Comments by "J Nagarya" (@jnagarya519) on "'Huge win for Jack Smith': See ex-prosecutor's reaction to Trump ruling" video.

@kevinreist7718 It isn't necessarily the lawyer who is stupid; it is Trump's "argument" that he requires the lawyer to make that is stupid. Trump is all and only politics all the time. In contrast -- "Justice and the Rule of Law are to be ABOVE politics." -- John Adams.
4
@mrpocock It's essentially the same: "I have rights, and no laws apply to me." The problem with that "argument" is that it rejects the very rule of law that secures the "rights" that are at the same time claimed. One cannot, as example, reject the Constitution and also claim rights under, as example, the Second Amendment. You don't get to both reject the penalties in law -- responsibility -- and claim the protections -- rights -- in the law. It is always the law that rights are inextricably entwined with responsibility; and it is responsibility which limits the exercise of rights for the good of the community. The New Hampshire constitution of 1784 stated it this way: "Part I--The Bill of Rights . . . . "III. When men enter a state of society, they surrender up some of their natural rights to that society, to insure the protection of others [AND OF THEMSELVES]".
3
@camelsheit_on_the_walls446 Nothing at all suspicious -- LEGAL RESEARCH, and READING all the results, and the WRITING based on that analysis, TAKE TIME.
3
@Denzel_Watchington The Founders were Liberals -- which is why we have the First Amendment. If you had your fascist way, only you would be allowed to speak and spew your bigotry.
3
@marcusmaddox2176 The judges were basing what they knew were LUDICROUS hypotheticals on the LAWYER'S "logic". They were pointing to the consequences of Trump's claim and his lawyer's "argument".
3
@sweett2185 And he has NO DEFENSE. In court LAW reigns; all Trump ever does is POLITICS, BULLSHIT. "A system of Laws, and not of men." -- John Adams. "Justice and the Rule of Law are to be ABOVE politics." -- John Adams.
3
@sweett2185 At best the SC while write a few-sentence statement affirming the appellate court. And that will be the extent and end of it.
3
@pdoylemi Exactly right. First came the exhaustive research in existing law, including prior court decisions. Then READING all that. Then basing the writing of the decision on that. Most people haven't a clue how much work goes into writing a court filing or decision BEFORE it is filed are handed down.
3
@EnlightenedIllusions This was not an ex parte decision.
2
@licketysplit7196 It's about the Constitution and laws -- on which our democracy is based. It isn't all about "freedom"; it is also about CIVIC RESPONSIBILITY.
2
You don't read law, so you wouldn't know how law is to be read. All you do is reject law and fact you "don't like"; you don't know anything about either.
2
That is because Trump's lawyers aren't allowed to practice law; he requires that they present his stupid and irrelevant POLITICAL spew as "arguments". And the courts consistently smack him upside the head with a 350 pound steel 2 X 4. It's no wonder he doesn't where he is or time of day or night.
1
@garyurtiaga9426 He only tells the truth at his rallies -- mixed in with the lying. And gibberish: he ran against Obama, but Biden "stole" the election (also from Obama?) and will start WW II.
1
@EnlightenedIllusions That is not how one reads law.
1
@NickPowers-zs4cp He LOST the case. Why would he bring that up as his DEFENSE? He DOESN'T HAVE a defense, which is WHY he ORDERED his lawyers to make that FALSE ARGUMENT. That it would LOSE is not at all surprising because it is out-and-out BULLSHIT. The only thing it did was delay -- which was all he could hope for. He's throwing ketchup at the wall hoping it will stick and not drip. I can't wait for him to assert the "argument" that he can't be prosecuted because he isn't a citizen. (He claims he didn't swear an oath to the Constitution -- but we have VIDEO of him doing so.)
1
@versewonderstrikes5353 He IS acting as his own lawyer. No self-respecting lawyer would substitute HIS "judgment" for theirs -- especially as so many of his lawyer are facing sanctions and worse for their actions in court. "Justice and the Rule of Law are to be ABOVE politics." -- John Adams. Trump is all and only politics all the time. That's why he keeps LOSING in COURT, where LAW prevails. He absolutely cannot win on the LAW. And the facts are against him. So he beats up on everyone and everything else.
1
@wendigo53 The Supreme Court has held AGAINST Trump repeatedly. They may affirm the appellate court with a sentence or two, but that court is not going to re-hear the case so may simply deny certiorari.
1
@brandonmcheyenehoward1077 IS he paying? Or are the lawyers doing his bidding because they HOPE they won't be stiffed?
1
@Ohreallybro95 Actually the THREE judges applied the law to the facts. Trump's POLITICAL argument was irrelevant to the case. That's why he keeps LOSING: his "arguments" are ALWAYS BULLSHIT.
1
@Ohreallybro95 Come on, tell us: what "rules" do you "know," let alone "know" were changed? We're waiting . . . Put up or sit down and shut your foolish yap.
1
@hollandanish5557 Have you anything CONSTRUCTIVE to offer? Nope. You're a dope.
1
@davidjones6389 Fool's gold.
1
@EnlightenedIllusions And?
1
@EnlightenedIllusions You are not qualified to comment on actual facts because you have no relation to them.
1
@marcusmaddox2176 The quotations raise questions about whether the words are correct to apply.
1
@marcusmaddox2176 Trumpers never look at a whole fact -- the deliberately ludicrous extremity of the judge's proposition smoked out the Trump lawyer's serious but ludicrous extremism. She simply baited him into revealing the preposterous claim for what it was and is.
1