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 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?
I don’t have a dog in this fight. Why would I take a hard stance over an issue that is best left to the court?
When you look at the evidence, I don’t believe he committed sexual assault. As someone who worked in the legal system for years, I have never seen such a lack of evidence win in court. She didn’t even have basic facts such as the year, the time, the day, etc. It was just her statement as evidence.
He was not found guilty of a crime, he was found legally liabel.
But you’re willing to, despite multiple precedents and repeated legal confirmation, declare the special counsel illegal because one wild judge said so.
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.
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.
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?
I don’t have a dog in this fight. Why would I take a hard stance over an issue that is best left to the court?
When you look at the evidence, I don’t believe he committed sexual assault. As someone who worked in the legal system for years, I have never seen such a lack of evidence win in court. She didn’t even have basic facts such as the year, the time, the day, etc. It was just her statement as evidence.
He was not found guilty of a crime, he was found legally liabel.
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.
Do you confuse me with Judge Cannon? I am not Judge Cannon. What I did is provide a cite to explain to you the differences
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.
You keep confusing me with someone else.
I said the courts will sort it out.
Me:
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.