Comments by "" (@grokitall) on "MeidasTouch" channel.

just say for the sake of argument that you are right (you are not). this decision gets upheld. at that point, everyone currently being prosecuted by a special council will try and use it to get their case dismissed, and every case which has already been decided will use it to try and get their case appealed, and then dismissed with prejudice. the chance of no appeals court anywhere ever looking at this case is thus zero. even more importantly, every other federal judge, and the supreme court itself (but not this one) have already ruled on this in the other direction, and written much better decisions. cannons decision on the other hand is so full of holes and inaccuracies that it would be like trying to use a deep sea fishing net to keep out mosquitos. there is zero chance that this decision will no be challenged, and due to the experience of the judges and the quality of their decisions it is unthinkable that no other judge will decide that for their case she is not talking rubbish, so it will head straight for the supreme court. as they are already the most unpopular supreme court in history, the only question is how much bad press they can stomach, and how corrupt the six conservatives want to appear, with case after case com8ng to them for decades if she is not overturned.
2
@Keepthepeacesharethelove i think they are referring to to things. her first involvement in this case was her putting herself in between the search warrant and the justice department with the appointment of a special master. when this was appealed it was determined that she held no legal authority to do so. given that in the same appeal, she said that former presidents should receive special treatment, and was told that it was not how the law worked, when she had this appear on her docket she should have immediately recused herself due to having already admitting bias, as the law does not grant her the option not to.
2
the trap is actually making an appealable decision, at which point she will have three overturned major rulings related to this case (two from her prior illegal obstruction of the search evidence) which even if smith does not ask for her removal would normally automatically get the appeals court to remove her.
1
 @verolawson3898 which is the wrong law to cite as it had a sunset clause and has expired and been replaced by something else.
1
does the misdeeds of cannon in this and her previous illegal insertion into the search warrant part of the case rise to the level of malfeasance in office, and if so what are the potential consequences for her?
1
jack smith has done nothing because she has used paperless orders to avoid making an appealable decision. that is no longer the case, and even if he did not appeal, which he must, every other defendant being prosecuted or convicted by a special prosecutor will have to try and use this case to get rid of their own cases. as there are much better rulings by much more competent judges, even if he did not appeal, there is zero chance of this ruling failing to reach the supreme court multiple times.
1
no, this dismissal was always on the way to the supreme court, and the number of cases involved in upholding her decision is such that they will have no cho8ce but to take it. if they don't, then every other person who has ever been prosecuted in this way, instead of directly by the doj will immediately use it as grounds to appeal, and as most cases already have jeopardy attached, almost all of them with be granted with prejudice unless she is reversed. i don't think that even this corrupt supreme court will be prepared to take the flack for the number of major criminals being released that any other decision would produce. even if it were, every case would then be appealed to the supreme court, giving them masses of cases, all of which would stick them straight back into the mess they tried to avoid by not reversing in the initial case, and the only way out would be to very publicly admit they were incompetent in not reversing in the first place. i cannot think of a single supreme who is blind enough not to realise this, with a small enough ego to be prepared to accept that outcome.
1
just curious, but are constitutional ammendments forever and unchangeable, and if not how hard is it to change or remove them?
1
yes, every case would then be appealed, and with jeopardy already attached, and most cases being extremely serious, their cases would have to be dismissed with prejudice, and mass8ve public condemnation. this would result in the prosecutors having to immediately appeal, on the bases of cannon being flat out wrong, and every case would then be on its way to the supreme court.
1
the issue here is not if trump will go to trial, but that if it is allowed to stand then every major criminal ever tried using special council will try and use this to get their cases throw out for the use of an illegally appointed prosecutor, and every case will head back to the supreme court with the defense quoting cannon, and the prosecution quoting every other judge who has ever looked at the decision with the justices taking the rap for it until they reverse. there is zero chance that no case involving this decision will reach the supreme court, and every new justice will not want their names attached to this decision. the three liberals will definitely vote to overturn, so they only need 2 others from this aging court or their replacements to vote to overturn, and if they don't, this mess will drag on for decades, awaiting the correct decision.
1
one point, while i don't disagree about the racists, the example you used for riggers is clearly talking about prosecutors going after those investigating the people trying to find evidence that the election was rigged, rather than going after those suspected by maga of rigging the election, hence riggers in this example.
1
yes they do. this issue has been litigated a number of times before, both by federal judges and by the supreme court (contrary to cannons assertions in decision). every single one of them has been judged to be legal. even worse for cannon, every current defendant will have their lawyers try and use this to get the case dismissed, and every past defendant will use this to try and appeal their case. in both cases you will have the defense using a badly thought out ruling by inexperienced and potentially corrupt judge cannon verses every prosecutor using well thought out rulings by very experienced federal judges and supreme court rulings against her. this will put it in the supreme court again and again until they get fed up of taking the flack for not overturning and releasing lots of very bad people. as they have already abolished the principle of binding precedent, they have given the green light for every lower court to ignore them.
1
@chrisflores5705 sourced from https://youtube.com/watch?v=YP-dEUeo5S8&si=R_-83uVRrbEr0bJq us vs nixon supreme court case about the nixon tapes dc judge dabney freidrick confirming mueler in the trump russia investigation dc judge amy burman jackson in us vs paul manfor virginia judge t s ellis in us vs paul manfor
1
As the promotions procedures are required by the constitution, and tuberville is forcing a procedure which cannot work, surely this falls under the same insurrection against the constitution provision that trumps refusal to leave office makes him intelligible to hold office. If so, then surely someone in his home state could start a legal case to have him removed as intelligible under 14.3 like with Trump.
1
remember she has already stated that she believed former presidents were special under the law, and was told this was illegal, as part of her getting in the way of this case illegally and being removed from that part of the case. there is plenty of evidence that she is incapable of being unbiased in any case involving trump, and thus should not only be removed from this case but barred from taking any other trump case.
1
@Keepthepeacesharethelove i agree with you, but to do so she would have to have admitted that there were any rulings which were not perfect, which she seem not to be capable of. her previous statements however show demonstrable bias from her own mouth. i agree she is not competent to be a judge.
1