• downpunxx
    link
    fedilink
    444 months ago

    lol, he’s gonna find out real quick, what applies to, and is allowed for Trump doesn’t apply to anyone else

    • @tetrachromacy
      link
      764 months ago

      Cannon’s ruling was that the entire concept of the DoJ appointing a special prosecutor is unconstitutional. Following that same logic, anyone who has ever been the subject of a special prosecutor investigation that was later adjudicated guilty can and should have their convictions thrown out.

      That’s why Hunter is saying his case should be thrown out. He was investigated by a special prosecutor on behalf of the Department of Justice. That investigator ruled he broke the law when he had the temerity to own a firearm while he was using illegal drugs, and then the case went to court.

      Under Cannon’s ruling, Hunter has got every right to ask for this. So does Bill Clinton for Whitewater. And the ghost of Richard Nixon for Watergate. Anyone who was ever investigated by a special prosecutor appointed by the DoJ who then faced any sort of legal consequences for their actions can now ask to have their convictions overturned on these grounds.

      Cannon’s ruling is a pretty intense case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater with regards to judicial procedure, and it’s likely to be reversed by the appeals court. On the other hand, her ruling was only meant to delay the trial, which worked flawlessly. When her peers in the appeals court reverse the ruling and remove her from the bench for it or any other reason, look forward to seeing her as a talking head on conservative news networks. She’s certainly earned her place there.

      • @CleoTheWizard
        link
        English
        84 months ago

        I may have a flawed understanding, but I think it’s worse than that. She’s actually trying to get the case dismissed completely because of a catch she put in the special counsel stuff. That catch being that the thing that illegal about the special counsel is not the special counsel itself, but rather that the person pursuing special counsel should be an elected official.

        Now I think this still does a number on our legal system and I don’t know enough about Hunters counsel here to say if that applies, but this was suggested to her and it’s a way to target throwing out trumps specific case while retaining the right to use special counsel elsewhere.

        I wish I were joking but the Supreme Court can and likely will make yet another carve out in the law so that the law can survive but is severely crippled in a way that massively benefits Trump.

          • @CleoTheWizard
            link
            English
            44 months ago

            It’s not that the special counsel themselves is elected, they’re all appointed. But rather that some of them haven’t been elected at any point which is different. Basically she said that the public never chose to give some of these people power at all so they shouldn’t hold any.

            It doesn’t make any sense but it doesn’t need to. It just needs to cancel trumps case while keeping a way for special counsel to exist

            • Queen HawlSera
              link
              fedilink
              English
              34 months ago

              Right? Like she’s obviously not allowed to say “This Prosecutor doesn’t count” That’s… some ol’ bullshit

    • nfh
      link
      164 months ago

      The best part is if the question goes up to SCOTUS, it might well get consolidated with Cannon’s dismissal, and they’re considering one legal question in cases against a Trump and a Biden.

      • downpunxx
        link
        fedilink
        354 months ago

        there has been no “best part” of any of this, there will be no “best part” for anything to come. the scotus corruption is completely out in the open, with no way to put an end to it.