is a slick little post. Yes you said they’d be overturned but you absolutely agreed with him on everything too. You’ll have to be more clever with your deceptions.
Posted on 6/5/24 at 5:45 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
just like if she rules this appointment was improper it's almost guaranteed to be overturned as well
SFP, why do you say this? I know the issue was brought up in the Mueller matter (Mueller like Smith was an un-vetted/un-sworn citizen rather than a federal prosecutor)....and I know that the DC Circuit Court affirmed the ruling that Mueller was not improperly appointed. However, SCOTUS did not address the issue. And Florida is MUCH different than D.C. After viewing articles on the issue, I don't know where Garland gets the authority to appoint an inferior non-prosecutor to a nationwide special counsel. If he isn't granted that power by statute, how does he just arbitrarily do it? Seriously curious on this. It's an interesting issue, and I don't think a finding of improper appointment is guaranteed to be slapped down. (Maybe by the D.C. Circuit....but not so much in the 11th...)
This post was edited on 6/5/24 at 5:48 pm
Posted on 6/5/24 at 5:48 pm to SlowFlowPro
The motion is based on that same aspect? I was under the impression the defense had a conflict of interest argument. I don't know why I had that impression or if that is a valid argument in this type of motion.
If they are arguing the congressional aspect, then presumably she would rule in favor of the prosecution.
If they are arguing the congressional aspect, then presumably she would rule in favor of the prosecution.
This post was edited on 6/5/24 at 5:49 pm
Posted on 6/5/24 at 5:50 pm to Madking
quote:
Yes you said they’d be overturned but you absolutely agreed with him on everything too. Y
Think about what you just said
Posted on 6/5/24 at 5:51 pm to GRTiger
quote:
The motion is based on that same aspect?
Same argument.
Same law professors behind it.
Posted on 6/5/24 at 5:52 pm to SlowFlowPro
So other than hearing the motion, which she said she would hear all the motions recently, there isn't really anything here?
Posted on 6/5/24 at 5:57 pm to imjustafatkid
quote:I don’t totally disagree
It is.
Posted on 6/5/24 at 5:58 pm to reddy tiger
quote:
That’s why we think you’re pieces of shite.
It's mutual and reciprocated.
Posted on 6/5/24 at 5:59 pm to GRTiger
quote:
So other than hearing the motion, which she said she would hear all the motions recently, there isn't really anything here?
Pretty much. I don't know if her circuit has specifically ruled on this, but she has already made one embarrassing decision that got smacked down on appeal. That's why I brought this hypo up last week when discussing Merchan's ethics.
I do expect a lot of slam dunking if she rules against literally every other court/appeals court on this issue, with all the same responses/issues as the first big ruling that was such a hot topic when she ruled.
Posted on 6/5/24 at 6:01 pm to rumproast
quote:
I know the issue was brought up in the Mueller matter (Mueller like Smith was an un-vetted/un-sworn citizen rather than a federal prosecutor)....and I know that the DC Circuit Court affirmed the ruling that Mueller was not improperly appointed. However, SCOTUS did not address the issue
Literally every court that's had to rule on this has ruled the same way, and its based in USSC precedent.
quote:
I don't know where Garland gets the authority to appoint an inferior non-prosecutor to a nationwide special counsel. If he isn't granted that power by statute, how does he just arbitrarily do it?
Read any of the cases that have already ruled on this issue. I'm not being snide or sarcastic, they get into it from Nixon until today.
Posted on 6/5/24 at 6:23 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Goes back to USSC precedent with the Nixon investigation declaring it an inferior office.
Hunter Biden tried (and failed, obviously) with the same argument in Delaware
Manafort tried it, too, among others.
Calebresi and Lawson created this and keep pushing it (and losing).
They may have a little different angle this time as Jack Smith has never been confirmed by the Senate (at any time). Mueller was, Weiss was. And of course I don't think this current Supreme Court has weighed on this issue yet and they have the make up to perhaps strictly follow the letter of the law on this unlike past USSC decisions (or be willing to distinguish the propriety of giving a private citizen never confirmed by the Senate at any time to be delegated authority to prosecute federal crimes in any district in the country, which is of course pretty extraordinary when you think about it).
Posted on 6/5/24 at 6:24 pm to WWII Collector
quote:
fantastic line... love it.
Clearly intended to be meant for the "hush money" trial.
Page 4 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News