It's the most maddening thing about those shows. But damn, Law & Order was good back in the day.
We have a verdict -- Guilty on ALL counts
- Thread starter UncleMark
- Start date
Huh, my experience is it takes one hour, maybe two of there is something exciting and unexpected happens at the end of hour one.
I would think the same would apply to a prosecutor. I doubt anyone would bring historic charges without being damn sure they had spoken with everyone, reviewed all the evidence. I would think, don't know, this would guarantee a lot of extra time.
I don't know about the judge, I have no idea how other judges would handle it. I read last night that the special counsel law has been challenged several times, including by Hunter Biden, and no one has given it much credence and the complaints were quickly tossed. So her decision to bring in outsiders to argue it, and not just those involved, seems a bit strange, but who knows? The article I read suggested it was highly unusual, but maybe it isn't. I know so little about the area that I can't say what she should have done.
Keep it up Dems. This is Quinnipiac who is probably the most Dem friendly pollster there is. They seemed have underestimated Trump by 5-7 points everywhere the last 2 elections. Their final 2020 Florida poll was Biden +5 😂
Cannon is apparently seriously entertaining Trump's claim that the appointment of special counsel was illegal. The latest in the Cannon Follies is she's allowing three lawyers who filed amicus briefs to participate in oral argument later this month - - a rare and bizarre development.
She's had other legal issues fully briefed for months, and ready to be argued and decided, but there have been inexplicable delays. Whatever the reason, she's clearly taking her time. I think she's afraid to try the case and is waiting/hoping for Trump to be elected so she doesn't have to deal with it.
Aileen Cannon's new Trump order raises eyebrows
Cannon, a Trump appointee, has frequently been accused of bias for rulings that favor the ex-president.
www.newsweek.com
Any poll, ANY POLL, this early is junk, especially a poll of all registered voters such as above. Trump has made huge gains among Democrats who did not vote in 2020 or 2022. Are they going to vote in 2024? We have no idea. It seems obvious that if they do, Biden will be in big trouble. If they don't?
The Shaky Foundation of Trump’s Lead: Disengaged Voters
The polls have shown Donald Trump with an edge for eight straight months, but there’s one big flashing warning sign suggesting that his advantage might not be quite as stable as it looks. That warning sign: His narrow lead is built on gains among voters who aren’t paying close attention to...
This poll below shows the lowest level of interest in the election in the last 5 elections. That of course can easily change, but right now it appears turnout will be low. I have no idea who that favors. It seems likely a whole lot of people have no interest in either candidate.
The Shaky Foundation of Trump’s Lead: Disengaged Voters
The polls have shown Donald Trump with an edge for eight straight months, but there’s one big flashing warning sign suggesting that his advantage might not be quite as stable as it looks. That warning sign: His narrow lead is built on gains among voters who aren’t paying close attention to...
Trump supporters and Republicans in general will turn out in droves. That I can guarantee. The RNC is a completely different animal now with Whatley and Lara Trump in charge. They are building up an enormous ballot harvesting operation and while the Dems will still have an advantage there it won't be nearly what it was in 2020. I'd be floored if Trump got less than 80M votes. The bookies know.Any poll, ANY POLL, this early is junk, especially a poll of all registered voters such as above. Trump has made huge gains among Democrats who did not vote in 2020 or 2022. Are they going to vote in 2024? We have no idea. It seems obvious that if they do, Biden will be in big trouble. If they don't?
The Shaky Foundation of Trump’s Lead: Disengaged Voters
The polls have shown Donald Trump with an edge for eight straight months, but there’s one big flashing warning sign suggesting that his advantage might not be quite as stable as it looks. That warning sign: His narrow lead is built on gains among voters who aren’t paying close attention to...www.yahoo.com
This poll below shows the lowest level of interest in the election in the last 5 elections. That of course can easily change, but right now it appears turnout will be low. I have no idea who that favors. It seems likely a whole lot of people have no interest in either candidate.
The Shaky Foundation of Trump’s Lead: Disengaged Voters
The polls have shown Donald Trump with an edge for eight straight months, but there’s one big flashing warning sign suggesting that his advantage might not be quite as stable as it looks. That warning sign: His narrow lead is built on gains among voters who aren’t paying close attention to...
Last edited:
2016 Clinton led in every betting market from August on (including as late as 9:35 PM on election night).
USA Presidential Election: 2016 Odds | Odds Shark
The 2016 US presidential election between Donald Trump and Hilary Clinton was the most wagered on and most surprising political events in American history.
www.oddsshark.com
Exactly.2016 Clinton led in every betting market from August on (including as late as 9:35 PM on election night).
USA Presidential Election: 2016 Odds | Odds Shark
The 2016 US presidential election between Donald Trump and Hilary Clinton was the most wagered on and most surprising political events in American history.
Is English a second language for you or something?
What’s funny to me is that a lot of people in the media are for the first time learning that some fed judges aren’t very good, sit on motions, and have cases lag.
Here’s a rundown of the special counsel arguments she’ll handle next, I guess. On the face of it, these arguments might actually have some legs. I’ve no idea the precedent re these arguments:
Judge Aileen Cannon is a Heroine
She is scheduled on June 21st to hear oral argument on whether special counsel Jack Smith was unconstitutionally appointed
reason.com
What’s funny to me is that a lot of people in the media are for the first time learning that some fed judges aren’t very good, sit on motions, and have cases lag.
Here’s a rundown of the special counsel arguments she’ll handle next, I guess. On the face of it, these arguments might actually have some legs. I’ve no idea the precedent re these arguments:
Judge Aileen Cannon is a Heroine
She is scheduled on June 21st to hear oral argument on whether special counsel Jack Smith was unconstitutionally appointed
Heroine addict would be more believable.
"Meanwhile the Epstein Island child sodomists roam free."Finally some justice. Do the crime you do the time, right Dems? One system of justice!
Meanwhile the Epstein Island child sodomists roam free.
BLM Arsonists Receive No Jail Time, Only $500 Fine
A pair of arsonists who burned down a fast-food restaurant during the 2020 Black Lives Matter riots are only being given a $500 fine and no jail time. Chisom Kiwashingtonstand.com
Interesting note with regards to accountability for people involved with Epstein...
In their ridiclous interview of Trump on Sun morning,the Fox crew did their best to lob softball questions his way. But when they asked about "declassifying Epstein documents" the version they broadcast to the entire country seemed to be Trump supplying a very affirmative yes to the question...
But that's not exactly what Trump said. And what Trump actually said was so off kilter that Fox realized they couldn't broadcast that to their national audience. This video shows both versions. Since you referenced the accountabilty of folks involved with Epstein, I thought you might want to hear what Trump actually said on the subject...
According to rivals01, if you commit a crime and delay your own trial long enough, you get a free pass.
Sooooo, what do the MAGAs say when a prosecutor files charges and then tries to have a quick trial?
Rush to judgment!
Rush to judgment!
Rush to judgment!
It's not fair!
It's not fair!
It's not fair!
It takes even longer when one of Trump's lawyers signs a doubtful statement saying Trump has coughed up all the documents he was supposed to cough up.
That creates an entirely new crime to investigate.
What’s funny to me is that a lot of people in the media are for the first time learning that some fed judges aren’t very good, sit on motions, and have cases lag.
Here’s a rundown of the special counsel arguments she’ll handle next, I guess. On the face of it, these arguments might actually have some legs. I’ve no idea the precedent re these arguments:
Judge Aileen Cannon is a Heroine
She is scheduled on June 21st to hear oral argument on whether special counsel Jack Smith was unconstitutionally appointed
Calabressi already made this argument with the Mueller appointment and lost.
Ken Starr
John B. Henderson way back in 1975
Newbold Morris under Truman
Archibald Cox under Nixon
Robert Fiske under Reno
Patrick Fitzgeral under Bush
John Durham under Bill Barr
David Weiss to investigate Hunter Biden
The terms special counsel and independent counsel have the same fundamental meaning.
Gotta love that stirring and objective legal analysis that includes references to Judge Cannon as a "heroine" and language like "Thank God Judge Cannon has scheduled oral argument on President Trump's motion to dismiss..."What’s funny to me is that a lot of people in the media are for the first time learning that some fed judges aren’t very good, sit on motions, and have cases lag.
Here’s a rundown of the special counsel arguments she’ll handle next, I guess. On the face of it, these arguments might actually have some legs. I’ve no idea the precedent re these arguments:
Judge Aileen Cannon is a Heroine
She is scheduled on June 21st to hear oral argument on whether special counsel Jack Smith was unconstitutionally appointed
Here's an amicus brief that's been filed on behalf of the man who literally wrote the book on Constitutional Law (Laurence Tribe) and others that's a bit more compelling.
Aileen Cannon is a rookie -- a rookie appointed for life but a rookie nonetheless.
Stating this generously, I'm not sure she's had time to develop her own philosophy as to what legal issues are really worth her time. Sometimes, she has seemed willing to reinvent the wheel as to issues that already been resolved.
One of my law school classmates practices in Miami for one the big firms. I think there is a lot of bafflement about her skillset....She's book smart enough....but...
I'm not a Lawrence Tribe fan AT ALL. He's very smart. Johnathon Turley is very smart. Both have the same issue--their political beliefs interfere with their judgements and they make stupid comments and poor arguments at time. Plus, both have them have argued opposite positions from what they would have you believe just a few short years later.
It's disappointing that the MAGAs assume that, if they've not heard personally about a particular legal argument until they read about it on the internet, it absolutely must be a new, brilliant, blockbuster legal argument that has never been tested before.
Most of the MAGAs have never thought about anything more complicated than "how many times must I circle around the parking lot before I can get a spot by the front door."
There's a lot of dummies on the bench across the US.
It wouldn’t be the same argument with Mueller since Mueller didn’t have the power, or try to, bring charges. That’s the gravamen of that Reason article.
No, every lawyer isn’t book smart or even smart.
That second link says the constitutionality of the new act is very much in play and the precedent isn’t rock solid in the intro.
Dick Thornburgh offered the following opening statement before congress, and he lays it out very with regard to the CFR:
Attorney General's Special Counsel Regulations | Brookings
Testimony by Michael Davidson, Visiting Fellow, Governmental Studies, the Brookings Institution, before the House Subcommittee on Commercial And Administrative Law, Committee on Rules, on September 15, 1999 on the Judiciary, House of Representatives
www.brookings.edu
you would have to have the supreme court overturn the 7-1 decision in Morrison. Would they? Alito has already been on record as hating the decision.
That intro says there were two later cases that didn’t apply it already. I haven’t read any of this; just going off that link.
Looks like Dem timing didn't account for the other side actually mounting a defense.....
1 case, and it related to the power of the president to remove officers at his sole discretion. Had nothing to do with special counsel, so Morrison didn't apply. The Act authorizing special counsel expired in 1998. Since then, the justice department in its function as an arm of the executive branch, issued new rules for the appointment of special prosecutors.
All of your previous guarantees have proven so rock solid, I don't know why anyone wouldn't rush to put their life savings on this one. 🤷♂️
