Trump Florida case dismissed

originally posted by: wAnchorofCarp

originally posted by: SourGrapes
What's to keep them from finding someone other than Jack Smith to prosecute, before January 20th?

Congress.

Or they could appoint somebody already confirmed. 😬 But their whole point is election interference, not crimes.

a reply to: Boomer1947

Can you cite the "Many other cases in federal court" ?? 🤣

a reply to: xuenchen

Yes.

And I think we both know exactly why they didn't go to the numerous means at their disposal of doing things above board.

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: wAnchorofCarp
a reply to: KrustyKrab

Allow me a minute on the soap box?


They do know. They also know that by the time the justice system (the same one they operate under) catches up, the damage has been done. Moreover is that there is less than a zero percent chance of any culpability or accountability. Being in office has its merits and benefits. However the greater opportunities come after they are out of office. Being removed isn't enough and really doesn't alter or reduce their opportunities post office.

A pattern we have seen over, and over and over again.

Zero culpability. Zero accountability. Two things that ensure that this doesn't stop and only escalates.

by the time someone can do something, the goal has already been accomplished. Like student loan forgiveness. Doesn't have to happen, just offer the illusion it will. Long enough to get the votes. Then, who Give a F?

I think you are spot on.

There is no shortage of available examples to hammer the point home and we can launch a dart at any right on a board and find violations of that right from the gov't.

After the dust has settled and the courts have weighed in, there is no accountability for those violations. Even the legal fees are gobbled up by the same entity violating the rights.

originally posted by: jrod
For all of you who believe Jack Smith's appointment was legal, do you also believe the appointment of a special counsel to investigate Hunter Biden was also illegal?

What are the comparisons based on? You know, so people can make a sound comment. I already know, but I'm not telling! 😊

Garland is taking orders from Biden. Always go for the HEAD OF THE SNAKE.

NEITHER SMITH or HUR were approved as Special Counsels by the U.S. Senate.

Source: www.cbsnews.com...

Does this mean the findings that JOE BIDEN stole classified documents, stashed them in his garage, lies, has a short fuse, and horrible memory, are NOW NOT LEGITIMATE?

Another BS charge has come to a fitting end. There will be more, so I guess the liberals need to cut 31 counts off their rolling charge list for Trump

a reply to: Xtrozero

Next stop for case dismissal. Georgia. 21 humans were arrested by big Fani Willis, simply for hate's sake.

God Bless Justice Clarence Thomas, who has ultimate responsibility for all cases in Florida and Georgia.

This madness!

Payback ("retribution" is the nice name) will be HELL. 😈

It's about time.

a reply to: Boomer1947

Her actual words. It is worth a read.

In the end, it seems the Executive’s growing comfort in appointing “regulatory” special counsels in the more recent era has followed an ad hoc pattern with little judicial scrutiny. Perhaps this can be traced back to reliance on stray dictum in Nixon that perpetuated in subsequent cases. Perhaps it can be justified practically by the urgency of national crises. Or perhaps it can be explained by the relative infrequency of these types of investigations, by congressional inattention, or by the important roles that special-counsel-like figures have played in our country’s history. Regardless of the explanation, the present Motion requires careful analysis of the statutory landscape to ensure compliance with the Constitution, and the Court has endeavored to do so with care.

The Court thus returns to where it started. The Appointments Clause is “among the significant structural safeguards of the constitutional scheme.” Edmond, 520 U.S. at 659. So too is the Appropriations Clause, which carefully separates Congressional control of the “purse” from Executive control of the “sword.” The Federalist No. 78 (Alexander Hamilton). The consequences of relaxing either of those critical provisions are serious, both in this case and beyond. As Justice Frankfurter explained in his opinion in Youngstown, “[t]he accretion of dangerous power does not come in a day. It does come, however slowly, from the generative force of unchecked disregard of the restrictions that fence in even the most disinterested assertion of authority.” Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579, 594 (1952) (Frankfurter, J., concurring). “[I]llegitimate and unconstitutional practices get their first footing . . . by silent approaches and slight deviations from legal modes of procedure.” Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 635 (1886).

www.youtube.com... the left this morning

www.npr.org...

INSKEEP: OK, I'm just thinking about a kind of scorecard here now - four indictments, one conviction, one dismissal, and there's two still to go, right? DETROW: And the two cases that have to do with his efforts to overturn the election are indefinitely paused because the Supreme Court ruling about immunity raises serious questions about what prosecutors could bring. INSKEEP: Scott Detrow, host of NPR's Trump Trials podcast. Pleasure to hear from you. Thanks.

so that is nprs score card on everything

www.reuters.com...

and we find out by the 24th if the new york case sticks or not

Even if Merchan were to find that any piece of evidence should not have been shown to the jury in light of the Supreme Court immunity decision, that would not automatically mean the judge would have to set aside the verdict, Cardozo Law School professor Gary Galperin said. Instead, Merchan would have discretion to determine whether the evidence was crucial to the conviction, Galperin said. If the judge decides that the use of this evidence did not deprive Trump of the constitutional right to a fair trial - known in legal parlance as a "harmless error" - the conviction would likely stand, Galperin added. "There is no perfect trial," said Galperin, a former prosecutor in the Manhattan District Attorney's office. "The justice system tolerates imperfection." Defense lawyers are due to lay out their arguments for setting aside the verdict more fully in a court filing by Wednesday, and prosecutors would then have until July 24 to respond. Merchan has said he will decide by Sept. 6, and that if the conviction stands the judge would sentence Trump on Sept. 18.

now they say its unlikely but again we heard for years now they were going to get him for something but magically he pops right back up and manages to beat charge after charge

edit to add if they appeal the documents case it goes to the 11th which is Clarence Tomas area of responsibility and i belive he made him self quite clear in his recent scotus ruling how that one will go

originally posted by: StoutBroux

originally posted by: Irishhaf
So with that recent supreme court ruling opening up departments of the govt to law suits does that mean trump can sue for the money lost to lawyers?

He might could but I wouldn't go there. If the true goal is unification, everyone loses and everyone wins. But everyone needs to try. Sometimes you have to lick your wounds and let it go.

Ummm...see...the one glaring...in your face issue is that...none of the progs...currently incorrectly being called...and calling themselves liberals...will ever abide by any goal to reunify...ever...

Instead...all you'll see is the Right side of the unicoin make concessions and swallow...in order to...go along to get along...

Just as they always do...

This talk of reunification is a pipe dream...a scapegoat so that everything remains the same...so that once again the wool gets pulled over the eyes of the complacent...and the herd will absolutely fall for it again...


What a load of craptastic being passed off as the milk of human kindness...


Apparently Trump got the message...tore up his speech and is now going to change his stripes and be the...gasp...conciliator...

So funny to see him flee in the direction that he was pointed...



YouSir

a reply to: wAnchorofCarp

Every Liberal Poster here on ATS Owes Mr. Trump an Apology ! The Crap they Posted about this Particular Case was Nothing More than Lame Leftist Propaganda !

Feel very grateful for a judge like Judge Cannon, who actually does her job like a pro and follows the law and constitution.

I look forward to her being an excellent replacement for that activist immature Sotomayor.

a reply to: matafuchs

Thank-you for sharing the most important words in Judge Cannon's case dismissal filing.

Jack Smith is appealing: thehill.com...

The appeal of the first appeal's decision will end up in Justice Clarence Thomas's inbox one day!

originally posted by: wAnchorofCarp
Breaking now:

Link

Judge Cannon has dismissed the case based on Jack Smith's unlawful appointment.

More as it's available.

ETA:

Court LIstener page.

Former President Trump’s Motion to Dismiss Indictment Based on the Unlawful
Appointment and Funding of Special Counsel Jack Smith is GRANTED in accordance with this
Order [ECF No. 326]. The Superseding Indictment is DISMISSED because Special Counsel
Smith’s appointment violates the Appointments Clause of the United States Constitution. U.S.
Const., Art. II, § 2, cl. 2. Special Counsel Smith’s use of a permanent indefinite appropriation also
violates the Appropriations Clause, U.S. Const., Art. I, § 9, cl. 7, but the Court need not address
the proper remedy for that funding violation given the dismissal on Appointments Clause grounds.
The effect of this Order is confined to this proceeding.

Cry harder Libs.

I’ve been waiting all day at work to post about this.

The Dems have taken quite a beating the last couple weeks, they better start waving a white flag.

a reply to: RazorV66

Hey Raz.................Your a FUNNY GUY ............Oh Yeah , and You AMUSE Me...........*)

a reply to: Xtrozero


WHY Would Joe do this ?


" Trump: 'We Hear' Biden DOJ May Drop Prosecutions "

"He [Trump] also said that 'we hear' that Biden will order the Department of Justice to drop its two prosecutions of Trump," Goodwin wrote in his column in the Post. "So far, there's no public sign of that."

Biden's DOJ is prosecuting Trump in two cases, one involving Jan. 6, 2021, and the 2020 election results, and the other in which the former president is accused of mishandling classified documents."




www.newsmax.com...

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit

Biden's DOJ is prosecuting Trump in two cases, one involving Jan. 6, 2021, and the 2020 election results, and the other in which the former president is accused of mishandling classified documents."

Keep trying...

originally posted by: YouSir

Ummm...see...the one glaring...in your face issue is that...none of the progs...currently incorrectly being called...and calling themselves liberals...will ever abide by any goal to reunify...ever...

Instead...all you'll see is the Right side of the unicoin make concessions and swallow...in order to...go along to get along...

Just as they always do...

This talk of reunification is a pipe dream...a scapegoat so that everything remains the same...so that once again the wool gets pulled over the eyes of the complacent...and the herd will absolutely fall for it again...


What a load of craptastic being passed off as the milk of human kindness...


Apparently Trump got the message...tore up his speech and is now going to change his stripes and be the...gasp...conciliator...

So funny to see him flee in the direction that he was pointed...

YouSir

Is there anyone or anything you do not hate...lol