Trump Indictment ( includes NY AG and Fed documents case ) (1 Viewer)

[SteveSBrickNJ]

Former President D. Trump has been indicted by a New York Grand Jury. There will be much to talk about on this topic because this is just the first step in a lengthy process.
Possibly it is worthy of its own thread here rather than posting about Trump's indictment in already existing threads?
*
This 3/31/23 story might get the ball rolling....
*

Manhattan’s DA wanted a Friday Trump arrest. Trump’s team said no.

Secret Service needed more time to prepare, according to the ex-president’s legal team.

www.yahoo.com

 

[brandon]

One judge's order does not a judicial system make. And not liking a judicial result doesn't mean that the system is hopelessly flawed - that would require a judicial system no longer constrained by the law.

I wasn’t asking about one judge’s order. I was more asking in the context of:

1. Overturning Roe…and leaking it.
2. Presidential Immunity
3. Thomas/Alito corruption allegations
4. Ginny Thomas and January 6th
5. Martha Alito and January 6th
6. Aileen Cannon’s slow walking right into dismissal of classified docs case

And I’m sure a few I’ve forgotten.

 

[Sendai]

Dude, no. We've been over this again and again. Lol. Regardless, I'm not too worried. We've got all this on record. This decision, if it holds, essentially puts the Hunter Biden case in legal jeopardy.

Hunter’s prosecutor was a presidential appointment approved by the senate.

Anything that sprang forth from Mueller has big problems.

 

[SaintForLife]

 

[superchuck500]

If you want to read the two different results on the same question, here they are side by side.

The DC Circuit finds that Smith’s appointment did not violate the appointments clause.

In re: Grand Jury Investigation, No. 18-3052 (D.C. Cir. 2019)

Andrew Miller appealed an order holding him in contempt for failing to comply with grand jury subpoenas served on him by Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller, contending that the Special Counsel's appointment was unlawful under the Appointments Clause of the Constitution. Miller argued that Special...

law.justia.com

Judge Cannon finds that it did violate the appointments clause and appropriations law.

Loading…

storage.courtlistener.com

 

[LA - L.A.]

Hunter’s prosecutor was a presidential appointment approved by the senate.

That's a lie.

Attorney General Merrick Garland announced Friday that he was appointing David Weiss as special counsel for the Hunter Biden probe, giving the U.S. attorney increased authority in his investigation.

Who is David Weiss, the newly appointed Hunter Biden special counsel?

He was nominated by then-President Donald Trump in 2017 and started his post as U.S. attorney in Delaware in 2018.

www.nbcnews.com

If @Sendai repeats that lie again, then @Sendai is intentionally lying to all of us.

 

[SaintForLife]

Hunter’s prosecutor was a presidential appointment approved by the senate.

Anything that sprang forth from Mueller has big problems.

They ignore that fact.

 

[DaveXA]

They ignore that fact.

Except there's nothing factual there. Alternative facts I suppose.

 

[SaintForLife]

Except there's nothing factual there. Alternative facts I suppose.

Weiss was confirmed by the Senate when he became a US attorney for Delaware.

Jack Smith and Mueller were private citizens when they were appointed by the DOJ.

You might have trouble understanding that difference.

 

[LA - L.A.]

Weiss was confirmed by the Senate when he became a US attorney for Delaware.

Jack Smith and Mueller were private citizens when they were appointed by the DOJ.

Did you know this?

It’s true there is a special counsel regulation that says the person should be “selected from outside the U.S. government.”

That DOJ regulation has been around and used for a very long time and no one has challenged it as being unconstitutional. Nope, it's gone unchallenged until Trump go in trouble for doing illegal things. Trump can't make a case that he didn't break the law, so he's trying to bend the law to his will and he has some judges willing to help him.

There's also the fact that the DC Circuit previously ruled that Smith's appointment does not violate the Constitution.

VERIFYING claims about AG Garland and special counsel regulations in Hunter Biden probe

Attorney General Garland's appointment of U.S. attorney David Weiss as special counsel conflicts with federal regulations, but it's not illegal.

www.verifythis.com

 

[superchuck500]

I wasn’t asking about one judge’s order. I was more asking in the context of:

1. Overturning Roe…and leaking it.
2. Presidential Immunity
3. Thomas/Alito corruption allegations
4. Ginny Thomas and January 6th
5. Martha Alito and January 6th
6. Aileen Cannon’s slow walking right into dismissal of classified docs case

And I’m sure a few I’ve forgotten.

No, I don't see those as indicative of a failed judicial system.

We've talked about it before, but the constitutional weakness in Roe has been a well-kept secret for years - first and second year law students have learned for decades that it was a result-oriented ruling, not a clear application of constitutional provision. I also think (and have written) that the immunity ruling follows and does not depart from long-established principles of official immunity. Not agreeing with the impact of a judicial decision doesn't mean that the system is failing.

I do think that the Supreme Court is in dire need of gift/contribution reform and it needs to happen now. But beyond that, what do Ginny Thomas and Martha Alito have do to with the functioning of American judicial system? Wives of elected officials and judges are allowed to have their own politics. Judges are allowed to have their own politics too.

And Cannon should never have been confirmed, that's on all of Congress, but now that she's the judge and the case fell to her based on the court's docketing system, I don't know what else to say about it - there are weak judges on the federal bench and many of them have viewpoints that they are willing to yield in their rulings. We have seen this on both sides of the political spectrum (from result-oriented liberal judges often labeled 'activist' to the pro-life judge in the mifestone case). If they're wrong on the law, they get reversed.

I don't know if I agree that a judge should be recused from hearing a case involving the president that appointed her, with no other evidence of impartiality. I don't think Aileen Cannon and Donald Trump have ever met or been in the same room together. They never were in business together or have any other shared definable interest. Certainly federal judges preside over cases involving the president that appointed them when it comes to official business of that president's administration and that has never been a basis for recusal.

There have been episodes in our history where the courts, and the Supreme Court, have been conflicted and failed to rise to the place where I think the ideal American government system commands to be - the pre-Civil War years were particularly partisan and poor. But having faith in the judicial system doesn't mean that you like everything that happens - or that you don't believe that there are any problems or need for reform.

What it means is that you believe that it adheres to the law and provides for structured, thoughtful review of challenging disputes to come to a reasoned result that, when final based on the review system, falls within the system of law that keeps us able to function with 330 million people in a single, civilized system of government.

 

[Sendai]

Did you know this?



That DOJ regulation has been around and used for a very long time and no has challenged it as being unconstitutional. Nope, it's gone unchallenged until Trump go in trouble for doing illegal things. Trump can't make a case that he didn't break the law, so he's trying to bend the law to his will and he has some judges willing to help him.

There's also the fact that the DC Circuit previously ruled that Smith's appointment does not violate the Constitution.

VERIFYING claims about AG Garland and special counsel regulations in Hunter Biden probe

Attorney General Garland's appointment of U.S. attorney David Weiss as special counsel conflicts with federal regulations, but it's not illegal.

www.verifythis.com

It’s a DOJ regulation. A DOJ regulation doesn’t override the constitutional requirement that the appointment be from the President and ratified by the senate or appointed through a congressional statute. Smith was not appointed by either of these constitutionally accepted methods.

Have you figured out that Hunter’s prosecutor is properly appointed yet ?

 

[SaintForLife]

The current special-counsel regulation dates to 1999, the year Congress allowed to expire the Ethics in Government Act of 1978, which inaugurated the role of independent counsel.

No More Special Counsels

It’s past time to put an end to one of the most destructive regimes in American law enforcement.

www.city-journal.org

 

[SaintForLife]

It’s a DOJ regulation. A DOJ regulation doesn’t override the constitutional requirement that the appointment be from the President and ratified by the senate or appointed through a congressional statute. Smith was not appointed by either of these constitutionally accepted methods.

Have you figured out that Hunter’s prosecutor is properly appointed yet ?

And the special counsel regulation that Congress passed expired in 1999.

 

[brandon]

No, I don't see those as indicative of a failed judicial system.

We've talked about it before, but the constitutional weakness in Roe has been a well-kept secret for years - first and second year law students have learned for decades that it was a result-oriented ruling, not a clear application of constitutional provision. I also think (and have written) that the immunity ruling follows and does not depart from long-established principles of official immunity. Not agreeing with the impact of a judicial decision doesn't mean that the system is failing.

I do think that the Supreme Court is in dire need of gift/contribution reform and it needs to happen now. But beyond that, what do Ginny Thomas and Martha Alito have do to with the functioning of American judicial system? Wives of elected officials and judges are allowed to have their own politics. Judges are allowed to have their own politics too.

And Cannon should never have been confirmed, that's on all of Congress, but now that she's the judge and the case fell to her based on the court's docketing system, I don't know what else to say about it - there are weak judges on the federal bench and many of them have viewpoints that they are willing to yield in their rulings. We have seen this on both sides of the political spectrum (from result-oriented liberal judges often labeled 'activist' to the pro-life judge in the mifestone case). If they're wrong on the law, they get reversed.

I don't know if I agree that a judge should be recused from hearing a case involving the president that appointed her, with no other evidence of impartiality. I don't think Aileen Cannon and Donald Trump have ever met or been in the same room together. They never were in business together or have any other shared definable interest. Certainly federal judges preside over cases involving the president that appointed them when it comes to official business of that president's administration and that has never been a basis for recusal.

There have been episodes in our history where the courts, and the Supreme Court, have been conflicted and failed to rise to the place where I think the ideal American government system commands to be - the pre-Civil War years were particularly partisan and poor. But having faith in the judicial system doesn't mean that you like everything that happens - or that you don't believe that there are any problems or need for reform.

What it means is that you believe that it adheres to the law and provides for structured, thoughtful review of challenging disputes to come to a reasoned result that, when final based on the review system, falls within the system of law that keeps us able to function with 330 million people in a single, civilized system of government.

Sir I was expecting a two sentence response that I could hit with a snide remark but now I’ve got to prepare a well-reasoned, thoughtful post and I didn’t have that kind of time budgeted for today.

 

[DJ1BigTymer]

And the special counsel regulation that Congress passed expired in 1999.

O'rly?????? Source, please.

 

[J-DONK]

I love all the new conserative legal experts that showed up in this thread.

 

[Sendai]

O'rly?????? Source, please.

It’s in one of his a previous posts.

 

[Sendai]

AG Garland should cut and run on this. The government has the documents. If this case evaporates then there’ll be no constitutional challenge to the PRA. Just give him back the Kim love letters and walk away.

AG Garland is a constitutional scholar and a practical gentleman. He knows the makeup of the court, so he knows how this will end.