Because Trump 2.0

[rmgill]

 

From last night's TimCast. 

[Josh]

13 minutes ago, rmgill said:

 

From last night's TimCast. 

Wow. No part of that makes sense: the logic, the standing, the proposed solution…it’s like someone just strung a bunch of words together to try to de convict Trump for the sole purpose of kissing his ass.

[rmgill]

2 hours ago, Josh said:

Wow. No part of that makes sense: the logic, the standing, the proposed solution…it’s like someone just strung a bunch of words together to try to de convict Trump for the sole purpose of kissing his ass.

You ARE aware that there are SERIOUS constitutional issues with the New York Conviction right? You understand that due process requires that one know what the charges are right? 

How do you have a conviction without a unanimous agreement on each charge? You understand that right? 
 

[Stuart Galbraith]

Well the documents case is much more solid, and he already had his stacked supreme court fix that for him. So i fail to see why it cant similarly get his lawyers to work on this, if it is indeed such a travesty of justice as he claims.

[old_goat]

BTW, are there any rumors about how Trump, if reelected, wants (IF wants of course...) to deal with antifa? Someone should finally recognize them as a terror group and deal with them accordingly. (preferably shoot first and ask questions later)

 

[Josh]

10 hours ago, rmgill said:

You ARE aware that there are SERIOUS constitutional issues with the New York Conviction right? You understand that due process requires that one know what the charges are right? 

How do you have a conviction without a unanimous agreement on each charge? You understand that right? 
 

Why should the state of Louisiana be involved?

[Josh]

5 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Well the documents case is much more solid, and he already had his stacked supreme court fix that for him. So i fail to see why it cant similarly get his lawyers to work on this, if it is indeed such a travesty of justice as he claims.

Actually a different federal judge fixed his document case, which is open and shut and will be waiting for him if he loses. The SC delayed his January 6th case, which also will be waiting for him if he loses.

Edited July 25, 2024 by Josh

[Stuart Galbraith]

I thought the documents case was squashed as well, or am I not keeping abreast of events? (which with the way things move in Washington these days would not surprise me).

Glad to hear that anyway.

[Josh]

Just now, Stuart Galbraith said:

I thought the documents case was squashed as well, or am I not keeping abreast of events? (which with the way things move in Washington these days would not surprise me).

Glad to hear that anyway.

A Trump appointed judge in FLA stated that special prosecutor appointments are unconstitutional (by extension including Hunters and even Clintons retroactively). It will be overturned, but not before the election of course.

[rmgill]

6 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Well the documents case is much more solid,

Not without legal niceties its not. The special prosecutor didn’t have the authority. The warrants were improper. The indictment was improper. 

6 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

and he already had his stacked supreme court fix that for him.

 

Do you have dementia. You keep using words improperly. Thats not what stacking is. 

 

[rmgill]

1 hour ago, Josh said:

Why should the state of Louisiana be involved?

Because its a national issue Affecting a political candidate in apolitical attack. The AG campaigned on this. Its in the public record. So you can’t very well say its not relevant. 
 

Why don’t you answer the unanimity issue?

[rmgill]

1 hour ago, Josh said:

Actually a different federal judge fixed his document case, which is open and shut and will be waiting for him if he loses. The SC delayed his January 6th case, which also will be waiting for him if he loses.

Cite the ruling please. 
 

Is there a ruling? There has been an appeal. Is it likely to succeed? Can you point to the legality of the appointment of Smith? You cannot. You can just make vague attributions to things you want or don't want but you cannot actually cite the law because you have not ken of what the law is. That's why you have no problem with 4 jurors voting for charge A, 4 for charge B and 4 for charge C and you consider that to be a good conviction of all three charges. Your understanding of law is farcical and unhinged. 

Edited July 25, 2024 by rmgill

[Josh]

34 minutes ago, rmgill said:

Because its a national issue Affecting a political candidate in apolitical attack. The AG campaigned on this. Its in the public record. So you can’t very well say its not relevant. 
 

Why don’t you answer the unanimity issue?

Because I’m not responsible for responding to every fiction you make up.

[rmgill]

What is the fiction? The NY AG campaigning on getting trump or the Unanimity issue? 

[Josh]

32 minutes ago, rmgill said:

Cite the ruling please. 
 

Is there a ruling? There has been an appeal. Is it likely to succeed? Can you point to the legality of the appointment of Smith? 

Most any public legal analysis indicates it’s a bad ruling (I myself am not a lawyer). It basically invalidates every special council going back decades. If necessary, SC will decide, but I suspect even they will not side with Canon if Trump loses. And if he wins the case gets dropped anyway.

[rmgill]

1 minute ago, Josh said:

Most any public legal analysis indicates it’s a bad ruling (I myself am not a lawyer).

What sources? 

1 minute ago, Josh said:

It basically invalidates every special council going back decades.

That is a risk when things are not done properly though. We've NEVER seen longstanding laws overturned have we? Or Longstanding doctrines that didn't rest on any good laws in teh first place (which is what this is). 

With the Chevron Deference set aside, do you thiink the DOJ is going to get to step outside the bounds of the Constitution? I don't. I don't think it should. 

EVERY Argument the left has against Trump is a fear of exercise of  tyrannical power. But their desired court outcomes are directly in that mode, ie tyrannical exercise of power outside of bounds of law. They WANT tyrannical control, just not someone elses. They set aside the basic rules of procedure so they can get Trump. 

Guess what, we have those checks and balances for a reason. You want to appoint a special council, have the right laws to make the power. Appointment by the president. 

If the Special prosecutor was NOT appointed correctly, ALL of the case is basically null and void. It's all a wasted effort on the part of the Democrats because they didn't perform their investigation correctly. Same as if a police department performed an investigation without a warrant and got to court and the warrant, evidence and indictment was tossed because they didn't go through the proper forms at the start. 
 

1 minute ago, Josh said:

If necessary, SC will decide, but I suspect even they will not side with Canon if Trump loses. And if he wins the case gets dropped anyway.

I think the recent flurry of cases like Chevron Deference are more substantial than you realize. But as you say, you're not a legal expert. 

[DKTanker]

In other relevant news, apparently the local yokels offered the use of their drones for aerial surveillance, the USSS declined the offer.

https://x.com/HawleyMO/status/1816508920757662041/photo/1

[Stuart Galbraith]

There is a new video by Ward Carroll on the shooting, which brings out a number of new details. Supposedly the local PD were given the job of protecting the roof of the building the shooter used. There were indeed there, unfortunately it was rather hot outside, so they were inside the building, not outside it...

There was also no common frequency between the local PD and the USSS, which you would think would be basic stuff considering how long they have been using radios.

 

[Stuart Galbraith]

16 hours ago, rmgill said:

Not without legal niceties its not. The special prosecutor didn’t have the authority. The warrants were improper. The indictment was improper. 

Do you have dementia. You keep using words improperly. Thats not what stacking is. 

 

Have you read anything on Watergate Ryan? Because a Special prosecutor is invested with the authority when he accept the position. Its how it works. Or at least, its how it seems to have worked before your lawyers started playing political shennanigans over obscure points of law.

Have you ever heard of 'stacking the deck?' So thanks, not an orange octegenarian trying to be President there, thanks all the same.

[Mr King]

11 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

 an orange octegenarian

You rang? lol

[Josh]

1 minute ago, Mr King said:

You rang? lol

Never the less, the oldest presidential nominee in history is Trump, not Biden.

[Ssnake]

14 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

There is a new video by Ward Carroll on the shooting, which brings out a number of new details. Supposedly the local PD were given the job of protecting the roof of the building the shooter used. There were indeed there, unfortunately it was rather hot outside, so they were inside the building, not outside it...

Maybe so, but they couldn't be bothered to cover the roof with eyes from a window of the adjacent building. Maybe that's still incompetence, but at such a level that it's already beyond my imagination. 

[Stuart Galbraith]

No argument.

I dont believe its a conspiracy, because I think a conspiracy would inherently be better organized. But I can entirely understand why Trump supporters would think so.

 

[Mr King]

3 minutes ago, Josh said:

Never the less, the oldest presidential nominee in history is Trump, not Biden.

Oh I see what you did there. So that makes Biden the oldest president in US history.

[Stuart Galbraith]

4 minutes ago, Mr King said:

You rang? lol

I entirely asked for that.

Yes, he really doesnt look well. His eyes even look like the overly attached girlfriend meme.