• @Lauchs
    link
    117 months ago

    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.)

      • @Lauchs
        link
        97 months ago

        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.

          • @Lauchs
            link
            87 months ago

            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!

              • @Lauchs
                link
                76 months ago

                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?

                  • @Lauchs
                    link
                    26 months ago

                    But you’re willing to, despite multiple precedents and repeated legal confirmation, declare the special counsel illegal because one wild judge said so.

                    It’s neat.