I'm sure the articles of impeachment have already been drafted. That will be the "recourse" from Democrats.

The question is was Jack Smith actually improperly appointed or not? Does anybody actually care? Or is YOUR mind already made up? I would like to read her ruling but I don't think it is out yet.

"Don't hide behind "I just don't know enough" and then accuse everyone else of being as ignorant as you."

At least I am intellectually honest about my "ignorance", by acknowledging that I haven't read the ruling, nor am I knowledgeable about the constitutional matters involved. Have YOU read the ruling? If not then you are indeed willfully ignorant, yet run your mouth anyway.

"You should have just stopped with your own ignorance and not assumed and then project it on everyone else.
Then you really shouldn't have doubled down on it.

#49 | POSTED BY YAV AT 2024-07-15 12:23 PM | FLAG: "

You still have t read the opinion, have you? By your refusal to answer that question I must assume you haven't, and yes, I'll profferthat anyone who hasnt read it is to render a well informed opinion on this ruling. There is no shame in ignorance. Willfully refuse if to acknowledge your own ignorance is stupidity, and of that you are guilty,

and you also just a dick, because you launched into your petty criticism of me because I asked a QUESTION rather than take a position without enough information.

And trying to type a response on a phone is also a bad idea, which I did above. Apologies for the typos.

I'm only on page 15 and can already see that many of the posts above are factually incorrect, so yeah, ignorance abounds. Read the opinion people, regardless of whether you agree with Cannon's conclusions, she cites all the relevant statues and case law raised by both sides.

If you don't know anything why are you saying anything?
#85 | POSTED BY DONNERBOY AT 2024-07-15 02:22 PM | FLAG:

Now YOU are just being a dick. Why don't you try answering my questions from #19. If you can't answer those basic questions, why are YOU saying anything?

So far absolutely nobody here claims to have read the ruling, yet everybody thinks they know everything about it. You sound like a bunch of jailhouse lawyers.

#83 Here is where you display your obvious ignorance. The statutes upon which you based your entire earlier post have not remained the same over that duration. There are key dates when statutes lapsed, sunsetted or were replaced, and these changes are integral to the arguments.

The 600 reference you cited is an administrative rule which was promulgated by Janet Reno in 1999, not 150 years ago, and not by Congress, which is required by the Exceptions Clause of the Appointments Clause. The argument appears to be that the 600 rule itself is not Constitutional in its construction. That rule replaced a previous scheme under which appointments were made by a three judge panel. So no, this has not been tested by 150 years of history. 25 years maybe, but not necessarily with the same set of circumstances.

I have not yet formed an opinion on this, because I have not yet finished reading the ruling. Yet *I* am the one criticized for not immediately jumping on the bandwagon with the rest of the triggered crybabies who haven't bothered to read it. It is pretty heavy reading, so I probably end up relying on constitutional scholars to dissect and analyze it before blasting my opinion. If that makes me ignorant, I'll wear that label proudly

#93 no Donner, I asked more than one question, the most important being, "Haveyou read the ruling" and if your answer is no, then on what basis are you answering the other question?

#92 Stare decises pertaining to which particular precedent, Alexandrite?

#94 Props to Sycophant who appears to be actually reading the opinion.

#78 You may not understand that it is counsel's responsibility to write briefs specifically requesting remedies/outcomes. This provides opposing counsel an opportunity to argue their position. The Judge can't simply impose an alternative remedy that hasn't been briefed. That is what she appears to be talking about here, not lack of knowledge of available remedies.

I am not a lawyer but have a great deal of courtroom experience. Perhaps one of the actual lawyers here can explain better.

#101 as noted previously, the laws/rules tested here are newer. Under pre 1999 rules, Smiths appointment would be illegal. It is not the actual appointment of a Special Counsel that is in question, it is the method under which that appointment took place. Maybe you should stop being a dick, backup and do some research of your own.

#103 So you are suggesting Smiths strategy was to deliberately get this dismissed so she could move on to an appeal? If that were true he could have cut to the chase and accepted the dismissal when Trumps lawyers filed the motion 6 months ago. That makes no sense.

#98 Justice is never obvious. If it were we wouldn't need multiple levels of courts, would we. We could just ask YOU to decide everything, Captain Obvious.

Corky, Six months is NOTHING in the Federal Court system. I am still going to court on cases I was involved in before I retired and I won't even tell you how many years ago that was. The defense has ALL the rights in a criminal case, and can delay almost indefinitely. Holding a defendant to a fast track schedule is guaranteed to result in multiple grounds for appeal.

Corky, Six months is NOTHING in the Federal Court system. I am still going to court on cases I was involved in before I retired and I won't even tell you how many years ago that was. The defense has ALL the rights in a criminal case, and can delay almost indefinitely. Holding a defendant to a fast track schedule is guaranteed to result in multiple grounds for appeal.

Which, and I am in no way advocating this, could lead SOME to reach for a 2nd Amendment remedy.

#100 | POSTED BY TRUTHHURTS AT 2024-07-15 03:23 PM | FLAG:

Of course you are not. It never occurred to you that spreading stories suggesting judges, or Justices are corrupt, with or without evidence, could encourage a "second amendment remedy".

I have known and respected a lot of judges. I have read every Supreme Court opinion since college, and many other lower court opionions, because I find them interesting. Such documents are detailed and comprehensive, and though i may not agree with their conclusions, I have always found them to be well written and well supported.

People like you simply latch on to the incendiary rhetoric spouted by their favorite pundit or Twitter personality, rather than "waste time" reading 100pages. Because, well, Justice is obvious.

Alexandrite, I get clobbered on every thread, because I dare to disagree with the prevailing viewpoints of the echo chamber and I don't run away from a fight.

It is telling that those trying to clobber me haven't bothered to read the actual decision they are trying to clobber me on, and have provided no actual arguments refuting any of the FACTS I have presented.

Thank you, next

"Yes, because you form an opinion first and then stick to even when proven wrong.

saying "its only been since 1999" is not an argument. 25 years of stare decisis still counts.

#130 | Posted by Alexandrite at 2024-07-15 04:23 PM | Reply

Oh FFS Alexandrite. I am probably the only one who HASN'T formed an opinion, and for that I am being "clobbered". Of course 25 years of stare decisis still counts, and I am interested in those cases if you would like to point me to the cases that address this issue. OR I could simply continue to read the ruling, because no doubt the lawyers raised them in their briefs and Cannon responded in kind.

BTW thanks for admitting you didn't know WTF you were taking about with your "since 1875" BS.

" Justices are corrupt, " Miranda i would like to see you defend Clarence Thomas, but you wont for the same reason no one here ever does. He IS corrupt. Blatantly. #134 | Posted by Alexandrite at 2024-07-15 04:27 PM | Reply | Flag:
Then why would you like to see me defend him? Just trying to pick a fight? Grow the ---- up.

So im wrong? the first Special Prosecutor wasnt in 1875? it was.

youre basically arguing that instead of 150 years its 25, which is not compelling at all.

#145 | Posted by Alexandrite at 2024-07-15 04:39 PM | Reply | Flag:
Now you are just gaslighting, way to try to move the goalposts. You are so pathetic

Laura, If I may, Greer is wrong.

"There's no difference in really how they're being approached," Greer said. "If Biden had engaged in the same obstructive acts that Trump had and the same refusal to get the documents back when asked ... he would have been indicted as well."

Criminal prosecutions are determined based on whether the elements of the crime have been proven. Forgive me for not having the statutes handy, but.....BOTH Biden and Trump retained and took home classified documents they weren't entitled to keep. That is a crime. Beyond that is where the differences begin:
1) Trump sought to hide, or at least deny this criminal conduct. Biden took a different position, he claimed a complete lack of awareness of how those documents ended up in his homes and in his garage.

Honestly, I'm not sure which is worse. Documents hidden in boxes in a secured bathroom vs documents falling out of broken boxes in an unsecured garage

2) This is where the real differences start. Allegedly, Trump engaged in protracted negotiations and hid documents. Documents were obtained by force (search warrrants). On the other hand, Biden condemened Trumps response, then later "discovered" documents in his own homes and invited investigators to come get them.

SO most people draw a difference there, which is fair, but the point I would like to make, is that the initial offense, in #1, is EXACTLY THE SAME. It met the elements of the crime necessary for prosecution. The later behavior would be a factor worthy of consideration, but not to the point of determining whether or not a crime was committed. Any concessions would occur during the sentencing phase.

To provide a metaphor. If you confront your children over who took the candy, and one lies, and the other admits his crime, you may punish the liar and forgive the truth teller to reward his honesty. That is NOT how criminal prosecutions work. Any such concession would occur during the sentencing phase, NOT prosecution.

The initial crime (retaining classified materials) is exactly the same. BOTH should have been prosecuted, or BOTH should have not been prosecuted. The fact that no president had ever been prosecuted for such activities before should have led to the second choice, and a rewrite of relevant rules and procedures.

No Alex, Clearly the investigators thought Joe Biden was a forgetful old man who would inspire sympathy in a jury. Did you miss that part of the Hur report?

So, continuing on the vein of which was worse. National Archivists became concerned and started requesting documents in about May of 2021. Presumably, at that point, Trump started hiding that stuff. So for a matter of months this stuff was not properly secured. Meanwhile, Joe didn't offer up the documents he had spilling out of boxes in his garage until 18 months later. Many of thes clasified documents in Joes garage were DECADES old. Part of the problem Hur had was establishing how those documents came to be in his garage and just how they had been there. Part of his defense was that family members (Hunter) and employyes had access to the garage and their various homes and had moved things around.

You really think that is not concerning? He wasn't prosecuted because the handling of those documents was so reckless with so many hands on them they coudlnt pin it on Joe. That is better?

You mean the needless and pointless insult throwin in for political purposes? #189 | Posted by truthhurts at 2024-07-15 08:50 PM | Reply | Flag:
So I'm guessing you didn't watch the debate?

The facts and the truth have been shown to him over and over. He's not ignorant. He can't plead ignorance. #180 | Posted by YAV at 2024-07-15 07:31 PM | Reply | Flag:
I agree...but they let Joe do that? Why? Staffers testified that Joe frequenly refused to comply with policies to return classified documents to secure areas, and that he loaded those boxes into the moving van HIMSELF, wouldn't let anyone else pack up his office. But then he tells Hur he has no idea how that stuff got into the VA house, or the Delaware house, or the temporary office, that is accepted. Trump openly obstructed and Joe just played dumb, "I have no idea how that got there"

If you cannot understand the difference between Biden not being aware he had some documents, doing a search, finding them and returning them and ------- intentionally ignoring requests for over a year, hiding, misleading, lying about them I don't know what to say.

Truth, during that "over a year" Biden had classified documents too, sitting in his garage and his Delaware house, and the other office. The difference was nobody asked for them and he didn't volunteer. Many of them had been there sicne he was a Senator.

"I will say that I am fine with the deference they showed Biden and Pence, even if careless or intentional, they returned them promptly without a fight. If ------- had done anything similar I'd be fine with deference shown him."

Yeah, if your kid eats the last cookie and fesses up, you show deference. If secrets that could compromise National Security are left lying around, it is no harm no foul? It is ok Joe, you did your bestest job!!

If they had prosecuted BOTH (or neither) for retaining documents, then prosecuted Trump ONLY for obstruction related crimes, I would be okay with it, but that is not what they did.

#188 | Posted by truthhurts at 2024-07-15 08:50 PM | Reply | Flag:

#195, Yep, the decision was Hur's. He made a determination that a crime had been committed, that Biden had committed such crime, but that he felt there was no reasonable probability of conviction, because a jury would be sympathetic. Prosecutors do that all the time. That doesn't make someone innocent.

Note, I am not saying Trump was innocent. I am saying the the INITIAL crime he committed was exactly the same as Bidens. Of that crime, they are equally culpable.

Obstruction of the investigation? That is a SEPARATE charge. Clearly Biden did not actively obstruct his investigation, and Trump did obstruct his. Again that is a SEPARATE charge.

FFS Truth do you even know how to READ????

I made it VERY clear that I understand there are differences between the cases. Apparently you are too stubborn to recognize there are also similarities, and since you have virtually NO understanding of criminal law, you can't wrap your head around relevant legal concepts.

To you justice is emotional, intuitive and "obvious". That is not how it works in the criminal justice system. Gogle "probable cause" and "elements of a crime" and get back to me.

"Which of those three had criminal intent to steal the documents? #199 | Posted by truthhurts at 2024-07-15 09:06 PM | Reply | Flag: "

Ill take "none of the above" for $200. I don't think even Jack Smith proferred that Trump had intent to "steal" classified documents. He was the President when they were packed up, He knew the secrets that were in them, like... in his head, and he could have just made copies and turned them in. What do you think he intended to do with them? If he wanted to sell secrets he would not have needed the original papers. There have been no alegations that either man did that. It is just stupid. Trumps primary crime was RETAINING them. No different than Biden's crime. This is a crime only because they were not protected from potential view by unauthorized persons. Like the gardener, or Hunter for example. For months (in Trumps case) or decades (in Bidens case)

Trump admitted his guilt over and over and over - and expressed his intent - and called the documents "his"
Really? funny, that is exactly what Biden did. He believed that notes he took during classified briefings (on notecards) and the binders he assembled (later fond in the VA home) were "his personal diaries", though he was told repeatedly by staffers those were classified and had to be returned to a SKIF each day. These were among the documents later retrieved from his homes and the garage.

Did you even read the investigation? (Both the Hur report and the investigative report) Might be a good time to pause and do so.

Again there were differences between the two cases, but if you believe Biden didn't violate the law, your head is very, very far up your ass.

You don't think there was probable cause that ------- committed a crime retaining the documents? #213 | Posted by truthhurts at 2024-07-15 09:33 PM | Reply | Flag:

YEP, and there was just as much probable cause that Joe Biden committed a crime retaining the documents. The both did EXACTLY the same thing. They both retained (while in office) retained classified documents that should have been secured in SKIFS every day. They both packed up, or allowed to be packed up, boxes containing said documents, which were moved to unsecured areas in their homes.

Differences : Trumps office was packed up and moved by staffers. Biden's staffers testified that he insisted in packing up his VP office and placing the boxes in the moving van himself.
Differences: Trump was uncooperative with the investigation and actively concealed boxes. Biden just wasn't investigated at all until over a year later, then claimed he had no idea how boxes got where they were found.

Miranda, does the term mens rea mean anything to you? Can you explain how mens rea applies to Biden, Pence and -------- various actions relative to classified documents?

#211 | Posted by truthhurts at 2024-07-15 09:28 PM | Reply | Flag:
OMG Truth, you have outkicked your coverage. You have no idea what mens rea is, and how it figures into prosecution of these particular pe3ople with these particular statutes. If you would like to answer your own question, go for it. It could be amusing, but I'm not going to educate you. You are too far gone to understand the implications.

Oh wait...unless your position is to suggest that it is okay to share classified information with our enemies, as long as you didn't MEAN to. Its ok Joe, you answered ALL the questions.

You are desperate and you have failed miserably in making you case.Trump's stage, bathroom, closets, office had Secret, Top Secret, SCI documents all over. Enjoy. I'm done with this idiocy. #216 | Posted by YAV at 2024-07-15 09:41 PM | Reply | Flag:
I guess nobody told you about the classified documents in Biden's garage, two homes, and an abandoned office?

You keep missing the point. Ive never said Trump didn't retain classified documents. I've said that he and Biden are BOTH guilty of that crime. And you are too triggered and whiny to acknowledge that. It scares the hell out of you for some reason, because you still want to VOTE for Joe.

#226 Flailing? What about yours? Yes, Trump lied. I have never denied this. Yet YOU cannot seem to acknowledge that Biden had numerous unsecured classified documents that he FORGOT ALL ABOUT! FOR DECADES! Does that not concern you also?

Trump waived documents around and yelled out about them to people at Mar-a-Lago saying "This is secret information!" Just stop already. Please. For your own sake. #228 | Posted by YAV at 2024-07-15 09:54 PM | Reply | Flag:

Biden just left them all over his garage floor, the same garage Hunter frequented. You know, the junkie who orchestrated quid pro quo deals with Chinese nationals (that Joe didn't know about)

I'm not here to argue which was worse, just to pull your head out of your ass because you seem tripled down on the idea Joe was somehow innocent of reckless wrongdoing.....cus Trump was worse. If you can't acknowledge that Joe was dangerously reckless with classified documents, there is no hope for you.

OMG thats all ya got? He waved a piece of paper (didnt show it) and claimed it was secret information?

BIDEN is on tape (and transcript) with his ghost writer REPEATEDLY telling stories while telling the writer that the infomraiton is classified that he shouldn't be talking about. He did the same thing during the Hur interview.

The denial here is remarkable.

Sheesh, you think you know more than Hur who would have bent every rule in the book to find anything hang on Biden #231 | Posted by truthhurts at 2024-07-15 09:56 PM | Reply | Flag:
Obviously you never read the transcripts. Too lazy I guess. It is a few hundred pages

No way Trump had the contents of 300 classified documents memorized as Miranda suggested:

"He was the President when they were packed up, He knew the secrets that were in them, like... in his head, and he could have just made copies and turned them in. What do you think he intended to do with them? If he wanted to sell secrets he would not have needed the original papers."

PS Who the hell would take Trump's word on classified info without documentation? MAGA voters, sure, but no one else with half a brain.

#245 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2024-07-15 10:08 PM | Reply | Flag:

So what is your excuse for Biden and the classified documents that he WILLFULLY refused to return to SKFS while in office, in violation of rules containing classified documents (according to staffers) and documents found in his homes and office after he left office, in light of the fact that he PERSONALLY packed up his White House Office (according to staffers). Not to mention the boxes containing classified documents from the 1970's that were also found in his garage? Hur could not prove how they got there, Joe had no recollection, and Hur felt a jury would be sympathetic. Did gremlins put them there? Jill maybe? Does that make you feel better? It should make you feel worse. Either Joe is lying or he has been keeping this stuff laying all over the place for 50 years.

"Hur ALSO wrote "evidence does not establish Mr. Biden's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt", so "no criminal charges are warranted in this matter""
YEP, Joe has NO IDEA how that stuff got there. You feel good about that? Gonna let an old man who has no idea how classified documents got on the floor of his garage be Commander in Chief?

"Yet he we are arguing whether biden did the same thing as trump"
NOPE I made that very clear. There is no question they did some of the same things, and some different things. YOU are trying to establish Biden's complete innocence, and that is delusional.

"We are arguing about Hunter China stuff when the Republican HOR TRIED to impeach Biden for it but found ZERO evidence."
NOPE I have not argued that Joe was complicit in the China stuff. I HAVE argued that Hunter had access to classified documents, in unsecured areas Hunter had access to, literally spilled out of boxes. Hunter unquestionably was a desperate junkie and involved in "China stuff". Would you place your life on the line to bet he was never compromised?

#256 | Posted by truthhurts at 2024-07-15 10:25 PM | Reply | Flag:

Miranda, are you trying to equalize the actions both presidents? Any consideration that Trump's refusal to cooperate was glaringly worse?
#261 | Posted by eberly at 2024-07-15 10:28 PM | Reply | Flag:

Nope, not equalizing. I broke it down if you simply scroll up. Some of their actions are the same, some are different. "Worse" is a matter of perspective. Are you talking about actual actions, intent or potential outcome? It doesn't really matter. My entire point that Biden ALSO committed the same initial crime of unlawfully retaining classified documents, as established by the elements.....yet so many here refuse to accept that simple fact.

Hence the cheap shot.#268 | Posted by Danforth at 2024-07-15 10:36 PM | Reply | Flag:
Dan, did you read the transcripts? Clearly the answer is "NO". Hur had more than enough evidence to establish the elements of the crime. He chose not to prosecute because he had reservations about conviction in front of a sympathetic jury.

Take some time and learn the difference between probable cause, reasonably probability of conviction, and proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Hur had the first, but didn't believe he had the second or the third, BECAUSE of Joe's elderly affect, he didn't feel he could convince a juror that Joe was aware of his actions (not reassuring for a Presidential candidate). As such, he made a decision not to prosecute. That does not equate to innocence. The evidence of his actions (if you read the transcripts) was quite strong.

At this point I am done arguing with people who get their information from pundits and biased articles and don't bother to read the source material. Sheer laziness, not worth my time.

#251 During that taped conversation, Trump had a pile of papers he pointed to, which he claimed were news aricles about the subjects he was talking about. NOBODY claimed he showed any classified documents. You have a link proving otherwise?

"I don't see you coming with tape and receipts, I see you constantly ignoring Hur saying he couldn't prove a crime"

Nope, Biden administration has refused to release the tape, but there are transcripts of the Hur interview, which you won't bother to read. Find them yourself. Hur did not believe he could prove a crime "beyond a reasonable doubt" Do you know what that means? Apparently not. Hur also explained WHY....I don't have that handy either so I can't find his exact words, but it had to do with him being a forgetful old man that jurors would sympathize with. And that is okay with you. You are fine with voting for an old man who can't remember how classified documents he kept without permission ended up on the floor of his garage.

#251 | Posted by truthhurts at 2024-07-15 10:18 PM | Reply | Flag:

And Dan, you still think Hur's comments were a "cheap shot" after watching the debate? I have no doubts that f the tapes of Hurs interview were released they would vindicate him. The sanitized transcript is scary enough. You know, the one none of you read.

Steering back on topic, and summarizing my position:

I have never questioned that Trump's actions met the elements of the crime for which he was prosecuted. I looked forward to seeing how the details played out. Where we differ, is that I believe Biden's actions ALSO met the same elements. No, their actions were not the same, but that is not pertinent to the statute under which charges were considered. The differences between their actions (investigative cooperation, etc) would not factor into whether the underlying crime had been committed, but would only become relevant in sentencing. I thought the documents laying out the Biden (lack of) prosecution laid out a clear blueprint for Trumps defense, and was curious to see where that went.

Most of you prefer to remain in denial that Joe acted improperly, and anyone who suggests otherwise is promptly "clobbered" with arguments about Trump. Those arguments do not absolve Joe of his actions.

Judge Cannon's dismissal was a complete surprise. Like most of you, I was not familiar with the Appointments Clause of the Constitution, or the related statutes and case law. Unlike many of you, who take a shortcut to call Judge Cannon "corrupt", I am keeping an open mind and taking the time to read the ruling and learn more before rushing to judgement. For that I am "ignorant". I'd say I am far less ignorant than those who refuse to open their minds and read source material.

Good night and god speed.

#278 It has been a while since I read the transcripts, so correct my imprecise language, but once again, l I ask, did you read them? If not, you can't sit at the adult table.

But I will humor you. I assume you are talking about the word "knowingly" which appears in the relevant statute. There was definately evidence of willful intent (mostly from staff interviews), whether it was enough to result in a conviction is a subject of debate. This is where the "cheap shot" becomes pertinent. Hur was concerned about whether he could convince a jury that a grandfatherly old man prone to going off on story telling tangents who claimed to have no idea how classified documents got into his house, "knowingly" retained them. That was a major factor in his decision.

Danforth is basing that on absolutely nothing bevause he as much as admitted he didn't read the transcripts which lay out hundreds of pages of evidence implicating Joe Biden. That he won't read because he can't handle the truth.