He had NO reason to be there other than to stir up trouble.
#418 | Posted by boaz

Articulate the crime. You won't because you can't. Neither could the POS ICE agent who shoved the woman to the ground.

#413 | Posted by BellRinger

What was the reasonable suspicion to approach the woman and push her to the ground? You're acting as though ICE has complete impunity to do anything they want. A nurse is going to help someone who falls or is pushed to the ground, which BTW falls under which guiding policy of law enforcement exactly? Read your post once again, slowly. You're claiming there was a probability that a nurse helping a woman up off the ground after being shoved is a criminal offense.

He could have been trying to get the attention of another agent. As for the two claps you are engaging in an act of reading minds.
#352 | Posted by BellRinger

Like he was a dog? HAHAHAHA!!! That's the best you could come up with after avoiding an alternative over numerous posts?!?! HAHAHAHAHA!!! When was the last time you clapped at someone to get their attention. Be specific and you better be fnkcin' honest.

That's what is relevant to this discussion.
#39 | Posted by BellRinger

What's relevant is that you have nothing to offer but a legal opinion that was considered applicable by a Trump toadie. And you're going to hang your hat on that as though it's significant?

HAHAHA!!! JFC JEFF, why do you even bother? Are you that big of a political hack?

#22 | Posted by BellRinger

"He was appointed by Garland as Special Prosecutor." " Essentially accurate (usually styled "Special Counsel" rather than "Special Prosecutor").

"The issue was [that] Special Prosecutor is a creation of Congress." " Oversimplified; the real issue is whether existing statutes Congress passed are sufficient to authorize this kind of appointment, not whether Congress must pass a new, case-specific law.

"Congress didn't create a special prosecutor to prosecute the alleged crimes he was assigned." " Misleading; Congress generally doesn't create case-specific prosecutors, and DOJ says its existing statutory authority covers Smith's role.

"Garland wanted his cake and wanted to eat it too ... " " Purely argumentative; not a factual or legal finding.

"Once he was deemed illegitimate ... " " Not accurate as of now; only one district judge has accepted that argument, and the ruling is on appeal.

"Garland could have assigned his two cases to a number of qualified prosecutors within 5 minutes ... The disruption would have been a mere blip ... " " Partly plausible in concept (he could reassign), but it downplays real legal and practical complications that could follow from an invalid-appointment ruling.

So the paragraph captures one side's critique in strong, rhetorical terms, but it does not accurately reflect the current state of the law or the actual posture of the challenges to Smith's appointment. It is opinion wrapped around some disputed legal premises, rather than a neutral, legally settled description.