Trump FL Records Case: Judge Cannon Fires Back At Lying Jack's Smears - should consider a gag order

Well, thank you for conceding my point.

We heard whispers of a Trump indictment for 2 years, you guys saying 'where's the indictment'?"

Well, it came.

So, don't be so sure it won't happen.

 

Where's the writ?

 

It sure is!!! Because the system is biased towards the defendant is why asylum seekers MUST be released under the assumption that they entered the country and are seeking asylum for legitimate cause. Keep THAT in mind the next time you want to demonize "illegal aliens". Now... the judge MUST uphold the system. This means she can't act against the law. And she IS acting against the law when she demands the prosecutor to draft jury instructions based on a law he is NOT being charged with so they will have no choice but to exonerate the defendant. Or when she delays the trial for NO reason. Or when she did any of the things that have already been overturned by higher courts to benefit Trump

 

Can I ask why you want this to continue to be delayed?

 

Illegal aliens are here illegally. There's no disputing that...lol

 

reread the comment

 

Ok. So only those that have been DECLARED "illegal" by a judge. Before that, they must be presumed innocent. Or, to use YOUR words, "the system is biased towards the defendant". Truer words were never spoken. And don't you ever forget it!

 

This is funny.

 

Are drunk driver only drunk drivers, after they've been declared so by a judge and otherwise should be left alone?

 

FIGHT THE POWER: Law Prof Challenges Validity of Special Counsel’s Appointment in Trump Classified Documents Case: Special Counsel Smith exercises too much independent authority, according to the brief.

'the delegation of authority to Special Counsel Jack Smith is invalid, rendering the indictment invalid, as well.'

'Smith’s appointment furnishes him with “the full power and independent authority to exercise all investigative and prosecutorial functions of any United States Attorney.”'

'This delegation of authority goes too far because only “Officers of the United States” can hold such far-reaching authority and power and Smith is a “mere ’employee'” of the United States.'

'An employee like Smith cannot exercise the “significant authority” of a U.S. Attorney without the supervision of an Officer of the United States.'

'“Employees tend to carry out routine administrative tasks, but “the ability to investigate, indict, and try independently” are powers far beyond “routine administrative tasks.”'

So get a real Special Counsel and start over.

 

Individuals are presumed innocent. That doesn't mean a class of criminal doesn't exist and you can't speak about them collectively. You're twisting this argument into a pretzel to defend illegal immigration is dismissed.

 

I don't know. That's what YOU said. Looks like you suddenly realized you don't like YOUR own position, huh! Not surprised... Carry on...

 

Terrence Kible, the author of that article, is just some unknown person with a blog, and it's someone else's blog, at that. As for Prof Tillman, he's a conservative with a point of view. Not everyone agrees with him. how many profs do you want me to cite who say otherwise?

In the meantime, since Tillman is a professor of the constitution, noting that not all constitutional scholars agree, he does deserve serious scrutiny, so, I will do that, so let's examine Tillman's argument:

The argument presented challenges the validity of the appointment of Special Counsel Jack Smith, contending that Smith's exercise of independent authority exceeds the bounds of his position as a mere employee and violates the principle that only officers of the United States can wield such extensive authority.

The appointment of Special Counsels or Special Prosecutors is not a novel concept in U.S. legal history. Various administrations, including those of presidents from both major political parties, have appointed individuals to investigate and prosecute specific cases or matters of public concern. The authority to appoint Special Counsels has typically been derived from statutes, executive orders, or regulations, providing a legal basis for their appointment and delineating their powers and responsibilities.

The argument suggests that only "Officers of the United States" can hold significant investigative and prosecutorial authority. However, the Supreme Court has recognized that Congress possesses broad authority to delegate powers to executive branch officials, including the authority to appoint individuals to perform specific functions or duties. This principle of delegation is grounded in the Constitution's separation of powers framework and has been upheld in numerous legal precedents.

While the argument raises concerns about the level of independence afforded to Special Counsel Smith, it overlooks the existence of supervision and oversight mechanisms that typically accompany such appointments. Special Counsels are often subject to oversight by senior officials within the Department of Justice or other relevant agencies, ensuring that their actions remain consistent with legal and ethical standards. Additionally, Special Counsels may be subject to judicial review, providing an additional check on their exercise of authority.

Contrary to the assertion that Special Counsel Smith's authority exceeds that of a routine administrative employee, the powers granted to Special Counsels are specifically tailored to enable them to conduct thorough and impartial investigations into matters of significant public interest. This includes the authority to issue subpoenas, impanel grand juries, and bring criminal charges where warranted. Such powers are essential for Special Counsels to effectively fulfill their investigative and prosecutorial responsibilities.

So, while we need to ensure that individuals appointed as Special Counsels adhere to legal and constitutional principles, the argument's contention that Special Counsel Smith's appointment is invalid appears unfounded. Special Counsel appointments are typically made pursuant to legal authority and subject to oversight mechanisms designed to uphold the rule of law and safeguard the integrity of the investigative process.

So, find a better source.

 

No it doesn't.

 

inadequate rebuttal.

Please provide a more thorough argument.

 

It does, as a matter of fact.

https://www.factcheck.org/2018/06/was-muellers-appointment-unconstitutional/
http://www.constitutionnext.com/blog/is-the-special-counsel-statute-constitutional
And, for a really deep dive into the appointments clause:
https://www.justsecurity.org/61227/...post-no-2-office-appointments-clause-applies/

Not to mention:

Quick summary:

In the case of In Re: Grand Jury Investigation, the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit unanimously affirmed the validity of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s appointment. This ruling rejected a challenge brought by former Roger Stone associate Andrew Miller, who claimed that Mueller’s appointment was unconstitutional. The court held that Mueller’s appointment was lawful and constitutional, affirming that he was an “inferior Officer” under the Appointments Clause and that his appointment by Acting Attorney General Rod Rosenstein was consistent with binding Supreme Court precedent1234.

In summary:

• Robert Mueller’s appointment as Special Counsel was deemed constitutional.
• The court emphasized that the Special Counsel’s role was supervised and controlled by the Acting Attorney General, making him an “inferior Officer.”
• The challenge to Mueller’s appointment was rejected by the court.

This ruling upheld the legitimacy of Mueller’s investigation into potential Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election and any related federal crimes1234. [those are 4 different links, fyi]

You are what happens when you have a point of view, and find only one source that comports to your view, without researching the field.

It's called 'living in a bubble'.

 

My argument is fine. If you want something else look it up yourself.

 

You're dismissed.

 

No, your argument is incompetent.

Not only that, I destroyed it, utterly and you can't handle that fact.

What is your response? A cop out.

That's the best you can do?

Tsk tsk.

 

Incompetent rebuttal.

My comment remains unchallenged, and therefore stands.

 

Your claims are unfounded. You are dismissed.

 

If you want more information, look it up.

 

vacuous, inadequate and therefore incompetent rebuttal.

Epic fail.

 

I posted more information. You are incapable of refuting it.

That's how it works, hence your incompetence.

 

Your sources are fake news.
Your arguments are unfounded.
You're dismissed.