Posted on 07/18/2024 6:09:41 PM PDT by Libloather
I don’t see there that they differ. Thomas is saying that there is no apparent basis to derive prosecutorial powers for Smith, being that he doesn’t hold a legally established position, on top of not having been confirmed to a position with its own prosecutorial authority. At this time, Special Counsel is a extra-legal label rather than a position.
Are you talking about the Presidential immunity ruling, or the hearing as to whether Smith can bring cases at all? They touch each other, but are distinct.
This is about Judge Cannon’s ruling on whether Smith is actually a Prosecutor, and references Thomas’ comments on the same idea. You seem to be referring to the Presidential Immunity aspects of the appeals.
Fair observation.
The US legal system has now four classes of argumentation?
Argue the Politics
Argue the Facts
Argue the Law
Pound the Table
[And (as a sixth) I would propose: Argue the emotions]
MORE than a “fair” Observation....
The “Law” these days is WAY less than deterministic.
Traitor Roberts is totally wrong on his pronouncement that there are NO political Judges.
[“We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges.”]
Traitor Roberts is apparently an idiot. He’s definitely a part of the problem.
Fifth.
[I only have so many fingers....]
Hmmm, in that case seems like the motion is for show to the low info crowd and the lawyers filing must know its not valid. Very dishonest of them.
Daddy better pardon him quickly.
And what does a gun case have to do with a ruling about a special prosecutor??
And what does a gun case have to do with a ruling about a special prosecutor??
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.