Pics you say...
![dance party dancing GIF dance party dancing GIF](/proxy.php?image=https%3A%2F%2Fmedia4.giphy.com%2Fmedia%2FEJMyMO22UxP68%2F200.gif&hash=7160207f2b03e8102730488034722d26)
Pics you say...
Truth.What I think and what the law says can be 2 different things.
You and Cannon have a lot in common.What I think and what the law says can be 2 different things.
You and Cannon have a lot in common.
Yeah, Cannon is the corrupted judge. DumbassCannon will forever be exhibit number 1 for corrupt judge.
This will likely be appealed and overturned.
Here’s a virtual tissue for you softy.What an absolutely BS decision.
Trump actively obstructed. HRC’s case was gross negligence, that’s probably all they could charge Pence and Biden for too, deliberate would be difficult to prove, but it’s no question Trump’s mishandling case was deliberate. He knew he had them, then returned some and directed his lawyer to say he returned all of them when he hadn’t. That’s a false official statement to the FBI and he continued obstructing the return of what he had. Then he had some moved to hide them. His accomplice pled guilty. It’s all in the indictment. There is a huge difference between the cases. It’s like the difference between being stopped for speeding and cooperating and a guy driving 50 over, refusing to pull over for police and then resisting arrest when they finally get him corned and pulled over.
Past practice. I'm not sure there is a case on it since it's so obvious if you think about it.
Bill Barr might be the most recent example?
Loading…
www.cnn.com
Hypo: imagine confirming candidate A for a spot as Secretary of Defense. He then goes on a drunken spree, banging prostitutes on the desk of the President, and taking pictures of it for his insta. 10 years later, a new President who is buds with our party bro. wants to appoint him as Secretary of Defense again. Or to another spot that requires Senate approval. Think the Senate needs to advise and consent on that?
It seems incredible to me that a former appeals court judge on the DC circuit doesn't have firm grasp of how special counsels work under the current law.Just to add another thought. Should it not also be "so obvious" by AG Garland, that an appointed SC investigating the former President and likely opponent of your boss, needs to be approved by the Senate?
Sessions didn't do it with Mueller.Just to add another thought. Should it not also be "so obvious" by AG Garland, that an appointed SC investigating the former President and likely opponent of your boss, needs to be approved by the Senate?
He shouldn’t have had them. His and Pence’s cases are a bit more serious than HRC’s because they may have veeen deliberate, but the precedent was set and without aggravating factors and with returning them they were going to be prosecuted. Plus Biden couldn’t be until 2025. Trump’s case is many times more serious. It shouldn’t be allowed to go without accountability.So, should Biden's taking documents from the SCIF as a Senator be overlooked? And he kept taking them after that as a VP, correct?
I agree it looks like Trump stonewalled, but it also looks like Biden knew the law, but ignored it.
Sessions didn't do it with Mueller.
Irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Let's not drag this down into the same shitthrowing we already have going on.Sessions wasn't the AG for the political opponent of Trump.
He shouldn’t have had them. His and Pence’s cases are a bit more serious than HRC’s because they may have veeen deliberate, but the precedent was set and without aggravating factors and with returning them they were going to be prosecuted. Plus Biden couldn’t be until 2025. Trump’s case is many times more serious. It shouldn’t be allowed to go without accountability.
Irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Let's not drag this down into the same shitthrowing we already have going on.
That’s never been necessary. This will likely be reversed. I listened to several legal scholars earlier, left, right and center, and the consensus is reversal. They could be wrong, but they seemed confident.Then I guess the AG should have had the Senate approve Smith in one the biggest, unprecedented cases of all time against a former President who is also the political opponent of his boss.
People can be pissed at Cannon but should be pissed at Garland.
I don't understand. Am I being unreasonable to think Garland probably should have gotten Senate approval for such a big case?
It seems incredible to me that a former appeals court judge on the DC circuit doesn't have firm grasp of how special counsels work under the current law.
I will say I don't think it's open and shut. She probably will be reversed, but it's not like her reasoning is entirely illogical.That’s never been necessary. This will likely be reversed. I listened to several legal scholars earlier, left, right and center, and the consensus is reversal. They could be wrong, but they seemed confident.
No one guaranteed it for sure.I will say I don't think it's open and shut. She probably will be reversed, but it's not like her reasoning is entirely illogical.
That may or may not be the case. The question is about the legitimacy of Smith's appointment. If that was bogus, then wouldn't Mueller's been as well?
That’s never been necessary. This will likely be reversed. I listened to several legal scholars earlier, left, right and center, and the consensus is reversal. They could be wrong, but they seemed confident.
I don't understand the argument for removal. Unless a dismissal can't be undone procedurally, and therefore starting over is the only option. I know very little about federal procedure.Thanks. I'd like to know what the grounds would be for making that reversal. Where is Cannon wrong?
Me, I think she saw her opportunity and she took it. Even if she is reversed, there will still be a load of time involved. And if she's removed, I would assume the case would essentially go back to square one with a new judge. Cannon did her job -- she's guaranteed this will never see the light of day before the election.
I don’t understand why people think she’ll be removed. App Ct leans slightly conservative at least by apptmt last I was aware fwiw.I don't understand the argument for removal. Unless a dismissal can't be undone procedurally, and therefore starting over is the only option. I know very little about federal procedure.
I had it on in the background doing work and I didn’t catch the details of the arguments, mostly just their predictions at the end. Plus I'm not a lawyer. I’m sure our lawyers here will sum up some arguments both ways.Thanks. I'd like to know what the grounds would be for making that reversal. Where is Cannon wrong?
Me, I think she saw her opportunity and she took it. Even if she is reversed, there will still be a load of time involved. And if she's removed, I would assume the case would essentially go back to square one with a new judge. Cannon did her job -- she's guaranteed this will never see the light of day before the election.
I don’t understand why people think she’ll be removed. App Ct leans slightly conservative at least by apptmt last I was aware fwiw.
Ive never heard of that. Illegal conduct. Evidence of extrajudicial bias. Fing up rulings ain’t itThey've reversed her twice already. I've read that at some point they'll get tired of her shit and give the case to someone else. May be wishful thinking from the Kommie Kommentators I listen to.
Ive never heard of that. Illegal conduct. Evidence of extrajudicial bias. Fing up rulings ain’t it
Or do it with your own personnel and take the PR hit.Then I guess the AG should have had the Senate approve Smith in one the biggest, unprecedented cases of all time against a former President who is also the political opponent of his boss.
People can be pissed at Cannon but should be pissed at Garland.
Yes, it was challenged. Went to DC Circuit. Cannon discusses the case in her opinion.Maybe. Was there ever an argument made against Mueller at the time that his appointment was illegitimate? Was there a ruling that it was? Or was it never challenged?
Yes, it was challenged. Went to DC Circuit. Cannon discusses the case in her opinion.
Each circuit can reassign a case based on their own standards. It's not in the FRCP although there are some statutes, I think, re bias/conflict. Here's an article discussing some 11th Circuit standards:Ive never heard of that. Illegal conduct. Evidence of extrajudicial bias. Fing up rulings ain’t it
Yes, it was challenged. Went to DC Circuit. Cannon discusses the case in her opinion.
She says the Mueller case wasn't well reasoned b/c it assumed the SCt decided the issue in the Nixon case. She says they were wrong because the Nixon language cited was dicta (which isn't binding on lower courts).Great. Now I have to read 93 pages!!!!
Can’t open but yes bias/conflict/illegal conduct not shitty rulings is what I’m familiar with. And bias is a high barEach circuit can reassign a case based on their own standards. It's not in the FRCP although there are some statutes, I think, re bias/conflict. Here's an article discussing some 11th Circuit standards:
chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://repository.law.miami.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4546&context=umlr
Or do it with your own personnel and take the PR hit.
She says the Mueller case wasn't well reasoned b/c it assumed the SCt decided the issue in the Nixon case. She says they were wrong because the Nixon language cited was dicta (which isn't binding on lower courts).
No, it can be something like they don't think the lower court judge will enforce their order in the right way. I've seen it happen in the 7th Cir a few times with the shitty district court judges. I asked one time, didn't win the appeal so it didn't matter.Can’t open but yes bias/conflict/illegal conduct not shitty rulings is what I’m familiar with. And bias is a high bar
Try this? Not sure why Google keep giving me those chrome extension links.Can’t open but yes bias/conflict/illegal conduct not shitty rulings is what I’m familiar with. And bias is a high bar