Was just dismissed.

Winning. Bigly.

quote:

Originally posted by Aspen Hill Adventures:
Was just dismissed.

Winning. Bigly.

The pussy cat in the pictures has a higher IQ than Trump.

Or his voters!

It is appealable.

Dismissed procedurally over appointment of Special Counsel using Justice Thomas concurrence as coverage.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
It is appealable.

Dismissed procedurally over appointment of Special Counsel using Justice Thomas concurrence as coverage.

Smith was unlawfully appointed. This should be a clue as the the level of BS and waste this current govt is causing.

quote:

Originally posted by Aspen Hill Adventures:

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
It is appealable.

Dismissed procedurally over appointment of Special Counsel using Justice Thomas concurrence as coverage.

Smith was unlawfully appointed. This should be a clue as the the level of BS and waste this current govt is causing.

trump unlawfully stole and retained classified documents. But, you're unconcerned about that, right?

What made it an unlawful appointment??

The following language is the controlling rule on the appointment of Special Prosecutor. The language is from United States v Nixon, 418 US 683 (1974).

The Supreme Court is going to have to overturn or carve out an exception to the below language for this ruling to stand. Justice Thomas has done worth such an opinion in this immunity concurrence.

Congress has vested in the Attorney General the power to conduct the criminal litigation of the United States Government. 28 U.S.C. § 516. It has also vested in him the power to appoint subordinate officers to assist him in the discharge of his duties. 28 U.S.C. §§ 509, 510, 515, 533. Acting pursuant to those statutes, the Attorney General has delegated the authority to represent the United States in these particular matters to a Special Prosecutor with unique authority and tenure. [Footnote 8] The regulation gives the
Page 418 U. S. 695
Special Prosecutor explicit power to contest the invocation of executive privilege in the process of seeking evidence deemed relevant to the performance of these specially delegated duties. [Footnote 9] 38 Fed.Reg. 30739, as amended by 38 Fed.Reg. 32805.
So long as this regulation is extant, it has the force of law. In United States ex rel. Accardi v. Shaughnessy, 347 U. S. 260 (1954), regulations of the Attorney General delegated certain of his discretionary powers to the Board Page 418 U. S. 696 of Immigration Appeals and required that Board to exercise its own discretion on appeals in deportation cases. The Court held that, so long as the Attorney General's regulations remained operative, he denied himself the authority to exercise the discretion delegated to the Board even though the original authority was his and he could reassert it by amending the regulations. Service v. Dulles, 354 U. S. 363, 354 U. S. 388 (1957), and Vitarelli v. Seaton, 359 U. S. 535 (1959), reaffirmed the basic holding of Accardi.
Here, as in Accardi, it is theoretically possible for the Attorney General to amend or revoke the regulation defining the Special Prosecutor's authority. But he has not done so. [Footnote 10] So long as this regulation remains in force, the Executive Branch is bound by it, and indeed the United States, as the sovereign composed of the three branches, is bound to respect and to enforce it. Moreover, the delegation of authority to the Special Prosecutor in this case is not an ordinary delegation by the Attorney General to a subordinate officer: with the authorization of the President, the Acting Attorney General provided in the regulation that the Special Prosecutor was not to be removed without the "consensus" of eight designated leaders of Congress. N 8, supra.

The language is copied and pasted from the opinion. Any issues w grammar one can take it up w the Supreme Court.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:

quote:

Originally posted by Aspen Hill Adventures:

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
It is appealable.

Dismissed procedurally over appointment of Special Counsel using Justice Thomas concurrence as coverage.

Smith was unlawfully appointed. This should be a clue as the the level of BS and waste this current govt is causing.

trump unlawfully stole and retained classified documents. But, you're unconcerned about that, right?

The dismissal can be overturned on appeal, or he could be re-indicted, and a new appointment or assignment to seek prosecution, and especially a different judge. The dismissal had nothing to do with the evidence or strength of the case.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:

quote:

Originally posted by Aspen Hill Adventures:

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
It is appealable.

Dismissed procedurally over appointment of Special Counsel using Justice Thomas concurrence as coverage.

Smith was unlawfully appointed. This should be a clue as the the level of BS and waste this current govt is causing.

trump unlawfully stole and retained classified documents. But, you're unconcerned about that, right?

Actually, I am not concerned. They guy you voted for had 50 years worth of classified documents.

I know this is difficult for you, Mitchell. Maybe this will help you understand:

quote:

A judge dismissed the documents case against former President Trump, ruling that the special counsel investigation was unlawful and unconstitutional.

The judge ruled that "Special Counsel Smith's appointment violates the Appointment Clause of the United States Constitution." This was made plain recently by Representative Thomas Massie in his questioning of Attorney General Merrick Garland.

The question was "whether private citizen Jack Smith lacks authority to represent the United States." The judge ruled that he did in fact lack such authority since special counsels are supposed to be appointed by the President and Congress.

[/QUOTE]trump unlawfully stole and retained classified documents. But, you're unconcerned about that, right?[/QUOTE]

Unlawfully stole?

Where these "classified" documents piled up on a table in the White reading room for anyone to pick up and read at their leisure?

Never have the header subjects of these documents been mentioned regardless of the fact that every Tom, Dick and Harry browsed through them and unlikely that those "investigators" would have the legal clearance to handle classified govt. documents.

Just for the sake of clarity: classified documents have varying levels of importance, e.g. Classified, Highly Classified, Secret and Top Secret, ALL of which can only be accessed by people holding a high-level status, including the President.

However, EVEN the President has to OFFICIALLY request access to classified documents from the Archives and any such document, file, etc. which has been released from the security bins within the Archives will be documented: date, time, by whom and expected date of return.

When Trump left office why was he not made aware that he was still in possession of these documents and why were they left in his possession for so long?

Same applicable to Biden.

quote:

Originally posted by Aspen Hill Adventures:

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:

quote:

Originally posted by Aspen Hill Adventures:

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
It is appealable.

Dismissed procedurally over appointment of Special Counsel using Justice Thomas concurrence as coverage.

Smith was unlawfully appointed. This should be a clue as the the level of BS and waste this current govt is causing.

trump unlawfully stole and retained classified documents. But, you're unconcerned about that, right?

Actually, I am not concerned. They guy you voted for had 50 years worth of classified documents.

I know this is difficult for you, Mitchell. Maybe this will help you understand:

quote:

A judge dismissed the documents case against former President Trump, ruling that the special counsel investigation was unlawful and unconstitutional.

The judge ruled that "Special Counsel Smith's appointment violates the Appointment Clause of the United States Constitution." This was made plain recently by Representative Thomas Massie in his questioning of Attorney General Merrick Garland.

The question was "whether private citizen Jack Smith lacks authority to represent the United States." The judge ruled that he did in fact lack such authority since special counsels are supposed to be appointed by the President and Congress.

trump unlawfully stole and retained classified documents. But, you're unconcerned about that, right?

It's why you are a trumptard.

quote:

Originally posted by Aspen Hill Adventures:

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:

quote:

Originally posted by Aspen Hill Adventures:

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
It is appealable.

Dismissed procedurally over appointment of Special Counsel using Justice Thomas concurrence as coverage.

Smith was unlawfully appointed. This should be a clue as the the level of BS and waste this current govt is causing.

trump unlawfully stole and retained classified documents. But, you're unconcerned about that, right?

Actually, I am not concerned. They guy you voted for had 50 years worth of classified documents.

I know this is difficult for you, Mitchell. Maybe this will help you understand:

quote:

A judge dismissed the documents case against former President Trump, ruling that the special counsel investigation was unlawful and unconstitutional.

The judge ruled that "Special Counsel Smith's appointment violates the Appointment Clause of the United States Constitution." This was made plain recently by Representative Thomas Massie in his questioning of Attorney General Merrick Garland.

The question was "whether private citizen Jack Smith lacks authority to represent the United States." The judge ruled that he did in fact lack such authority since special counsels are supposed to be appointed by the President and Congress.

Well, you folks got the claims against trump dismissed on technical arguments. Be proud and happy. We'll see how it goes moving forward. Hopefully, your guy can pardon himself.

quote:

Originally posted by fulvio:

trump unlawfully stole and retained classified documents. But, you're unconcerned about that, right?[/QUOTE]

Unlawfully stole?

Where these "classified" documents piled up on a table in the White reading room for anyone to pick up and read at their leisure?

Never have the header subjects of these documents been mentioned regardless of the fact that every Tom, Dick and Harry browsed through them and unlikely that those "investigators" would have the legal clearance to handle classified govt. documents.

Just for the sake of clarity: classified documents have varying levels of importance, e.g. Classified, Highly Classified, Secret and Top Secret, ALL of which can only be accessed by people holding a high-level status, including the President.

However, EVEN the President has to OFFICIALLY request access to classified documents from the Archives and any such document, file, etc. which has been released from the security bins within the Archives will be documented: date, time, by whom and expected date of return.

When Trump left office why was he not made aware that he was still in possession of these documents and why were they left in his possession for so long?

Same applicable to Biden.[/QUOTE]

I believe that they were offered assistance by the archives folks, but declined it. You can search for it if you'd like.

FWIW presidents are usually privy to security briefings for a time after leaving office, but since he never read them and there was CONCERN over how he might "DISBURSE" the info, this privilege was rescinded/revoked.

Everything in those docs…he was allowed/expected to know. For at least the last 3 decades…it has been precedent for past presidents to keep some docs. Just more lawfare singling out President Trump.

They are not and never was his to keep.

He certainly cannot refuse to return them at the end of his term and try to hide them.

They still have all done it. It was precedent at the time. Trump treated differently and America sees it.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:

Well, you folks got the claims against trump dismissed on technical arguments. Be proud and happy. We'll see how it goes moving forward. Hopefully, your guy can pardon himself.

ah, by technical, like the baldwin case, you mean technically ILLEGAL by the government? that's what you meant, right?

Trump had documents... biden documents ..

it's just weird how the SAME crime has different responses with some people - i mean, it's almost like a "side-ism" .. if it's wrong from trump (it was, don't get me wrong) then it's AT LEAST equally as illegal for biden...

no nit picking, no "its worse if" .. same crime, same time, for rational people....

If he had given it all back when told ---

But noooo -- he had some of it hidden, moved, and such, Plus he lied about it.

So, he stole, hid it, obstructed, and lied. Typical Trump.

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:
If he had given it all back when told ---

But noooo -- he had some of it hidden, moved, and such, Plus he lied about it.

So, he stole, hid it, obstructed, and lied. Typical Trump.

Like you actually know all that as fact.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:

quote:

Originally posted by Aspen Hill Adventures:

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:

quote:

Originally posted by Aspen Hill Adventures:

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
It is appealable.

Dismissed procedurally over appointment of Special Counsel using Justice Thomas concurrence as coverage.

Smith was unlawfully appointed. This should be a clue as the the level of BS and waste this current govt is causing.

trump unlawfully stole and retained classified documents. But, you're unconcerned about that, right?

Actually, I am not concerned. They guy you voted for had 50 years worth of classified documents.

I know this is difficult for you, Mitchell. Maybe this will help you understand:

quote:

A judge dismissed the documents case against former President Trump, ruling that the special counsel investigation was unlawful and unconstitutional.

The judge ruled that "Special Counsel Smith's appointment violates the Appointment Clause of the United States Constitution." This was made plain recently by Representative Thomas Massie in his questioning of Attorney General Merrick Garland.

The question was "whether private citizen Jack Smith lacks authority to represent the United States." The judge ruled that he did in fact lack such authority since special counsels are supposed to be appointed by the President and Congress.

Well, you folks got the claims against trump dismissed on technical arguments. Be proud and happy. We'll see how it goes moving forward. Hopefully, your guy can pardon himself.

Yeah that old US Constitution is one hell of a technicality Lil Mikey.....knucklehead.....you democrats are the real threat to our country....


.

Politics!

Only dropped the charges because Biden did it too!

It IS crime.

But if WE do it, it is not!

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:
If he had given it all back when told ---

But noooo -- he had some of it hidden, moved, and such, Plus he lied about it.

So, he stole, hid it, obstructed, and lied. Typical Trump.

Like you actually know all that as fact.

Wow, Lane. You really are off the deep end.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:
If he had given it all back when told ---

But noooo -- he had some of it hidden, moved, and such, Plus he lied about it.

So, he stole, hid it, obstructed, and lied. Typical Trump.

Like you actually know all that as fact.

Everybody knows it as fact, shit for brains. He made up numerous stories about why he had them. He didn’t have them. He classified them with Jedi mind tricks. They were his to keep. Pull your head out of your ass, you waste of oxygen.

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:
If he had given it all back when told ---

But noooo -- he had some of it hidden, moved, and such, Plus he lied about it.

So, he stole, hid it, obstructed, and lied. Typical Trump.

Where is the evidence that he had been told to hand it all back .. or is it just speculation?

If it were true the authorities would have gone to retrieve these "sensitive" documents without any appointment - remember that by this time Trump was your "normal civilian".

"Stole and hidden"?
You cannot "steal" classified documents (is that so difficult to understand) as they are under MULTIPLE locks (combination/timer) and keys.
( ) which even the President doesn't have.

"Hidden" in plain sight in an empty room - isn't that where they allegedly found them?

Man, Oh Man, some people wear blinkers where they only see the tip of their nose.

Why don't you try and contact someone else in the know on how classified documents are handled seeing you think I am talking shit (regardless of you knowing zilch about me and my earlier years in life)?

Bottom line.

Not ok to have classified documents stored in your house but it’s perfectly ok to store them in the trunk of your corvette in a garage.

Rules for me but not for thee.

Biden cooperated. He didn’t make up a bunch of stories about why it was ok for him to have documents, or lie about having them. Pull your head out of your ass.

I almost forgot- “I don’t have documents, I have empty document folders.” This is your dipshit white trash messiah.

quote:

Originally posted by fulvio:

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:
If he had given it all back when told ---

But noooo -- he had some of it hidden, moved, and such, Plus he lied about it.

So, he stole, hid it, obstructed, and lied. Typical Trump.

Where is the evidence that he had been told to hand it all back .. or is it just speculation?

If it were true the authorities would have gone to retrieve these "sensitive" documents without any appointment - remember that by this time Trump was your "normal civilian".

"Stole and hidden"?
You cannot "steal" classified documents (is that so difficult to understand) as they are under MULTIPLE locks (combination/timer) and keys.
( ) which even the President doesn't have.

"Hidden" in plain sight in an empty room - isn't that where they allegedly found them?

Man, Oh Man, some people wear blinkers where they only see the tip of their nose.

Why don't you try and contact someone else in the know on how classified documents are handled seeing you think I am talking shit (regardless of you knowing zilch about me and my earlier years in life)?

It's interesting how all of a sudden, some lurking characters come out from under their rocks and start posting shit. It happens every time Trump gets a boost, or farts. You are like piranhas reacting from the smell of blood.

Yea, for sure I think you are talking shit, and not just on this topic. You are right, I don't know zilch about you in earlier years of life, and don't really want to know. Based on what I read from you now, you either lost something along the way, learned nothing from your experiences, and probably did a lot of havoc and damage along the way. Talking shit in the present is what matters to me, and how I and others judge you and your messages, and says a lot about what you know, think you know, and your head full of shit.

Or maybe it says something else altogether, which I won't speculate about directly, but infer.

There are several factual articles about what Trump did regarding the stolen classified documents. I don't have access to information that is not in the public domain. I don't use sources like Fox or any far right media because they are not reliable as to facts. IOW - they lie.

I found several articles describing the events that led up to the FBI raid on Mara Largo.

The most concise and thorough I found is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...eading_to_the_search

It looks like all the claims are footnoted.

And another thing to understand is that the dismissal of the case for the reasons stated - inappropriate appointment of special counsel - has NOTHING to do with or diminish the actual evidentiary case for prosecution of Trump for the crime. Therefore, the door is still open for a new indictment and new trial with a new judge and new prosecutor.

Cannon is history. She did her job, the dirty deed, of lawfare, and postponed the case adequately for Trump to not suffer the facts and evidence in the news during a trial while running for office again. She timed everything right, then dismissed it.

Jack Smith's case in DC is not affected as I understand it, so that prosecution door is still open too.

Also, it seems to me that this dismissal highlights a previous complaint about how the DOJ slow-walked this case and others re Trump from the beginning, and Garland finally appointed a special prosecutor to avoid political accusations upon himself. That didn't work nor did the special appointment. He was still attacked, lawfared, and the effect was to postpone the case well into the time critical zone.

This whole mess with Trump/Trumpism at the epicenter is far from over. It's looking like all the drama so far is just the prelude for something multi-chaptered and prolonged, and it ain't unity by consensus. It's unity by force.

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:

quote:

It's interesting how all of a sudden, some lurking characters come out from under their rocks and start posting shit. It happens every time Trump gets a boost, or farts. You are like piranhas reacting from the smell of blood.

I have brought the documents case up several times before but the answers have been evasive because nobody had anything of substance to offer other than the usual diatribe against the much hated Trump, like the ASSHOLE i am currently having a dialogue who rather than engaging in a civilized debate prefers to go off on a tangent and hurl insults.

It is not in my nature to insult people but ASSHOLES like yourself deserve it.

Have a good day.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:

quote:

Originally posted by Aspen Hill Adventures:

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:

quote:

Originally posted by Aspen Hill Adventures:

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
It is appealable.

Dismissed procedurally over appointment of Special Counsel using Justice Thomas concurrence as coverage.

Smith was unlawfully appointed. This should be a clue as the the level of BS and waste this current govt is causing.

trump unlawfully stole and retained classified documents. But, you're unconcerned about that, right?

Actually, I am not concerned. They guy you voted for had 50 years worth of classified documents.

I know this is difficult for you, Mitchell. Maybe this will help you understand:

quote:

A judge dismissed the documents case against former President Trump, ruling that the special counsel investigation was unlawful and unconstitutional.

The judge ruled that "Special Counsel Smith's appointment violates the Appointment Clause of the United States Constitution." This was made plain recently by Representative Thomas Massie in his questioning of Attorney General Merrick Garland.

The question was "whether private citizen Jack Smith lacks authority to represent the United States." The judge ruled that he did in fact lack such authority since special counsels are supposed to be appointed by the President and Congress.

Well, you folks got the claims against trump dismissed on technical arguments. Be proud and happy. We'll see how it goes moving forward. Hopefully, your guy can pardon himself.

And YOUR guy got a effing PASS from a prosecutor because he was too old and too muddled in the head.

WTF is wrong with you, Mitchell? This is about hypocrisy.

quote:

Originally posted by LongDistanceOperator:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:
If he had given it all back when told ---

But noooo -- he had some of it hidden, moved, and such, Plus he lied about it.

So, he stole, hid it, obstructed, and lied. Typical Trump.

Like you actually know all that as fact.

Everybody knows it as fact, shit for brains. He made up numerous stories about why he had them. He didn’t have them. He classified them with Jedi mind tricks. They were his to keep. Pull your head out of your ass, you waste of oxygen.

Howdy LDO

quote:

Originally posted by fulvio:
Originally posted by Magine Enigam:

quote:

It's interesting how all of a sudden, some lurking characters come out from under their rocks and start posting shit. It happens every time Trump gets a boost, or farts. You are like piranhas reacting from the smell of blood.

I have brought the documents case up several times before but the answers have been evasive because nobody had anything of substance to offer other than the usual diatribe against the much hated Trump, like the ASSHOLE i am currently having a dialogue who rather than engaging in a civilized debate prefers to go off on a tangent and hurl insults.

It is not in my nature to insult people but ASSHOLES like yourself deserve it.

Have a good day.

Have you noticed it is the liberals here who always resort to the name calling? Bunch of hypocrites.

As you poor, innocent, good folks, victims of abuse, right minded, etc., folks often said, it ain't settled till the appeal is resolved, and so forth. Talk about hypocrites.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politic...e/story?id=111951588

After judge dismisses Trump's classified docs case, special counsel authorized to appeal
The ruling dismisses one of the two cases brought against Trump by Jack Smith.

0biden only gave his 50 year collection up after he realized he fucked up by going after trump. Hypocrite!

quote:

Originally posted by fulvio:

I have brought the documents case up several times before but the answers have been evasive because nobody had anything of substance to offer other than the usual diatribe against the much hated Trump, like the ASSHOLE i am currently having a dialogue who rather than engaging in a civilized debate prefers to go off on a tangent and hurl insults.

It is not in my nature to insult people but ASSHOLES like yourself deserve it.

Have a good day.

If you are talking about me, rest assured my name calling of you, well, consider it my polite mode.

For example, calling me or anyone an asshole. Have you inspected my asshole? OTOH, when I call you ignorant, your own words herein are evidence. It's not name calling to use a descriptive term.

My answers in the last post were not evasive. They are specific as to facts and evidence regarding the basis for Trump's prosecution. If I make a claim, specifically, like "he stole, hid it, obstructed, and lied". I can produce evidence to back it up. Sometimes I don't initially, for expediency, especially when widely known.

Yet, you evaded and deflected.

Name the sources for your ignorance and arrogance, or own it.