Seems the local leftards have shut the **** up!Beekeeper » 01 Jan 2024, 8:46 am » wrote: ↑ The LAWS didn't magically change because a DEMOCRAT PIECE OF **** is in office, *******!!
This is made clear by an examination of the DOJ's organic statute, 28 U.S. C. Sections 509, 510, 515-519, 533, and, most importantly, Section 543. This latter statute, 28 U.S.C. Section 543
.FredH » 22 Dec 2023, 8:33 pm » wrote: ↑.
This is blatantly unconstitutional and renders Jack Smith powerless to seek a writ of certiorari before judgment from the Supreme Court, as he is trying to do at the moment.

Well if this was true the republican house would be throwing a fit. And they are not this must be ****.FredH » 22 Dec 2023, 8:33 pm » wrote: ↑ https://reason.com/volokh/2023/12/20/sp ... itutional/
Since 1999, when the Independent Counsel provisions of the Ethics in Government Act expired, the Department of Justice ("DOJ") has had in place regulations providing for the appointment of private citizens as Special Counsels who possess "the full power and independent authority to exercise all investigative and prosecutorial functions of any United States Attorney." Unlike a U.S. Attorney, however, private citizen Jack Smith has not been nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate for the particular office of Special Counsel, which he now holds. This is blatantly unconstitutional and renders Jack Smith powerless to seek a writ of certiorari before judgment from the Supreme Court, as he is trying to do at the moment.
Bidencrimefamily » 02 Jan 2024, 8:01 am » wrote: ↑ Well if this was true the republican house would be throwing a fit. And they are not this must be ****.
They could remove jack Smith right now if this wasn't ****.Beekeeper » 02 Jan 2024, 8:28 am » wrote: ↑ You're very confused. It's YOUR SIDE that threatens SCOTUS JUSTICES if they don't make rulings YOUR SIDE DEMANDS!!
Nice try, but you got caught in your projecting what YOUR SIDE DOES onto what our side DOES NOT DO!!
Bidencrimefamily » 02 Jan 2024, 8:30 am » wrote: ↑ They could remove jack Smith right now if this wasn't ****.
But it won't remove him. Because this is ****.
Bidencrimefamily » 02 Jan 2024, 8:30 am » wrote: ↑ They could remove jack Smith right now if this wasn't ****.
But it won't remove him. Because this is ****.

Then is should be easy to remove him for the republican house. Get to it or it's ****.Beekeeper » 02 Jan 2024, 8:49 am » wrote: ↑ Come on now ****, you CLAIMED he can be removed, so tell us HOW THAT WORKS!!
Beekeeper » 02 Jan 2024, 8:49 am » wrote: ↑ Come on now ****, you CLAIMED he can be removed, so tell us HOW THAT WORKS!!
The "****" is that the deep state bureaucrats actually run things and anything counter to their dictatorial authority is NOT allowed. Both cheeks of the same *** are in lock step with their tyranny. Trump is a huge threat to their control.Bidencrimefamily » 02 Jan 2024, 8:30 am » wrote: ↑ They could remove jack Smith right now if this wasn't ****.
But it won't remove him. Because this is ****.
Consevative wave proves this...Buffalo » 02 Jan 2024, 8:58 am » wrote: ↑ The "****" is that the deep state bureaucrats actually run things and anything counter to their dictatorial authority is NOT allowed. Both cheeks of the same *** are in lock step with their tyranny. Trump is a huge threat to their control.
Bidencrimefamily » 02 Jan 2024, 8:55 am » wrote: ↑Beekeeper » 02 Jan 2024, 8:49 am » wrote: ↑ Come on now ****, you CLAIMED he can be removed, so tell us HOW THAT WORKS!!
if he isn't removed this is all ****.![]()
![]()
Come on now ASSHOLE ****, tell us HOW THAT WORKS AND HOW SMITH CAN BE REMOVED!!Bidencrimefamily » 02 Jan 2024, 8:51 am » wrote: ↑Then is should be easy to remove him for the republican house. Get to it or it's ****.Beekeeper » 02 Jan 2024, 8:49 am » wrote: ↑ Come on now ****, you CLAIMED he can be removed, so tell us HOW THAT WORKS!!
No. You're a bunch of ****!!!
We shall see dick sucker!!!Bidencrimefamily » 04 Jan 2024, 8:59 am » wrote: ↑ Yeah the fact Trump and fox news isn't running wall to wall with this tells you it's fake news.
Sucks for you that the APPEALS COURT is hearing the case, huh, ASSWIPE???Bidencrimefamily » 04 Jan 2024, 8:59 am » wrote: ↑ Yeah the fact Trump and fox news isn't running wall to wall with this tells you it's fake news.
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!Beekeeper » 04 Jan 2024, 10:24 am » wrote: ↑ Sucks for you that the APPEALS COURT is hearing the case, huh, ASSWIPE???
Appeals Court to Consider Constitutionality of Jack Smith’s Appointment
Jack Smith’s appointment as special counsel might be in trouble.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit advised counsels in Smith’s criminal case against Trump to be prepared during previously scheduled January 9 oral arguments to address issues raised in briefs filed by amicus curiae.
It is, dick sucker!!!Bidencrimefamily » 04 Jan 2024, 8:59 am » wrote: ↑ Yeah the fact Trump and fox news isn't running wall to wall with this tells you it's fake news.