Liberal Forum
Archive
‹
Political Chat Rooms
‹
No Holds Barred Political Forum
‹
"DOJ has one big problem with its Trump criminal case, legal expert says"
"DOJ has one big problem with its Trump criminal case, legal expert says"
By roadkill
9 Jun 2023 4:22 pm in No Holds Barred Political Forum
12 Jun 2023 6:35 pm
YOU GOT NO RULING ****!!! NONE!!!maineman » 12 Jun 2023, 6:33 pm » wrote: ↑ they reviewed the arguments to the extent they needed to to determine that the defendant's arguments had not merit.
You can make a thousand effing claims all you want. THAT doesn't change the fact that YOU LIED ABOUT A RULING THAT NEVER HAPPENED!! Because they refused to hear the case DOES NOT GIVE YOU A RULING IN YOUR FAVOR!!
NOW YOU TOO CAN GO **** YOURSELF YOU LYING PIECE OF COWARD ****!! EITHER FACE ME OR BE THE YELLOW PIECE OF COWARD **** YOU ARE!! AND ALWAYS HAVE BEEN, ******!!
Liberals are spoiled children, miserable, unsatisfied, demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic & useless. Liberalism is a philosophy of sniveling brats ~O'Rourke
The Democratic Party seems intransigent on their position of keeping the party ‘woke,’ detached, exclusionary, and totally insane.
The Democratic Party seems intransigent on their position of keeping the party ‘woke,’ detached, exclusionary, and totally insane.
12 Jun 2023 6:37 pm
No they didn't. And repetition isn't going to change the fact.maineman » 12 Jun 2023, 6:33 pm » wrote: ↑ they reviewed the arguments to the extent they needed to to determine that the defendant's arguments had not merit.
If they did that, they would have rule lower court ruling would stand.
They made no comment, whatsoever.
They denied to hear the case, and never reviewed the facts of the case.
You're a liar, an honor-less piece of ****, and have a room temperature IQ.
12 Jun 2023 6:37 pm
and in absence of a contravening order from SCOTUS, the rulings of all the lower courts STAND as is. There was no violation of the Batson rule.
12 Jun 2023 6:38 pm
lol. poor mainbitch got caught lying again.maineman » 12 Jun 2023, 6:37 pm » wrote: ↑ and in absence of a contravening order from SCOTUS, the rulings of all the lower courts STAND as is. There was no violation of the Batson rule.
Every. ****. Day.
12 Jun 2023 6:39 pm
but the supreme court said national archives have no claim on them if they're not in their possession.Xavier_Onassis » 12 Jun 2023, 6:23 pm » wrote: ↑ You have to prove Trump INTENDED to harm the United States.
Get serious! That is like saying that a person who ran a red light did so with the intent of crashing into someone.
The law says that those documents belong to the country. The National archive people tried many times to get Trump to turn them over.
Finally they had no recourse but to come and TAKE them, and charge Trump with the theft of things that he knew full well did not belong to him.
12 Jun 2023 6:40 pm
you're wrong. their refusal to hear the case is a de facto agreement with the lower courts.golfboy » 12 Jun 2023, 6:37 pm » wrote: ↑ No they didn't. And repetition isn't going to change the fact.
If they did that, they would have rule lower court ruling would stand.
They made no comment, whatsoever.
They denied to hear the case, and never reviewed the facts of the case.
You're a liar, an honor-less piece of ****, and have a room temperature IQ.
If that were not the case, then the strongly GOP-nominated SCOTUS would be saying that they did NOT like ****** very much.
12 Jun 2023 6:45 pm
truthgolfboy » 12 Jun 2023, 6:38 pm » wrote: ↑ lol. poor mainbitch got caught lying again.
Every. ****. Day.
SCOTUS did not overturn the lower courts' ruling on the Hollis case. If they had found a violation, they would not have let it go unreversed.
12 Jun 2023 6:45 pm
Prove it. Show who voted not to hear the case.maineman » 12 Jun 2023, 6:40 pm » wrote: ↑ you're wrong. their refusal to hear the case is a de facto agreement with the lower courts.
If that were not the case, then the strongly GOP-nominated SCOTUS would be saying that they did NOT like ****** very much.
12 Jun 2023 6:46 pm
Petition denied.maineman » 12 Jun 2023, 6:45 pm » wrote: ↑ truth
SCOTUS did not overturn the lower courts' ruling on the Hollis case. If they had found a violation, they would not have let it go unreversed.
You lied, you got caught. But you have no honor so you are going to just keep repeating your ignorant claim.
12 Jun 2023 6:46 pm
How would they be able to deny the case without reviewing the facts of it? They put it on their docket and they disposed of it.golfboy » 12 Jun 2023, 6:37 pm » wrote: ↑ No they didn't. And repetition isn't going to change the fact.
If they did that, they would have rule lower court ruling would stand.
They made no comment, whatsoever.
They denied to hear the case, and never reviewed the facts of the case.
You're a liar, an honor-less piece of ****, and have a room temperature IQ.
12 Jun 2023 6:47 pm
maineman » 12 Jun 2023, 6:40 pm » wrote: ↑ you're wrong. their refusal to hear the case is a de facto agreement with the lower courts.
If that were not the case, then the strongly GOP-nominated SCOTUS would be saying that they did NOT like ****** very much.
Now this moron thinks POTUS has to review every case that ANYONE asks the court to hear.
12 Jun 2023 6:47 pm
Prove your claims. You've given us NOTHING to support your claim, because you're wrong, and even you know it.maineman » 12 Jun 2023, 6:46 pm » wrote: ↑ How would they be able to deny the case without reviewing the facts of it. They put it on their docket and they disposed of it.
12 Jun 2023 6:48 pm
By saying they weren't interested in the case, *******.maineman » 12 Jun 2023, 6:46 pm » wrote: ↑ How would they be able to deny the case without reviewing the facts of it. They put it on their docket and they disposed of it.
They were asked to review the case, and they declined without any review.
And your continued lies, aren't going to change those facts.
12 Jun 2023 6:52 pm
not anyone... a federal appeals court. they put the case on the docket. then they dismissed it.golfboy » 12 Jun 2023, 6:47 pm » wrote: ↑
Now this moron thinks POTUS has to review every case that ANYONE asks the court to hear.
12 Jun 2023 6:54 pm
because it didn't warrant any significant review. The defense briefs were insufficient on their face.golfboy » 12 Jun 2023, 6:48 pm » wrote: ↑ By saying they weren't interested in the case, *******.
They were asked to review the case, and they declined without any review.
And your continued lies, aren't going to change those facts.
Are you saying that SCOTUS is not interested in lower courts inappropriately weakening the Batson rule?
12 Jun 2023 7:00 pm
I claimed it was on the docket. It was.golfboy » 12 Jun 2023, 6:47 pm » wrote: ↑ Prove your claims. You've given us NOTHING to support your claim, because you're wrong, and even you know it.
I claimed they declined to hear it. They did.
Their denial is a de facto affirmation of the lower court's decision.
If there had been an inappropriate diminishment of the standards of the Batson rule, do you really think SCOTUS would NOT have stepped in and addressed that error?
12 Jun 2023 7:01 pm
Repetition of lies isn't suddenly going to make them come true.maineman » 12 Jun 2023, 7:00 pm » wrote: ↑ I claimed it was on the docket. It was.
I claimed they declined to hear it. They did.
They denial is a de facto affirmation of the lower court's decision.
If there had been an inappropriate diminishment of the standards of the Batson rule, do you really think SCOTUS would NOT have stepped in and addressed that error?
Your claim was the SCOTUS agreed with your daughter. You lied.
Now go **** yourself.
12 Jun 2023 7:04 pm
Semantics.golfboy » 12 Jun 2023, 7:01 pm » wrote: ↑ Repetition of lies isn't suddenly going to make them come true.
Your claim was the SCOTUS agreed with your daughter. You lied.
Now go **** yourself.
shall we spend the next week arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?
Or about how I am NOT a ******* because fifty votes are NEVER enough to pass a bill in the Senate if all senators are present and voting?
12 Jun 2023 7:09 pm
Nope DOPE, they belong TO THE PRESIDENT/ EX PRESIDENT and the ARCHIVES have ZERO AUTHORITY OVER THEM....Xavier_Onassis » 12 Jun 2023, 6:23 pm » wrote: ↑ You have to prove Trump INTENDED to harm the United States.
Get serious! That is like saying that a person who ran a red light did so with the intent of crashing into someone.
The law says that those documents belong to the country. The National archive people tried many times to get Trump to turn them over.
Finally they had no recourse but to come and TAKE them, and charge Trump with the theft of things that he knew full well did not belong to him.
Tell a DEMOCRAT APPOINTED JUDGE THAT, ****!!
“The [Presidential Records Act] does not confer any mandatory or even discretional authority on the archivist,” wrote U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson in that 2012 ruling. “Under the statute, this responsibility is left solely to the president.”
Liberals are spoiled children, miserable, unsatisfied, demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic & useless. Liberalism is a philosophy of sniveling brats ~O'Rourke
The Democratic Party seems intransigent on their position of keeping the party ‘woke,’ detached, exclusionary, and totally insane.
The Democratic Party seems intransigent on their position of keeping the party ‘woke,’ detached, exclusionary, and totally insane.
12 Jun 2023 7:09 pm
You're claiming the appeals court files the petition with SCOTUS?maineman » 12 Jun 2023, 6:52 pm » wrote: ↑ not anyone... a federal appeals court. they put the case on the docket. then they dismissed it.
Link?
Who is online
In total there are 7360 users online :: 18 registered, 17 bots, and 7325 guests
Registered users: Johnny You, roadkill, Mrkelly, Blackvegetable, Buck Naked, RebelGator, *GHETTO BLASTER, MR-7, *Beekeeper, Punch, murdock, PhiloBeddo, SouthernFried, Cannonpointer, Deezer Shoove, nefarious101, 31st Arrival, *Huey
Bots: DuckDuckGo, app.hypefactors.com, proximic, LCC, Yahoo! Slurp, Adsbot, Mediapartners-Google, Applebot, ADmantX, CriteoBot, semantic-visions.com, YandexBot, linkfluence.com, curl/7, Googlebot, BLEXBot, bingbot