Federal prosecutors accuse Hunter Biden of accepting payments from a Romanian businessman "to influence U.S. government agencies" while his father was vice president.
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.)
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.
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!
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?
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.
Jack Smith was not appointed in the same manner. When did Congress approve Jack Smith? They didn’t. That is the issue as outlined in the article.
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.)
Sounds like nobody challenged it or the prior courts had a different opinion.
Cannon got this from Thomas. So I expect this to go up the court system
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.
SCOTUS may have a different take this one. Maybe not. To me it’s telling only Thomas wrote about it.
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!
He was found liable for sexual assault. Yes, he paid Josh money to a porn star
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?