Docs case dismissed!!!

[IU_Hickory]

Maybe they can move it to the same court as Joe Biden's documents case.

Maybe you could educate yourself on the differences and why Trump was tried but not Pence or Biden. The differences have been posted on this board hundreds of times. I'm sure you can figure it out.

Hint: Pence is a conservative so it had nothing to do with political affiliation.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Absolutely. That's the whole point of Smith being an "inferior officer," which is explicitly permitted in the Constitution. In fact, Smith himself has taken this very position.

So I guess my thinking is, and I understand Brad's point that it would look bad, but at this juncture in time, is this even worth putting resources into anymore?

 

[mcmurtry66]

Maybe you could educate yourself on the differences and why Trump was tried but not Pence or Biden. The differences have been posted on this board hundreds of times. I'm sure you can figure it out.

Hint: Pence is a conservative so it had nothing to do with political affiliation.

Biden has mushy peas for a brain?

 

[CO. Hoosier]

LOL! You have a very strange imagination.

Only Thomas took the illegal appointment thing seriously. He was not supported by any other Justice. It was not a SCOTUS decision. How can she hang her hat on that. The Appeals Court will have to overturn this IMO. Every other judge and court has rejected this idea. However, this judge has done her job for Trump and drug this out for too long to be tried before the election or inauguration.

One thing is certain, you MAGA types don’t give a flying crap about protecting national security information. You will never be taken seriously on the issue again. You aren’t Patriots, conservatives or Republicans. You’re Trump acolytes. Enjoy this break down in the justice system for now.

Meantime, I’ll laugh at you every time you take a weak shot at me - and make no mistake, they’re very weak. Wimpy even. LOL!

Smith is a partisan left wing hack/ prosecutor with a shoddy record. (Edward’s prosecution and that GOP va gov.). He was not appointed according to law. This scew-up is on Garland, not smith. Garland has frequently shown himself to be the most partisan AG since Mitchell. Biden should fire him, but he won’t.

For his part Smith’s DC indictment is total garbage. The documents prosecution has turned into a trainwreck—thanks to Smith.

 

[mcmurtry66]

So I guess my thinking is, and I understand Brad's point that it would look bad, but at this juncture in time, is this even worth putting resources into anymore?

If any case is yes. I don’t care what anyone says trump wasn’t getting convicted in fort Pierce. But his actions are not okay and this isn’t something we want to let go for myriad reasons. If the case got reassigned it should go forward. Can’t treat classified docs like that

 

[IU_Hickory]

For anyone wanting to actually read the opinion before commenting on its reasoning:

chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.648652/gov.uscourts.flsd.648652.672.0.pdf

If that link doesn't work, it's in the second paragraph of this article:

Trump documents case dismissed by federal judge, with special counsel vowing to appeal

U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon granted Trump's bid to dismiss the indictment.

www.cbsnews.com

Apparently you should read your own article

"Attorneys general from administrations of both parties have appointed special counsels in recent years to oversee sensitive investigations, and Trump's bid to dismiss the indictment on the grounds that Smith was not authorized to prosecute him was considered a long-shot."

But since Trump is the defendent, that is now not acceptable?

Cannon is a partisan hack plain and simple.

 

[Mas-sa-suta]

Not being a smartass, but isn’t this the one case you said was an absolute slam dunk?

Uh oh...!

 

[Mas-sa-suta]

It would have been but for future Justice Cannon.

Woulda
Shoulda
Coulda
Mighta

HAHAHAHAHA!

 

[Bowlmania]

Apparently you should read your own article

"Attorneys general from administrations of both parties have appointed special counsels in recent years to oversee sensitive investigations, and Trump's bid to dismiss the indictment on the grounds that Smith was not authorized to prosecute him was considered a long-shot."

But since Trump is the defendent, that is now not acceptable?

Cannon is a partisan hack plain and simple.

This is her ticket to SCOTUS.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

For anyone wanting to actually read the opinion before commenting on its reasoning:

chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.648652/gov.uscourts.flsd.648652.672.0.pdf

If that link doesn't work, it's in the second paragraph of this article:

Trump documents case dismissed by federal judge, with special counsel vowing to appeal

U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon granted Trump's bid to dismiss the indictment.

www.cbsnews.com

I don't have time to read the whole thing right now, but a glance at the summary suggests Garland's fatal error was tapping someone outside the department for the assignment.

Under Cannon's reasoning, Mueller's appointment would have been invalid too, no?

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

If any case is yes. I don’t care what anyone says trump wasn’t getting convicted in fort Pierce. But his actions are not okay and this isn’t something we want to let go for myriad reasons. If the case got reassigned it should go forward. Can’t treat classified docs like that

Even if you know nothing will come of it, it's still worth it just to make a statement of values?

 

[BradStevens]

Absolutely. That's the whole point of Smith being an "inferior officer," which is explicitly permitted in the Constitution. In fact, Smith himself has taken this very position.

The default rule under the Constitution is that even inferior officers must go through advice and consent from the Senate, unless Congress "by law" states otherwise:

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

Art. II, § 2, cl. 2.

From there, it turns into a statutory interpretation issue of 28 U.S.C. § 515(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 533. Do they provide for such appointments of someone with Smith's powers and responsibilities and just how clear and precise does the language need to be? The first statute appears to be Smith's strongest argument. She obviously rejects both, see pgs. 26-52, and then throws in separation of powers concerns on top of that. Pg. 52-57.

 

[BradStevens]

I don't have time to read the whole thing right now, but a glance at the summary suggests Garland's fatal error was tapping someone outside the department for the assignment.

Under Cannon's reasoning, Mueller's appointment would have been invalid too, no?

Yes re Garland. No, she can distinguish Mueller.

 

[MyTeamIsOnTheFloor]

Cannon will forever be exhibit number 1 for corrupt judge.

This will likely be appealed and overturned.

Did you know they make copies of the US Constitution that will fit in a shirt pocket?

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Yes re Garland. No, she can distinguish Mueller.

Hopefully I'll have time to read the whole thing later.

 

[mcmurtry66]

Even if you know nothing will come of it, it's still worth it just to make a statement of values?

Yes. Things can happen. They can decide to kick it to Miami bc of media logistics infrastructure shit. They could decide it’s too big of a burden for the north counties jurors to travel and use Dade jurors. Much could still happen

 

[Noodle]

Trump spotted earlier today...

 

[BradStevens]

Yes. Things can happen. They can decide to kick it to Miami bc of media logistics infrastructure shit. They could decide it’s too big of a burden for the north counties jurors to travel and use Dade jurors. Much could still happen

If the appeal goes through, they have a good shot, based on the law alone, of getting it overturned. But I think politics/national unity/pragmatic concerns might overwhelm the legal interpretative points here and weigh down those odds.

 

[BradStevens]

Trump spotted earlier today...

View embedded media

Belongs in the Trump Hype thread!

 

[mcmurtry66]

If the appeal goes through, they have a good shot, based on the law alone, of getting it overturned. But I think politics/national unity/pragmatic concerns might overwhelm the legal interpretative points here and weigh down those odds.

I agree with you. And for most things I’d say F it let him go. But the idea of an old looney trump wandering around the island of internationals showing off docs or having them fall out of his pocket at sbx City place isn’t appealing

 

[Marvin the Martian]

I agree with you. And for most things I’d say F it let him go. But the idea of an old looney trump wandering around the island of internationals showing off docs or having them fall out of his pocket at sbx City place isn’t appealing

Instead of books, future ex presidents will just sell classified docs on eBay. More money, less work. Won't have to split with a ghost writer.

The case is critically important but we won't know the correct interpretation until the next time a president walks away with the collection. It would be nice if they knew that was a terribly stupid idea in advance.

 

[BradStevens]

Instead of books, future ex presidents will just sell classified docs on eBay. More money, less work. Won't have to split with a ghost writer.

The case is critically important but we won't know the correct interpretation until the next time a president walks away with the collection. It would be nice if they knew that was a terribly stupid idea in advance.

I think that point has been made, Marv.

Again, this decision has nothing to do with the underlying legal merits of the documents case. It would be equally valid if they were prosecuting Trump (or anyone else for that matter) for murder, shooting an endangered species, or lying on this taxes.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Under Cannon's reasoning, Mueller's appointment would have been invalid too, no?

Could be.

Why Robert Mueller’s Appointment As Special Counsel Was Unlawful

Since 1999, when the independent counsel provisions of the Ethics in Government Act expired, the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) has had in place regulations providing for the appointment of Special Counsels who possess “the full power and independent authority to exercise all investigative and...

scholarship.law.bu.edu

Why Robert Mueller's Appointment as Special Counsel Was Unlawful

Since 1999, when the independent counsel provisions of the Ethics in Government Act expired, the Department of Justice (DOJ) has had in place regulations providing for the appointment of “special counsels” who possess “the full power and independent authority to exercise all investigative and...

scholarship.law.nd.edu

 

[mcmurtry66]

Instead of books, future ex presidents will just sell classified docs on eBay. More money, less work. Won't have to split with a ghost writer.

The case is critically important but we won't know the correct interpretation until the next time a president walks away with the collection. It would be nice if they knew that was a terribly stupid idea in advance.

Hopefully the attention it’s garnered puts future presidents on notice. There are some pretty unique circumstances involved with Biden being mushy peas and trump wining a little lottery with the draw he got. I know i belabor the shit out of this but one of the other divisions MAY have had the case tried by now

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Yes re Garland. No, she can distinguish Mueller.

How do you distinguish Mueller?

 

[IU_Hickory]

Did you know they make copies of the US Constitution that will fit in a shirt pocket?

Yea, you might want to read it

 

[CO. Hoosier]

If the appeal goes through, they have a good shot, based on the law alone, of getting it overturned. But I think politics/national unity/pragmatic concerns might overwhelm the legal interpretative points here and weigh down those odds.

I can’t think of any SC except Mueller and Smith who have this problem. All the others, IIRC, were proper and pulled from the ranks USA’s which is how the system is designed.

 

[mcmurtry66]

Yea, you might want to read it

Fairly certain he teaches it

 

[DANC]

View embedded media

Disssss-missssed!

 

[DANC]

What an absolutely BS decision.

Read the Constitution

Or at least read her 93 page explanation before you call it BS.

 

[DANC]

Apparently, this will mean that a former President can take whatever classified documents he wants because a special prosecutor isn't properly appointed.

Are you taking notes Joe?

Uh, Bill...... Joe already took classified docs. Before he was President and authorized to have them. And scattered over the northeast US.

Funny we never heard what those docs were.....

 

[DANC]

So are we going to go back and throw out all past prosecutions done by people that were appointed by the AG?

Lets not pretend that Smith was the first ever prosecutor that was appointed by an AG.

Read the 93 page explanation before you continue to make a fool of yourself.

 

[DANC]

Completely unhinged.

View embedded media

He represents the thoughts of the majority of libs on this board.

 

[MrBing]

LOL! You have a very strange imagination.

Only Thomas took the illegal appointment thing seriously. He was not supported by any other Justice. It was not a SCOTUS decision. How can she hang her hat on that. The Appeals Court will have to overturn this IMO. Every other judge and court has rejected this idea. However, this judge has done her job for Trump and drug this out for too long to be tried before the election or inauguration.

One thing is certain, you MAGA types don’t give a flying crap about protecting national security information. You will never be taken seriously on the issue again. You aren’t Patriots, conservatives or Republicans. You’re Trump acolytes. Enjoy this break down in the justice system for now.

Meantime, I’ll laugh at you every time you take a weak shot at me - and make no mistake, they’re very weak. Wimpy even. LOL!

I noticed you have collected a group of "ankle biters" as you called them. I think you said yipping chihuahuas and it fits:

 

[DANC]

It's rather moot at this point, which Cannon knows, given Trump is a shoe in for the Presidency. Cannon just put her best foot forward for being a Supreme Court justice. Note the timing

Imagine that - a judge that actually reads the Constitution!

She'd be a great choice!

 

[BradStevens]

I can’t think of any SC except Mueller and Smith who have this problem. All the others, IIRC, were proper and pulled from the ranks USA’s which is how the system is designed.

Archibald Cox.

 

[DANC]

I ain't betting money on other people doing the right thing and I don't trust you to pay up when you lose.

You put up your $1,000 and give it to @mcmurtry66

Mas will put up $1,000 and give it to @TheOriginalHappyGoat

The winner will get paid, plus their original $1,000.

Unless you're saying you don't trust those guys. Or are chicken shit.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

I think that point has been made, Marv.

Again, this decision has nothing to do with the underlying legal merits of the documents case. It would be equally valid if they were prosecuting Trump (or anyone else for that matter) for murder, shooting an endangered species, or lying on this taxes.

The decision is "fine" by me, the courts will hear it out and reach a final say. I'm not a constitutional scholar so what do I know? I just wish there was a system for courts to hear a case and rule to prevent the future mass eBay sell-off. I know there isn't, stupid system. "We cannot find this defendant guilty, but this is a clear violation of what the law is" would work perfect.

If the courts decide this appointment is invalid, fine. Like I said, I don't know. But if this were a poor Black, it would be called "getting off on a technicality" and the people cheering today would be grabbing pitchforks. Technicalities aren't bad, the law is the law. If the law demands Trump not face the charge, so be it.

But we really need an answer to what exactly a president is entitled to when they leave.

 

[DANC]

Archibald Cox.

He served as Solicitor General under JFK - approved by the Senate. Black Jack was never approved by the Senate for anything.

Archibald Cox - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[BradStevens]

The decision is "fine" by me, the courts will hear it out and reach a final say. I'm not a constitutional scholar so what do I know? I just wish there was a system for courts to hear a case and rule to prevent the future mass eBay sell-off. I know there isn't, stupid system. "We cannot find this defendant guilty, but this is a clear violation of what the law is" would work perfect.

If the courts decide this appointment is invalid, fine. Like I said, I don't know. But if this were a poor Black, it would be called "getting off on a technicality" and the people cheering today would be grabbing pitchforks. Technicalities aren't bad, the law is the law. If the law demands Trump not face the charge, so be it.

But we really need an answer to what exactly a president is entitled to when they leave.

It is a technicality. And they might reverse. DC circuit goes the other way.