I get why the hatred for Thomas now.
In his decision, he did not hold back.

DrMaddVibe wrote:

I get why the hatred for Thomas now.
In his decision, he did not hold back.

DrMaddVibe wrote:

If that's your stance on Thomas.... ^But you're okay with what Joe Biden and his crime family have done?

MACS wrote:

No I am not.

But, I still need to see the proof the R's are promising exists.

I don't have a hard-on for Biden. If he is guilty of a crime, toss him out of office and make him serve any appropriate jail time, so be it.

rfenst wrote:

No I am not.

But, I still need to see the proof the R's are promising exists.

I don't have a hard-on for Biden. If he is guilty of a crime, toss him out of office and make him serve any appropriate jail time, so be it.

rfenst wrote:

the Kushner kids took down 2 BILLION...from the friendly Saudis, no less.
I think you underestimate the "opportunity" government offered to a small family clan of con artists named Trump, Sire.

frankj1 wrote:

His dissent is a distinction without any difference.

Garland merely assigning the case to Smith as its lead prosecutor ("Special Counsel") is normal and necessarily however he wasn’t confirmed by the Senate which is a requirement for ALL Federal prosecutors. It is no different than every single prosecutorial appointment in every single criminal case across the country. Someone has to be calling the shots on the case. Realistically, it cannot be the AG his or herself. Otherwise, every single prosecutorial assignment on every single case could be subject to challenge in court and then require legislative authorization to prosecute.

Call it "Special Counsel or "Lead Counsel" or another of several other terms, it all means the same thing- the person assigned to be in charge of the prosecution...

rfenst wrote:

Two whole billion for Jared.
But, but…….he is a brilliant investment guru and finacial genius……..no??
Not impressed by the way……….it’s still small potatoes compared to crimes committed on the other side.
Furthermore, there is a reason the press isn’t blowing that story up.
There is nothing illegal about it.

KingoftheCove wrote:

FIFY...

he wasn’t confirmed by the Senate which is a requirement for ALL Federal prosecutors.

Abrignac wrote:

"Held: Under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of Presidential power entitles a former President to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority. And he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts. There is no
immunity for unofficial acts."
Syllabus



So the issue boils down to what is and is not an official act within presidential authority. Not a bright line ruling that aids in a final conclusion like everyone hoped for, one way or the other. Instead, it sends the case back to the trial court to decide whether certain conduct was or was not an official act. Thereafter, either side can appeal all the way up to SCOTUS AGAIN. The ruling was inconclusive. Finality could be years and years down the road, or not at all. Without respect to the politics involved, SCOTUS could have concluded everything, but failed to. They let us all down.

rfenst wrote:

I know the story is 2+ years old, that’s my point.
Where are the headlines and such lately?
As far as I know he hasn’t been indicted or charged with anything?
What am I missing?
He has the scruples of a pig for taking Saudi cash?
Yeah, he does.
But guess what…………..…you know what ….

This whole YOUR guy is a bigger prick than MY guy is ridiculous.
I believe both sides are criminal.
I believe the Dems are worse, not by much, but worse.

KingoftheCove wrote:

His dissent is a distinction without any difference.

Garland merely assigning the case to Smith as it's lead prosecutor ("Special Counsel") is normal and necessarily. It is no different than every single prosecutorial appointment in every single criminal case across the country. Someone has to be calling the shots on the case. Realistically, it cannot be the AG his or herself. Otherwise, every single prosecutorial assignment on every single case could be subject to challenge in court and then require legislative authorization to prosecute.

Call it "Special Counsel or "Lead Counsel" or another of several other terms, it all means the same thing- the person assigned to be in charge of the prosecution...

rfenst wrote:

Seems like the SCOTUS went after Garland for exactly NOT having his Special Prosecutor confirmed by the Senate. They even put the statute in their decision as well.

DrMaddVibe wrote: