What's new

Donald is about to go through some things...

You can do it. Quote for me the shooter's political party.
I'm not going to answer your questions when you don't have any respect to answer my true or false question. Well... I'm guessing a Trump supporter wouldn't assassinate Trump. Are people really this stupid? Fish claims to be partially Republicans and he's the most Alt-Left person I know. He was liking post just the other day where the conversation was about assassinating Trump. Ask him about it.
 
So it's your contention the Trump administration's appointments Mueller and Durham, as well as every Independent Counsel since 1875, requires the appointment by Congress
'Independent Counsel', no. Independent Prosecutor, yes. Mueller could lead an investigation but had to hand off any prosecutions to the DOJ due to being an "inferior officer".

The panel agreed with the government that Mueller's appointment by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein complied with the Constitution's appointment clause, which allows a department head to appoint an inferior officer, who is then supervised and directed by a presidentially appointed and Senate-confirmed officer.

When the Biden DOJ kept going on about how independent the investigation was, how the Biden DOJ wasn't putting their hands on the scale to prosecute a political opponent, it meant that Jack Smith wasn't an inferior officer being supervised and directed. It was an independent office carrying out the prosecution, and independent offices need to be created by Congress as per the US Constitution.
 
I'm not going to answer your questions when you don't have any respect to answer my true or false question. Well... I'm guessing a Trump supporter wouldn't assassinate Trump. Are people really this stupid? Fish claims to be partially Republicans and he's the most Alt-Left person I know. He was liking post just the other day where the conversation was about assassinating Trump.
Come on, I believe in you! Quote me that shooter's registered political affiliation.
 
What the **** are you talking about? I answered, it, gave the constitutional reason and one of the SCOTUS cases going over it. If you can't read homie, that's on you.
Dude you're feeding the troll. He'll never provide anything remotely relevant. He just wants to get a rise out of you. As long as you engage in this back and forth he'll sit there rubbing his chubby. He gets off on it. Just stop feeding the troll.
 
So it's your contention the Trump administration's appointments Mueller and Durham, as well as every Independent Counsel since 1875, requires the appointment by Congress, despite the fact it is not Congress's purview to enforce the laws of our nation and every related SCOTUS case said they were good on this concept. Do I have your bat*** logic correct?
I want to be clear... If Trump wins you are ok with him appointing a Jack Smith of his own and arresting every one of his political opponents?
 
I want to be clear... If Trump wins you are ok with him appointing a Jack Smith of his own and arresting every one of his political opponents?
Stay on target. It's your contention the Trump administration's appointments Mueller and Durham, as well as every Independent Counsel since 1875, requires the appointment by Congress, despite the fact it is not Congress's purview to enforce the laws of our nation and every related SCOTUS case said they were good on this concept. Do I have your logic correct?

I might also suggest looking up how those appointments are made. They aren't done by the POTUS.
 
I'm elated. This only helps Trump and once he wins he can appoint a special council to arrest you for slander. Now I think that's wrong but remember 1875 and stuff
Aight, you're just taking the piss now. He doesn't appoint Special Prosecutors/Independent Counsels. That's the AG. I might also suggest you look up how arrest warrants are issued.
 
Stay on target. It's your contention the Trump administration's appointments Mueller and Durham, as well as every Independent Counsel since 1875, requires the appointment by Congress, despite the fact it is not Congress's purview to enforce the laws of our nation and every related SCOTUS case said they were good on this concept. Do I have your logic correct?

I might also suggest looking up how those appointments are made. They aren't done by the POTUS.
Trump didn't appoint Mueller to prosecute himself you dummy. And I even pointed out how it was illegal. Did I not? I've been saying this since the beginning actually.
 
Aight, you're just taking the piss now. He doesn't appoint Special Prosecutors/Independent Counsels. That's the AG. I might also suggest you look up how arrest warrants are issued.
Nah, I'll take the judges word for it. Go be angry just don't do anything crazy please
 
What has the hatred of Donald Trump gotten you dipshiits? He might have gone away, but the hatred and constant coverage kept him relevant, political prosecutions, the trials, and indictments made him more popular, and an attempted assassination has pretty much handed trump the election. Dumbass democrats can’t get out of their own way. Everything they touch goes to ****, everything they have tried to do to trump has blown up in their face, yet they still blame trump for all of it. What has all the hatred gotten you idiots over the last 10 years? It’s only made trump more powerful. What purpose does the hatred serve in your life? Are any of you idiots learning any valuable lessons from any of this or does your hatred just keep growing? Dumbasses
 
Aight, you're just taking the piss now. He doesn't appoint Special Prosecutors/Independent Counsels. That's the AG. I might also suggest you look up how arrest warrants are issued.
And who appointed Merrick Garland? Please tell me you're not this dense? Garland has been about as far left as one can get.
 
Aight, you're just taking the piss now. He doesn't appoint Special Prosecutors/Independent Counsels. That's the AG. I might also suggest you look up how arrest warrants are issued.
Also I don't care if trump were to appoint special prosecutors and go after everyone who ever wronged him.

It would be hilarious to watch all these court cases lacking evidence get to a jury and the defendants remain innocent.

I'm not afraid of the justice system. It's telling that the Republican party is afraid of having evidence presented to a jury. Guilty are always going to more afraid of going to court than innocent.

Sent from my CPH2451 using Tapatalk
 
Trump didn't appoint Mueller to prosecute himself you dummy. And I even pointed out how it was illegal. Did I not? I've been saying this since the beginning actually.
Nah mate, you didn't point anything out. You're one of those people who says "do some learnin'" and calls other people morons when they fact check your "sources" and find them to be flat out wrong. My favorite incident of this type was when some jackinape tried to tell me N95 masks don't work for ****, gave me a source, and didn't bother to check that his "source" was a scientific study that had a big red label on the front it saying the study in question has been discredited because "the science" didn't hold up. It's like Stockton trying to quote some 1990's quality Geocities-level website with half-broken links and "cases" of vaccination deaths where the actual cause was much different, such as drugs abuse, natural causes, and just plain accidents. Ron Paul supporters were particularly notorious for this, which makes me think you would have fit right at home there.

You are the worst kind of "intellectual". You don't debate points, logic, or refutations of your arguments. You simple blunder your way through with the same discredited discourse, saying "you never said this or that" when you damn well know it was said because it was thrown in your face and started to wiggle.

I gave you the historical precedent, case law, constitutional muster and reasoning, and everything else. You want to keep with this mental or physical masturbatory fest, then be my guest. We're done.
 
Also I don't care if trump were to appoint special prosecutors and go after everyone who ever wronged him.

It would be hilarious to watch all these court cases lacking evidence get to a jury and the defendants remain innocent.

I'm not afraid of the justice system. It's telling that the Republican party is afraid of having evidence presented to a jury. Guilty are always going to more afraid of going to court than innocent.

Sent from my CPH2451 using Tapatalk
Keep in mind he could show up at your door for your plea bargain and make it right
 
Nah mate, you didn't point anything out. You're one of those people who says "do some learnin'" and calls other people morons when they fact check your "sources" and find them to be flat out wrong. My favorite incident of this type was when some jackinape tried to tell me N95 masks don't work for ****, gave me a source, and didn't bother to check that his "source" was a scientific study that had a big red label on the front it saying the study in question has been discredited because "the science" didn't hold up. It's like Stockton trying to quote some 1990's quality Geocities-level website with half-broken links and "cases" of vaccination deaths where the actual cause was much different, such as drugs abuse, natural causes, and just plain accidents.

You are the worst kind of "intellectual". You don't debate points, logic, or refutations of your arguments. You simple blunder your way through with the same discredited discourse, saying "you never said this or that" when you damn well know it was said because it was thrown in your face and started to wiggle.

I gave you the historical precedent, case law, constitutional muster and reasoning, and everything else. You want to keep with this mental or physical masturbatory, then be my guest. We're done.
And I gave you multiple rebuttals that Mueller investigation was unconstitutional. Just like Jack Smith.
 
Nope. I just go to court and do the same things again lol. I went to court already.
Plea in abeyance is still an option today like it was 15 years ago.

I ain't scared
Sent from my CPH2451 using Tapatalk
 
And I gave you multiple rebuttals that Mueller investigation was unconstitutional. Just like Jack Smith.
No, you didn't. You tried that thing I mentioned with the bu.edu link, which was wrong in the first sentence. Then you tried to cite it again. Again, we're through. Have a good day.
 
'Independent Counsel', no. Independent Prosecutor, yes. Mueller could lead an investigation but had to hand off any prosecutions to the DOJ due to being an "inferior officer".



When the Biden DOJ kept going on about how independent the investigation was, how the Biden DOJ wasn't putting their hands on the scale to prosecute a political opponent, it meant that Jack Smith wasn't an inferior officer being supervised and directed. It was an independent office carrying out the prosecution, and independent offices need to be created by Congress as per the US Constitution.
Great explanation @TheStormofWar missed
 
Back
Top