Orange Duce

[SCLaxAttack]

This is just an astonishing pleading:

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... 28.0_1.pdf

“a correct formulation of the law”

I read that as, I double-dog dare you, Judge Cannon…

"Give me an order I can appeal, and reverse your sorry ass a third time and maybe get rid of you."

That appears right, they want her to either fully back down or provide them basis to immediately appeal...and rightfully ask for her removal.

Her proposed instructions are so far from the reality of the law that it's a bit flabbergasting that she thought she could get away with it. I've read where she keeps turning over staff because she's gone a little nutso with them, and thus isn't getting much help in doing the actual legal work and no one is pushing back...so maybe she just wants off the case somehow without looking like she turned on Trump...but that sure would be whacky, just ask to get off for personal reasons, right?

Perhaps before we get too far into the case Mr. Smith can give us the date and vote count of his Senate confirmation.

Perhaps people should take an elementary Civics course before asking questions that would be addressed in such a course. (But thanks for joining the conversation!)

[MDlaxfan76]

This is just an astonishing pleading:

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... 28.0_1.pdf

“a correct formulation of the law”

I read that as, I double-dog dare you, Judge Cannon…

"Give me an order I can appeal, and reverse your sorry ass a third time and maybe get rid of you."

That appears right, they want her to either fully back down or provide them basis to immediately appeal...and rightfully ask for her removal.

Her proposed instructions are so far from the reality of the law that it's a bit flabbergasting that she thought she could get away with it. I've read where she keeps turning over staff because she's gone a little nutso with them, and thus isn't getting much help in doing the actual legal work and no one is pushing back...so maybe she just wants off the case somehow without looking like she turned on Trump...but that sure would be whacky, just ask to get off for personal reasons, right?

Perhaps before we get too far into the case Mr. Smith can give us the date and vote count of his Senate confirmation.

I'll keep an open mind. What's your intended point?

Are you trying to say that Cannon is neither incompetent nor in the bag for Trump, nor both?

Or that Smith is wrong on the law and Cannon is right?

And trying to divert from those straightforward arguments to something that's pretty nonsensical?

Or are you actually serious...and clueless?

Or is there something else to your point?

[Seacoaster(1)]

He is alluding to the right wing talking point that Smith's appointment is somehow constitutionally or legally ineffective.

https://www.heritage.org/crime-and-just ... irst-place

[get it to x]

This is just an astonishing pleading:

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... 28.0_1.pdf

“a correct formulation of the law”

I read that as, I double-dog dare you, Judge Cannon…

"Give me an order I can appeal, and reverse your sorry ass a third time and maybe get rid of you."

That appears right, they want her to either fully back down or provide them basis to immediately appeal...and rightfully ask for her removal.

Her proposed instructions are so far from the reality of the law that it's a bit flabbergasting that she thought she could get away with it. I've read where she keeps turning over staff because she's gone a little nutso with them, and thus isn't getting much help in doing the actual legal work and no one is pushing back...so maybe she just wants off the case somehow without looking like she turned on Trump...but that sure would be whacky, just ask to get off for personal reasons, right?

Perhaps before we get too far into the case Mr. Smith can give us the date and vote count of his Senate confirmation.

I'll keep an open mind. What's your intended point?

Are you trying to say that Cannon is neither incompetent nor in the bag for Trump, nor both?

Or that Smith is wrong on the law and Cannon is right?

And trying to divert from those straightforward arguments to something that's pretty nonsensical?

Or are you actually serious...and clueless?

Or is there something else to your point?

No. I'm trying to say the Special Counsel law was not followed. Special Counsel are subject to the legislative branch. No hearing was held. He just showed up. Not that I want a more competent prosecutor.. The SC overturned him 9-0 once already.

[PizzaSnake]

This is just an astonishing pleading:

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... 28.0_1.pdf

“a correct formulation of the law”

I read that as, I double-dog dare you, Judge Cannon…

"Give me an order I can appeal, and reverse your sorry ass a third time and maybe get rid of you."

That appears right, they want her to either fully back down or provide them basis to immediately appeal...and rightfully ask for her removal.

Her proposed instructions are so far from the reality of the law that it's a bit flabbergasting that she thought she could get away with it. I've read where she keeps turning over staff because she's gone a little nutso with them, and thus isn't getting much help in doing the actual legal work and no one is pushing back...so maybe she just wants off the case somehow without looking like she turned on Trump...but that sure would be whacky, just ask to get off for personal reasons, right?

Perhaps before we get too far into the case Mr. Smith can give us the date and vote count of his Senate confirmation.

I'll keep an open mind. What's your intended point?

Are you trying to say that Cannon is neither incompetent nor in the bag for Trump, nor both?

Or that Smith is wrong on the law and Cannon is right?

And trying to divert from those straightforward arguments to something that's pretty nonsensical?

Or are you actually serious...and clueless?

Or is there something else to your point?

No. I'm trying to say the Special Counsel law was not followed. Special Counsel are subject to the legislative branch. No hearing was held. He just showed up. Not that I want a more competent prosecutor.. The SC overturned him 9-0 once already.

Nope. Here is the relevant legislation regarding the position of Special Counsel. This is not the abandoned (1999) Independent Counsel.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/28/part-600

Please point out the portion that describes the position being "subject to the legislative branch."

[Typical Lax Dad]

https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2024/04/04/tru ... -says.html

[cradleandshoot]

This is just an astonishing pleading:

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... 28.0_1.pdf

“a correct formulation of the law”

I read that as, I double-dog dare you, Judge Cannon…

"Give me an order I can appeal, and reverse your sorry ass a third time and maybe get rid of you."

That appears right, they want her to either fully back down or provide them basis to immediately appeal...and rightfully ask for her removal.

Her proposed instructions are so far from the reality of the law that it's a bit flabbergasting that she thought she could get away with it. I've read where she keeps turning over staff because she's gone a little nutso with them, and thus isn't getting much help in doing the actual legal work and no one is pushing back...so maybe she just wants off the case somehow without looking like she turned on Trump...but that sure would be whacky, just ask to get off for personal reasons, right?

Perhaps before we get too far into the case Mr. Smith can give us the date and vote count of his Senate confirmation.

I'll keep an open mind. What's your intended point?

Are you trying to say that Cannon is neither incompetent nor in the bag for Trump, nor both?

Or that Smith is wrong on the law and Cannon is right?

And trying to divert from those straightforward arguments to something that's pretty nonsensical?

Or are you actually serious...and clueless?

Or is there something else to your point?

No. I'm trying to say the Special Counsel law was not followed. Special Counsel are subject to the legislative branch. No hearing was held. He just showed up. Not that I want a more competent prosecutor.. The SC overturned him 9-0 once already.

Nope. Here is the relevant legislation regarding the position of Special Counsel. This is not the abandoned (1999) Independent Counsel.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/28/part-600

Please point out the portion that describes the position being "subject to the legislative branch."

What is the point? Laws or regulations can only be effective as the willingness to enforce them. We have immigration laws on the books that are ignored every damn day and most DC types could care less. That is what happens when laws become subjective based on popular opinion. I wish the IRS had such lax standards when enforcing tax codes...

[Brooklyn]

tRump mental degeneration: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/gYc-4i-4 ... ture=share



right wingers like to point to Biden's deficiencies but go silent when Dump's mental incapacity is pointed out

[MDlaxfan76]

This is just an astonishing pleading:

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... 28.0_1.pdf

“a correct formulation of the law”

I read that as, I double-dog dare you, Judge Cannon…

"Give me an order I can appeal, and reverse your sorry ass a third time and maybe get rid of you."

That appears right, they want her to either fully back down or provide them basis to immediately appeal...and rightfully ask for her removal.

Her proposed instructions are so far from the reality of the law that it's a bit flabbergasting that she thought she could get away with it. I've read where she keeps turning over staff because she's gone a little nutso with them, and thus isn't getting much help in doing the actual legal work and no one is pushing back...so maybe she just wants off the case somehow without looking like she turned on Trump...but that sure would be whacky, just ask to get off for personal reasons, right?

Perhaps before we get too far into the case Mr. Smith can give us the date and vote count of his Senate confirmation.

I'll keep an open mind. What's your intended point?

Are you trying to say that Cannon is neither incompetent nor in the bag for Trump, nor both?

Or that Smith is wrong on the law and Cannon is right?

And trying to divert from those straightforward arguments to something that's pretty nonsensical?

Or are you actually serious...and clueless?

Or is there something else to your point?

No. I'm trying to say the Special Counsel law was not followed. Special Counsel are subject to the legislative branch. No hearing was held. He just showed up. Not that I want a more competent prosecutor.. The SC overturned him 9-0 once already.

Nope. Here is the relevant legislation regarding the position of Special Counsel. This is not the abandoned (1999) Independent Counsel.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/28/part-600

Please point out the portion that describes the position being "subject to the legislative branch."

What is the point? Laws or regulations can only be effective as the willingness to enforce them. We have immigration laws on the books that are ignored every damn day and most DC types could care less. That is what happens when laws become subjective based on popular opinion. I wish the IRS had such lax standards when enforcing tax codes...

So… you and get it to x don’t want to just admit that what he said simply has no basis in actual law?
And the relevant law is actually being followed to a t?

Just want to pretend and complain? Then change subject to more complaints?

MAGA logic compliant.

[get it to x]

This is just an astonishing pleading:

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... 28.0_1.pdf

“a correct formulation of the law”

I read that as, I double-dog dare you, Judge Cannon…

"Give me an order I can appeal, and reverse your sorry ass a third time and maybe get rid of you."

That appears right, they want her to either fully back down or provide them basis to immediately appeal...and rightfully ask for her removal.

Her proposed instructions are so far from the reality of the law that it's a bit flabbergasting that she thought she could get away with it. I've read where she keeps turning over staff because she's gone a little nutso with them, and thus isn't getting much help in doing the actual legal work and no one is pushing back...so maybe she just wants off the case somehow without looking like she turned on Trump...but that sure would be whacky, just ask to get off for personal reasons, right?

Perhaps before we get too far into the case Mr. Smith can give us the date and vote count of his Senate confirmation.

I'll keep an open mind. What's your intended point?

Are you trying to say that Cannon is neither incompetent nor in the bag for Trump, nor both?

Or that Smith is wrong on the law and Cannon is right?

And trying to divert from those straightforward arguments to something that's pretty nonsensical?

Or are you actually serious...and clueless?

Or is there something else to your point?

No. I'm trying to say the Special Counsel law was not followed. Special Counsel are subject to the legislative branch. No hearing was held. He just showed up. Not that I want a more competent prosecutor.. The SC overturned him 9-0 once already.

Nope. Here is the relevant legislation regarding the position of Special Counsel. This is not the abandoned (1999) Independent Counsel.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/28/part-600

Please point out the portion that describes the position being "subject to the legislative branch."

What is the point? Laws or regulations can only be effective as the willingness to enforce them. We have immigration laws on the books that are ignored every damn day and most DC types could care less. That is what happens when laws become subjective based on popular opinion. I wish the IRS had such lax standards when enforcing tax codes...

So… you and get it to x don’t want to just admit that what he said simply has no basis in actual law?
And the relevant law is actually being followed to a t?

Just want to pretend and complain? Then change subject to more complaints?

MAGA logic compliant.

Actually, no. I admit when I make an error, which I did in this case. I was not on this board again until just now. Unlike some, this board is an occasional diversion for me.

[a fan]

This is just an astonishing pleading:

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... 28.0_1.pdf

“a correct formulation of the law”

I read that as, I double-dog dare you, Judge Cannon…

"Give me an order I can appeal, and reverse your sorry ass a third time and maybe get rid of you."

That appears right, they want her to either fully back down or provide them basis to immediately appeal...and rightfully ask for her removal.

Her proposed instructions are so far from the reality of the law that it's a bit flabbergasting that she thought she could get away with it. I've read where she keeps turning over staff because she's gone a little nutso with them, and thus isn't getting much help in doing the actual legal work and no one is pushing back...so maybe she just wants off the case somehow without looking like she turned on Trump...but that sure would be whacky, just ask to get off for personal reasons, right?

Perhaps before we get too far into the case Mr. Smith can give us the date and vote count of his Senate confirmation.

I'll keep an open mind. What's your intended point?

Are you trying to say that Cannon is neither incompetent nor in the bag for Trump, nor both?

Or that Smith is wrong on the law and Cannon is right?

And trying to divert from those straightforward arguments to something that's pretty nonsensical?

Or are you actually serious...and clueless?

Or is there something else to your point?

No. I'm trying to say the Special Counsel law was not followed. Special Counsel are subject to the legislative branch. No hearing was held. He just showed up. Not that I want a more competent prosecutor.. The SC overturned him 9-0 once already.

Nope. Here is the relevant legislation regarding the position of Special Counsel. This is not the abandoned (1999) Independent Counsel.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/28/part-600

Please point out the portion that describes the position being "subject to the legislative branch."

What is the point? Laws or regulations can only be effective as the willingness to enforce them. We have immigration laws on the books that are ignored every damn day and most DC types could care less. That is what happens when laws become subjective based on popular opinion. I wish the IRS had such lax standards when enforcing tax codes...

So… you and get it to x don’t want to just admit that what he said simply has no basis in actual law?
And the relevant law is actually being followed to a t?

Just want to pretend and complain? Then change subject to more complaints?

MAGA logic compliant.

Actually, no. I admit when I make an error, which I did in this case.....(cut)

Tip of the hat, get it to x. See guys? It ain't all that hard to admit when you're wrong. And we're ALL wrong at times.

[MDlaxfan76]

This is just an astonishing pleading:

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... 28.0_1.pdf

“a correct formulation of the law”

I read that as, I double-dog dare you, Judge Cannon…

"Give me an order I can appeal, and reverse your sorry ass a third time and maybe get rid of you."

That appears right, they want her to either fully back down or provide them basis to immediately appeal...and rightfully ask for her removal.

Her proposed instructions are so far from the reality of the law that it's a bit flabbergasting that she thought she could get away with it. I've read where she keeps turning over staff because she's gone a little nutso with them, and thus isn't getting much help in doing the actual legal work and no one is pushing back...so maybe she just wants off the case somehow without looking like she turned on Trump...but that sure would be whacky, just ask to get off for personal reasons, right?

Perhaps before we get too far into the case Mr. Smith can give us the date and vote count of his Senate confirmation.

I'll keep an open mind. What's your intended point?

Are you trying to say that Cannon is neither incompetent nor in the bag for Trump, nor both?

Or that Smith is wrong on the law and Cannon is right?

And trying to divert from those straightforward arguments to something that's pretty nonsensical?

Or are you actually serious...and clueless?

Or is there something else to your point?

No. I'm trying to say the Special Counsel law was not followed. Special Counsel are subject to the legislative branch. No hearing was held. He just showed up. Not that I want a more competent prosecutor.. The SC overturned him 9-0 once already.

Nope. Here is the relevant legislation regarding the position of Special Counsel. This is not the abandoned (1999) Independent Counsel.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/28/part-600

Please point out the portion that describes the position being "subject to the legislative branch."

What is the point? Laws or regulations can only be effective as the willingness to enforce them. We have immigration laws on the books that are ignored every damn day and most DC types could care less. That is what happens when laws become subjective based on popular opinion. I wish the IRS had such lax standards when enforcing tax codes...

So… you and get it to x don’t want to just admit that what he said simply has no basis in actual law?
And the relevant law is actually being followed to a t?

Just want to pretend and complain? Then change subject to more complaints?

MAGA logic compliant.

Actually, no. I admit when I make an error, which I did in this case. I was not on this board again until just now. Unlike some, this board is an occasional diversion for me.

I stand corrected, happily.
It just wasn't a correct understanding of the relevant law...no reason for cradle to try to divert from that.

[MDlaxfan76]

This is just an astonishing pleading:

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... 28.0_1.pdf

“a correct formulation of the law”

I read that as, I double-dog dare you, Judge Cannon…

"Give me an order I can appeal, and reverse your sorry ass a third time and maybe get rid of you."

That appears right, they want her to either fully back down or provide them basis to immediately appeal...and rightfully ask for her removal.

Her proposed instructions are so far from the reality of the law that it's a bit flabbergasting that she thought she could get away with it. I've read where she keeps turning over staff because she's gone a little nutso with them, and thus isn't getting much help in doing the actual legal work and no one is pushing back...so maybe she just wants off the case somehow without looking like she turned on Trump...but that sure would be whacky, just ask to get off for personal reasons, right?

Perhaps before we get too far into the case Mr. Smith can give us the date and vote count of his Senate confirmation.

I'll keep an open mind. What's your intended point?

Are you trying to say that Cannon is neither incompetent nor in the bag for Trump, nor both?

Or that Smith is wrong on the law and Cannon is right?

And trying to divert from those straightforward arguments to something that's pretty nonsensical?

Or are you actually serious...and clueless?

Or is there something else to your point?

No. I'm trying to say the Special Counsel law was not followed. Special Counsel are subject to the legislative branch. No hearing was held. He just showed up. Not that I want a more competent prosecutor.. The SC overturned him 9-0 once already.

Nope. Here is the relevant legislation regarding the position of Special Counsel. This is not the abandoned (1999) Independent Counsel.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/28/part-600

Please point out the portion that describes the position being "subject to the legislative branch."

What is the point? Laws or regulations can only be effective as the willingness to enforce them. We have immigration laws on the books that are ignored every damn day and most DC types could care less. That is what happens when laws become subjective based on popular opinion. I wish the IRS had such lax standards when enforcing tax codes...

So… you and get it to x don’t want to just admit that what he said simply has no basis in actual law?
And the relevant law is actually being followed to a t?

Just want to pretend and complain? Then change subject to more complaints?

MAGA logic compliant.

Actually, no. I admit when I make an error, which I did in this case.....(cut)

Tip of the hat, get it to x. See guys? It ain't all that hard to admit when you're wrong. And we're ALL wrong at times.

Indeed, all.
And agreed on tip of hat.

[SCLaxAttack]

Donnie's lucky this is America. Vietnam doesn't mess around with fraudsters. https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/truo ... 48346.html

[old salt]

What is the point? Laws or regulations can only be effective as the willingness to enforce them. We have immigration laws on the books that are ignored every damn day and most DC types could care less. That is what happens when laws become subjective based on popular opinion. I wish the IRS had such lax standards when enforcing tax codes...

They do, if your last name is Biden.

[cradleandshoot]

What is the point? Laws or regulations can only be effective as the willingness to enforce them. We have immigration laws on the books that are ignored every damn day and most DC types could care less. That is what happens when laws become subjective based on popular opinion. I wish the IRS had such lax standards when enforcing tax codes...

They do, if your last name is Biden.

[NattyBohChamps04]

Love that Trump's orgs have already been found guilty of tons of counts of tax fraud, and he has many more on the way.

While Biden has none that I'm aware of.

One Biden offspring seems to have IRS trouble, while multiple Trump offspring have like 10-100x the trouble.

Funny joke guys! A real knee slapper. Must get tons of laughs.

[SCLaxAttack]

Love that Trump's orgs have already been found guilty of tons of counts of tax fraud, and he has many more on the way.

While Biden has none that I'm aware of.

One Biden offspring seems to have IRS trouble, while multiple Trump offspring have like 10-100x the trouble.

Funny joke guys! A real knee slapper. Must get tons of laughs.

Come on Natty, you know that’s only because our criminal justice system has been weaponized against the Trumps.

[CU88a]

Love that Trump's orgs have already been found guilty of tons of counts of tax fraud, and he has many more on the way.

While Biden has none that I'm aware of.

One Biden offspring seems to have IRS trouble, while multiple Trump offspring have like 10-100x the trouble.

Funny joke guys! A real knee slapper. Must get tons of laughs.

Come on Natty, you know that’s only because our criminal justice system has been weaponized against the Trumps.

+1

The usual jokers here who keep calling out Biden are too funny; Keystone Cops for Faux News MAGA idiots.

[njbill]

Wonder if The Donald has asked Weaselberg what Riker's is like. You know, asking for a friend.