And if old Jackie was not appointed properly then how can his suit be legitimately prosecuted?

Just in case anyone is wondering, here's an example of where bluefish and others get their "news".

https://www.westernjournal.com...counsel-wasnt-legal/

Former AG Pens Jaw-Dropping Letter to Supreme Court: Jack Smith's Appointment as Special Counsel Wasn't Legal


Heritage Foundation:
https://www.heritage.org/crime...mith-the-first-place

Was It Legal To Appoint Jack Smith in the First Place? Jan 10, 2024

The truth:

https://www.newsweek.com/donal...upreme-court-1855742

Why Donald Trump Is Wrong About Jack Smith
Published Dec 27, 2023 at 7:24 AM EST
Updated Dec 27, 2023 at 5:16 PM EST

===============================================
Never forget, lies may rule soon.


Here's another disturbing article published in The Western Journal: This narrative has a strong following.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...fc4191db215401&ei=24

Trump Celebrates as He Gets Major Presidential Immunity Win from Supreme Court
Story by Michael Schwarz • 23h

quote:

Originally posted by bluefish:
And if old Jackie was not appointed properly then how can his suit be legitimately prosecuted?

It is not a suit. It is a prosecution m. No court has took the stood position up as an issue.

Your position is not an issue in this matter.

The S.Ct., is not and will not entertain this ref herring. We know this because it has not been an issue below and the Order granting cert has stated the issue on appeal bf the High Court.

Your possession is not a topic, issue, or relevant bc it is not at issue or entertained by the courts.


It is like saying well cop arrested me. Therefore, the cop’s character is one of dishonesty because I say I am innocent. Therefore, judge dismiss the prosecution.

I have heard that argument. It is a non argument. It does not work.


Again, no court has entertained a challenge to Special Counsel Jack Smith’s appointment.

It is clear what the question is and you well know it so stop being an obtuse little shit.

ME is setting the stage to justify his outrage when the SCOTUS finds that President Trump was indeed immune and that immunity followed him post-presidency.

quote:

Originally posted by bluefish:
It is clear what the question is and you well know it so stop being an obtuse little shit.

There is no issue.

There is not an issue of appointment bf the Court.

You can’t be this stupid.

You and the Heritage Fund do not get to create or speak issues into existence.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
ME is setting the stage to justify his outrage when the SCOTUS finds that President Trump was indeed immune and that immunity followed him post-presidency.

That is not going to happen as immunity related to these charges.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
ME is setting the stage to justify his outrage when the SCOTUS finds that President Trump was indeed immune and that immunity followed him post-presidency.

So Joe can just have Trump's plane shot down, or send an Arc Light mission to Mar-A-Lago?

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...SV9?ocid=socialshare

Majority of Americans want Trump trial verdicts before Election Day

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
ME is setting the stage to justify his outrage when the SCOTUS finds that President Trump was indeed immune and that immunity followed him post-presidency.

Or is Presidential immunity like appointing Supreme Court Justices, only for Republicans?

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
ME is setting the stage to justify his outrage when the SCOTUS finds that President Trump was indeed immune and that immunity followed him post-presidency.

Or is Presidential immunity like appointing Supreme Court Justices, only for Republicans?

President Biden better hope not…as he shared illegally classified documents with his ghost writer.

Then prosecute him. So tiresome to always have to listen to this rubbish justifying what one side does based on what the other side did. A pox on both their houses. Strange that so many have forgotten their mother's admonishment that two wrongs do not a right.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
ME is setting the stage to justify his outrage when the SCOTUS finds that President Trump was indeed immune and that immunity followed him post-presidency.

Or is Presidential immunity like appointing Supreme Court Justices, only for Republicans?

President Biden better hope not…as he shared illegally classified documents with his ghost writer.

Which, as we know, is far worse than sharing them with Kid Rock.

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
ME is setting the stage to justify his outrage when the SCOTUS finds that President Trump was indeed immune and that immunity followed him post-presidency.

Or is Presidential immunity like appointing Supreme Court Justices, only for Republicans?

President Biden better hope not…as he shared illegally classified documents with his ghost writer.

Which, as we know, is far worse than sharing them with Kid Rock.

Just saying…

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
Then prosecute him. So tiresome to always have to listen to this rubbish justifying what one side does based on what the other side did. A pox on both their houses. Strange that so many have forgotten their mother's admonishment that two wrongs do not a right.

I have no issue with the prosecution of Trump for the illegal retention of classified documents and showing them to others. Sounds like its a slam dunk, and the only question is how legitimate the president's ability to declassify and the process involved is.

I do have an issue with the apparent double standard on prosecuting the violators based on the system's views on how "honorable," "kindly," or "they did not know it was illegal" especially in the frame of folks who are being touted as being more knowledgeable than the rest of us.

Yes, Trump deserves to get prosecuted and sent to Leavenworth for this crap. Then we should be sending Biden, HRC, etc. because they did the same crap, maybe not as thoroughly, but since when did degree of violation of the law make a difference in guilt or innocence- just in sentence.

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
Then prosecute him. So tiresome to always have to listen to this rubbish justifying what one side does based on what the other side did. A pox on both their houses. Strange that so many have forgotten their mother's admonishment that two wrongs do not a right.

I have no issue with the prosecution of Trump for the illegal retention of classified documents and showing them to others. Sounds like its a slam dunk, and the only question is how legitimate the president's ability to declassify and the process involved is.

I do have an issue with the apparent double standard on prosecuting the violators based on the system's views on how "honorable," "kindly," or "they did not know it was illegal" especially in the frame of folks who are being touted as being more knowledgeable than the rest of us.

Yes, Trump deserves to get prosecuted and sent to Leavenworth for this crap. Then we should be sending Biden, HRC, etc. because they did the same crap, maybe not as thoroughly, but since when did degree of violation of the law make a difference in guilt or innocence- just in sentence.

The Law in question specifically requires a showing of "intent" for conviction, which is very evident in Trump's case and could not be found in Biden's despite the best efforts of the Republican hatchet man assigned to investigate.

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
Then prosecute him. So tiresome to always have to listen to this rubbish justifying what one side does based on what the other side did. A pox on both their houses. Strange that so many have forgotten their mother's admonishment that two wrongs do not a right.

I have no issue with the prosecution of Trump for the illegal retention of classified documents and showing them to others. Sounds like its a slam dunk, and the only question is how legitimate the president's ability to declassify and the process involved is.

I do have an issue with the apparent double standard on prosecuting the violators based on the system's views on how "honorable," "kindly," or "they did not know it was illegal" especially in the frame of folks who are being touted as being more knowledgeable than the rest of us.

Yes, Trump deserves to get prosecuted and sent to Leavenworth for this crap. Then we should be sending Biden, HRC, etc. because they did the same crap, maybe not as thoroughly, but since when did degree of violation of the law make a difference in guilt or innocence- just in sentence.

The Law in question specifically requires a showing of "intent" for conviction, which is very evident in Trump's case and could not be found in Biden's despite the best efforts of the Republican hatchet man assigned to investigate.

wow, the mental gymnastics required to say "same action by one party is bad, but other party is good" ..

It's like they don't teach balance and fairness back in peckerwood county -

That is bc it is not the same action.

If you want to amend the Federal law to simple negligence, I am all for it.

Another option, we could amend the Fed law to make any retention a pro se violation.

Intent matters.

I have provided case law to the forum explaining the difference be Gross Negligence and simple, mere negligence.

This not mental gymnastics. It is an element of the offense created by the statute in question that must be satisfied and present.

A distinction w a difference between gross negligence and simple, mere negligence.

I have given two ways, and the only two ways to change the outcome. The federal statute would have to be amended as given above.

Without facts that demonstrate gross negligence in retention, you have no case to prosecute. Case law tells us what are sufficient facts to do prove.

Professionals have looked at that caselaw and said, “We cannot obtain a legal conviction.”


Now, o am calling it a statute bc that is what we call them in KY. We all know a fed law is an Act. I have posted the specific act bf. I will again, if anyone wants to read it.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
That is bc it is not the same action.

If you want to amend the Federal law to simple negligence, I am all for it.

Another option, we could amend the Fed law to make any retention a pro se violation.

Intent matters.

I would note that this "intent" element doesn't really apply across the board, just at the top levels.

Early in my Army service, when I was a Unit Armorer I was also the Company Commander's Jeep driver. On a field exercise he left his CEOI (Communications Equipment Operating Instructions) [frequencies and codes] laying on his cot where the First Sergeant found it, and tried to write ME an Article 15 for leaving it unsecured. I said no thanks, I'll take the Court Martial (I never had possession of it nor any instruction to take possession of it, I was his driver, not his valet) and it blew over.

Negligence is the absence of intent. We are using intent, freely and too loosely, for mens rea required by the Fed law. That being gross negligence.

https://youtu.be/yP_00oYOKUY?si=Yu1gcl-sV1Tcvd0V

Judge J. Michael Luttig joins Ali Velshi to discuss the practical implications of the Supreme Court agreeing to hear Donald Trump’s far-fetched immunity claim, a move that is likely to further delay the former president’s federal election interference case. Luttig breaks down the most realistic timeline for the ruling and its fallout, predicting early October as the most likely start date for Smith’s trial to begin. Luttig also explains why the case is “far, far more important for the country and Constitution” than the United States v. Nixon case and others before it.

Seems to me that when you willfully share classified documents with your ghostwriter who is writing your memoirs and tell that person: “Hey, they don’t know I have these;” that you have demonstrated intent.

quote:

“Hey, they don’t know I have these;”

It's also hearsay, unless it's recorded.

But, of course, hearsay is plenty good for republican investigations. Repeated often enough, it becomes fact, until the "witness" is under oath and questioned.

Repeat 1000 times.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
Negligence is the absence of intent. We are using intent, freely and too loosely, for mens rea required by the Fed law. That being gross negligence.

where does apathy fall into this scale? Gen X might have a defense for everything

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:

quote:

“Hey, they don’t know I have these;”

It's also hearsay, unless it's recorded.

But, of course, hearsay is plenty good for republican investigations. Repeated often enough, it becomes fact, until the "witness" is under oath and questioned.

Repeat 1000 times.

There is testimony that it was recorded. Zwonitzer destroyed the tapes.

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
Negligence is the absence of intent. We are using intent, freely and too loosely, for mens rea required by the Fed law. That being gross negligence.

where does apathy fall into this scale? Gen X might have a defense for everything

When apathy is part of the criminal statute, I’ll commit on it. Technically, apathy can play a role at sentencing phase. This is less so at the Fed level. However, you have to have a crime to get to sentencing. Under the law at play mete, simple negligent retention is not a crime.


As for hearsay, there are at least 23 exceptions when the decadent is unavailable. “Hey, they do not know I have these,” may fall into excited utterance or present sense. Again, negligence is insufficient under the law in play to convict.

One factor cutting in President Biden’s favor, showing mere, simple begins opposed to gross, is voluntary discovery and surrender of documents.


These two things by the Fed law at play are not the same.


It does not matter how you feel Jeff. The law defines the criminal conduct. If you do not like it change the law. I gave you two examples how that law can be changed to make mere, simple negligent retention or any retention a crime.


Again, one cannot under Fed law be prosecuted for the mere, simple negligent retention.


The distinction between Gross Negligence and Simple Negligence is not word play. They are two different mens rea. As diffuse wanton and intentional. Mere, simple negligence will not satisfy gross negligence. That is a matter of law. A legal truism.

I have posted caselaw explaining the difference in the two. Anyone can go read it.


Unless one can find cases where the federal appellate courts permitted the conviction under facts similar to President Biden and HRC for that matter, there is nothing here to argue in choosing not to prosecute or bring charges.

That is how these decisions are made. Prosecutors trained in reading caselaw take the alleged facts and filter those alleged facts through existing caselaw looking for patterns or distinguishing fact(s) where the appellate courts permitted convictions or overturned convictions. Issues of search and seizure notwithstanding.

Apathy has nothing to do with it. The mens rea as stated in the Fed law, and given breath by caselaw is what has everything to do with it.


The process described above is as much a part of due process as anything else we have discussed in other threads.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:

quote:

“Hey, they don’t know I have these;”

It's also hearsay, unless it's recorded.

But, of course, hearsay is plenty good for republican investigations. Repeated often enough, it becomes fact, until the "witness" is under oath and questioned.

Repeat 1000 times.

There is testimony that it was recorded. Zwonitzer destroyed the tapes.

Oh so unfortunate/convenient!!!

Repeat 2000 times should cover that small discrepancy with making fiction into fact.

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:

quote:

“Hey, they don’t know I have these;”

It's also hearsay, unless it's recorded.

But, of course, hearsay is plenty good for republican investigations. Repeated often enough, it becomes fact, until the "witness" is under oath and questioned.

Repeat 1000 times.

There is testimony that it was recorded. Zwonitzer destroyed the tapes.

Oh so unfortunate/convenient!!!

Repeat 2000 times should cover that small discrepancy with making fiction into fact.

Of course you don’t find it convenient that Zwonizer destroyed the tapes or that HRC smashed her iPhone.

Hypocrisy much!

quote:

HRC smashed her iPhone

Oh shit, so absolutely deplorable of her!!! That seems like something she would want to do personally.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-ch...-smash-phone-hammer/

Did Hillary Clinton Smash Her Phone with a Hammer?

According to FBI documents made public in 2016, one of Clinton's aides twice disposed of her old mobile devices by "breaking them in half or destroying them with a hammer."

Claim:
Hillary Clinton used a hammer to smash her mobile phone during an FBI investigation.
Rating:
Mixture
Mixture
About this rating

What's True
One of Hillary Clinton's aides told the FBI that on two occasions he disposed of her unwanted mobile devices by breaking or hammering them.

What's False
Hillary Clinton did not personally destroy her phone with a hammer.

=================================================


Plausible Deniability. Worked for Reagan in Iran Contra. Didn't work so well for Nixon. Didn't work so well for Bush jr. Worked well for Trump on Russian collusion. Worked well in the legal system for HRC, but of course GOPer machinations can overcome any smoke screen with one better.

quote:

What's False
Hillary Clinton did not personally destroy her phone with a hammer.

Good enough that you'd still vote for her. Bizarre.

In the contest between her and Trump, personally smashing her old phone with a sledge hammer on public TV would be points in her favor, IMO, especially if the phone was sitting on a manikin symbolically representing Trump.

So, while we are discussing the S. CT. and their probable decisions regarding Trump's eligibility and immunity, etc., here's something to ponder:

https://youtu.be/eRAXatAbsLg?si=1dPUZWqcqFyEBXxF

The Not-So-Supreme Court

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:
In the contest between her and Trump, personally smashing her old phone with a sledge hammer on public TV would be points in her favor, IMO, especially if the phone was sitting on a manikin symbolically representing Trump.

Or actually on top of his head...

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:

What's True
One of Hillary Clinton's aides told the FBI that on two occasions he disposed of her unwanted mobile devices by breaking or hammering them.

What's False
Hillary Clinton did not personally destroy her phone with a hammer.

You are quite right ME. I am certain the handle of an instrument of manual labor has never touched HRCs hand. Nor would she be able figure out how to operate a hammer.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:

What's True
One of Hillary Clinton's aides told the FBI that on two occasions he disposed of her unwanted mobile devices by breaking or hammering them.

What's False
Hillary Clinton did not personally destroy her phone with a hammer.

You are quite right ME. I am certain the handle of an instrument of manual labor has never touched HRCs hand. Nor would she be able figure out how to operate a hammer.

"Thank God for THAT" Bill exclaimed.

quote:

You are quite right ME. I am certain the handle of an instrument of manual labor has never touched HRCs hand. Nor would she be able figure out how to operate a hammer.

But she could run a vast pedophile child trafficking operation out of a pizza parlor basement - right?

And she had on retainer a network of hit-men, right?

https://youtu.be/ulJE8LMymow?si=NID6hCvxEHct9bt4

'We all know what he did': Psaki reacts to Supreme Court delaying Trump criminal trial

https://youtu.be/wv6WYk3rrEA?si=FVCVVmmrnprB5Yke

'They took this case to delay the trial': Weissmann blasts SCOTUS for helping Trump

Legal analyst Andrew Weissmann joins Jen Psaki to break down the timeline for the Supreme Court's review of Trump's presidential immunity claims and why he thinks they took this case to delay the trial. Weissmann tells Psaki, "I hope that there ultimately is a trial before the election, but they certainly have put that prospect in grave doubt."

https://youtu.be/oin1KE5jyXE?si=jcIdlYUEonaq-60p

'The rule does not apply!': Weissmann reacts to Trump judge’s 'wrongheaded' reasoning

Legal analyst Andrew Weissman joins Jen Psaki to discuss Judge Aileen Cannon raising the DOJ's "60-day rule" in the Trump classified documents case and why the rule does not apply to the timing of criminal trials.

https://youtu.be/HUoiUUifWWw?si=95I8TzEW49b3C17r

'Shouldn’t that be enough?' Raskin lays out extent of Trump’s crimes

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:

quote:

You are quite right ME. I am certain the handle of an instrument of manual labor has never touched HRCs hand. Nor would she be able figure out how to operate a hammer.

But she could run a vast pedophile child trafficking operation out of a pizza parlor basement - right?

And she had on retainer a network of hit-men, right?

If you look for logical consistency among Republicans take an electron microscope along, these are the people who think President Biden is both senile and head of a global crime family so diabolically clever he leaves no tracks for even skilled bloodhounds like James Comer and Gym Jordan to find.

From the outside looking in, observing, there is indeed consistency about republicans.

The consistency is illogical, of course, but the observation thereof is logical.