-37
this post was submitted on 08 Aug 2024
-37 points (13.7% liked)
Conservative
467 readers
484 users here now
A place to discuss pro-conservative stuff
-
Be excellent to each other. Civility, No Racism, No Bigotry, No Slurs, No calls to violences, No namecalling, All that good stuff, follow lemm.ee's rules, follow the rules of your instance, etc.
-
We are a Pro-Conservative forum. Posts must have a clear pro-conservative, or anti left-wing bias. We are interested in promoting conservatism and discussing things that might get ignored elsewhere. All sources are acceptable, however reputable sources with a reputation for factual reporting are preferred.
-
Dissent is allowed in the comments, but try to be constructive; if you do not agree, then provide a reason which is backed up by references or a reasonable alternative interpretation of the provided facts. That means the left wing is welcome to state their opinions, but please keep it in good faith.
A polite request, not a rule, if you feel the need to report a comment, please don't reply to it.
founded 1 year ago
all 26 comments
sorted by:
hot
top
controversial
new
old
Did judge Cannon decide that special counsels were actually illegal? So why do we care? And if we do care about this special counsel shouldn't we also care about the one charging trump about all those classified documents?
[deleted]
And that way, without Senate confirmation, is the same way in which David Weiss was appointed special counsel in the Hunter Biden case.
So, are you defending/citing the work of an illegal appointee? And if so, shouldn't we also care about Jack Smith's charges?
[deleted]
What do you see as the difference that made one appointment legal and the other illegal? (Other than one is investigating a Biden and the other is investigating trump.)
[deleted]
Huh, so in other words Jack Smith was appointed in the exact same manner as Nicolas Bua, Malcolm Wilkey, and Frederick Lacey.
But, I am glad you get the silly technicality that has been rejected by every other judge who has heard this nonsensical defense.
[deleted]
And Congress (I think you actually mean Senate) didn't approve Bua, Wilkey or Lacey as special counsel. (All were appointed by Barr in the same manner as Smith.)
[deleted]
Multiple folks have challenged it, every ruling prior to this had ruled that this was a nonsense claim.
We both know it's not actually a constitutional challenge, it's a delay in the hope trump wins the presidency and can, once again, avoid repercussions for his actions.
[deleted]
And zero other justices decided it was a legitimate enough thought to agree with. (Typically, when a Justice writes an opinion like that, others will also sign it. It is telling that none chose to do so.)
But, if we are taking judges rulings as gospel, does that mean both of us admit that donald trump has committed sexual assault and in a different sexual criminal case, paid hush money to the pornstar with whom he cheated on his wife? Just curious!
[deleted]
So when it comes to the special counsel, you are willing to Unequivocally say he was appointed illegally. When it comes to trump, you won't say he committed sexual assault only that he was found liable? Or are you just mis-speaking?
[deleted]
But you're willing to, despite multiple precedents and repeated legal confirmation, declare the special counsel illegal because one wild judge said so.
It's neat.
[deleted]
Yes and it doesn't really defend Cannon's decision so much as say that it is different from Weiss.
But you've decided that despite all other rulings, precedent etc that Cannon's ruling means Smith is illegal.
BUT when a court comes to an opinion you don't like and finds trump guilty of sexual assault, well, that's a matter for the courts and you don't believe them.
Basically, a nonsense ruling that flies in the face of precedent/common sense/previous cases but supports your side, obviously correct.
But a court and jury finds trump committes sexual assault, well, y'know, that may or may not have happened etc.
It's almost like the facts don't matter, all that matters is whether the ruling is good or bad for your side. Weird.
Edit: I'll also point out that the judge said the "proof convincingly established and the jury implicitly found that Mr trump deliberately and forcibly penetrated Ms Carroll's vagina with his fingers" and that as many people understand the word rape, trump did exactly that.
[deleted]
Me:
Did judge Cannon decide that special counsels were actually illegal? So why do we care? And if we do care about this special counsel shouldn’t we also care about the one charging trump about all those classified documents?
Your response:
No, that isn't what she said at all. Not all special counsels are illegal. It is that Jack Smith was not appointed properly that made it illegal.
[deleted]
Your original response didn't you were echoing Cannon's opinion rather than simply agreeing with her it was illegal.
Apologies.
That Romanian oligarch needs to get a new HR department if he thinks Hunter will influence anything other than a bottle of Scotch and straw in his nostril