@mott-the-hoople saidMoron.
😂
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2023/12/20/jack-smiths-special-counsel-appointment-is-unconstitutional-former-attorney-general-tells-supreme-court/
Anything to "protect" your Orange Jesus and screw the rest of us.
@mott-the-hoople saidYes, and it is quite clear that the Donald made himself ineligible to be president, per the 14th Amendment.
we do have a constitution you know?
Do you think a former president is above the law? The Constitution doesn't think so.
@metal-brain saidYou should check out the court of public opinion, he’s definitely been found guilty there, well apart from ‘LaLa MAGA we want a dictator land’
Trump is no Jesus. Jesus was convicted of sedition, Trump was not.
Jack Smith is a hero and history will record exactly that,
Trump is a seditious oath breaking scumbag as are his followers and history will record exactly that
@kevcvs57 saidI already know that democrats think what you do and republicans don't.
You should check out the court of public opinion, he’s definitely been found guilty there, well apart from ‘LaLa MAGA we want a dictator land’
Jack Smith is a hero and history will record exactly that,
Trump is a seditious oath breaking scumbag as are his followers and history will record exactly that
You cannot charge Trump with sedition, let alone get a conviction. He said to "protest peacefully and patriotically" and he never told any of his followers to break any laws. The self proclaimed law and order president was careful to do that.
You might as well call him Teflon Trump. A sedition charge would not stick. You just wish it would.
@metal-brain saidNo he said go to the Capitol and ‘fight like hell’ he ordered his vice to void votes for Biden even though the vice told him categorically that would be unconstitutional and when he held true to the constitution Trump set his fascist attack dogs on him personally
I already know that democrats think what you do and republicans don't.
You cannot charge Trump with sedition, let alone get a conviction. He said to "protest peacefully and patriotically" and he never told any of his followers to break any laws. The self proclaimed law and order president was careful to do that.
You might as well call him Teflon Trump. A sedition charge would not stick. You just wish it would.
@kevcvs57 saidTrump said that figuratively just as Joe Biden has said "fight like hell" figuratively.
No he said go to the Capitol and ‘fight like hell’ he ordered his vice to void votes for Biden even though the vice told him categorically that would be unconstitutional and when he held true to the constitution Trump set his fascist attack dogs on him personally
Your BBC cherry picked "fight like hell" and omitted "protest peacefully and patriotically" to propagandize you. They brainwashed you so badly you now need reminding of "protest peacefully and patriotically" because all you think about is "fight like hell".
https://nypost.com/2021/02/10/old-tweets-show-raskin-biden-saying-fight-like-hell/
Is somebody paying you to repeat propaganda talking points to fit the false narrative? I only ask because you are doing such a great job of it.
@Mott-The-Hoople
“A written questionnaire, used as part of a comprehensive voir dire process, is a potent tool to sift out potential jury bias in cases where there has been substantial media attention,” Mr. Smith’s office said in the filing.
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/jack-smith-requests-written-jury-questionnaire-trump-classified-documents-case
Does anyone really believe Jack is not trying to find jurors who are more likely to convict Trump with his proposed jury questionnaire? Mr. "words are actions" is clearly biased against Trump.
So the article in question is?
The amicus brief is to be found here:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-624/293864/20231220140217967_US%20v.%20Trump%20amicus%20final.pdf
The main point is "First, the Appointments Clause requires that all
federal offices “not otherwise provided for” in the Con-
stitution must be “established by Law,” U.S. Const.
art. II, §2, cl. 2, and there is no statute establishing the
Office of Special Counsel in DOJ."
page 2
As of now this is a unrequired opinion by some lawyers, that will need to be analysed and taken into account by the Supreme Court.
One of the major points would of course be what exactly constutes an "office to be established by law".
This can be discussed or debated and we still all might learn from this. However it is fra from a foregone conclusion.
@ponderable saidMueller app was unconstitutional also
So the article in question is?
The amicus brief is to be found here:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-624/293864/20231220140217967_US%20v.%20Trump%20amicus%20final.pdf
The main point is "First, the Appointments Clause requires that all
federal offices “not otherwise provided for” in the Con-
stitution must be “established by Law,” U.S. Const.
art. I ...[text shortened]... sed or debated and we still all might learn from this. However it is fra from a foregone conclusion.
https://scholarship.law.bu.edu/faculty_scholarship/583/