• Lauchs@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    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.

    • NeuromancerM
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      You keep confusing me with someone else.

      I said the courts will sort it out.

      • Lauchs@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 month ago

        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.

        • NeuromancerM
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 month ago

          Yes that’s what she said in her opinion.

          I am not judge cannon

          • Lauchs@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 month ago

            Your original response didn’t you were echoing Cannon’s opinion rather than simply agreeing with her it was illegal.

            Apologies.

            • NeuromancerM
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 month ago

              It’s beyond my legal knowledge to know if her and Thomas are correct or not. This is a nuance the courts will have to sort out. I’m only repeating her opinion. Unlike most people I don’t expertise in everything and will admit my limits.

              Thank you for the apology.