Trump Moves to Dismiss Charges, Legal Team Files Another Devastating Motion Just for Jack Smith
(www.westernjournal.com)
Comments (17)
sorted by:
It’s not exactly news when former President Donald Trump’s legal team moves to dismiss the charges filed against him, either by special counsel Jack Smith or other parties.
However, it is news when part of the motion is specifically tailored for Smith, noting that his close ties to the Democrats and the attorney general made his appointment a mockery of the special counsel system.
Furthermore, the attorneys argued that “Article III courts” — known more colloquially as “constitutional courts” — “cannot sit in judgment directly over the president’s official acts, and that any attempt to do so violates the separation of powers.”
“In Marbury v. Madison, Chief Justice Marshall described this doctrine as foundational and self-evident. ‘By the constitution of the United States, the President is invested with certain important political powers, in the exercise of which he is to use his own discretion, and is accountable only to his country in his political character, and to his own conscience,'” they wrote.
Did you catch the Q clearance reference.
When they cited the security clearance ?
Yes
Read more at: https://www.stripes.com/theaters/us/2024-01-17/trump-nuclear-secrets-stored-mar-a-lago-12707514.html Source - Stars and Stripes
It would only cover one of the documents though
Bait, Sting and who was really in control of those documents. Who saw what was in the red folder that they could testify the contents ?
???
Think FISA working both ways.
He is accountable to the sovereigns only:
"If one free man, an original sovereign, may do all this, why may not an aggregate of free men, a collection of original sovereigns, do this likewise? If the dignity of each singly is undiminished, the dignity of all jointly must be unimpaired. A state, like a merchant, makes a contract. A dishonest state, like a dishonest merchant, wilfully refuses to discharge it. The latter is amenable to a court of justice. Upon general principles of right, shall the former, when summoned to answer the fair demands of its creditor, be permitted,..."
Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. 419 (1793)
This exposes the smear merchants even more.
It's why they don't cover it in Law School....ALL start with your citation.
Interesting opinions none the less.
FISA works both ways and that needs to be considered.
You mean like the cell phone data currently hanging Fanni , well just placing the rope so far , what they said should be way more fun.
Amwn, their own technology being used against them.
This case is not being run by the DoJ, it is being run by Marc Elias and Andrew Weismann.
Amen, they have leverage on Jack Smith that is why they selected him.
Jackass Smith reminds me of a Kangaroo Court…..Kangaroo court is an informal pejorative term for a court that ignores recognized standards of law or justice, carries little or no official standing in the territory within which it resides, and is typically convened ad hoc. A kangaroo court may ignore due process and come to a predetermined conclusion. The term is also used for a court held by a legitimate judicial authority, but which intentionally disregards the court's legal or ethical obligations (compare show trial). A kangaroo court could also develop when the structure and operation of the forum result in an inferior brand of adjudication. A common example of this is when institutional disputants ("repeat players") have excessive and unfair structural advantages over individual disputants ("one-shot players").
Amen, Suspect they must of went to Flaw School instead of Law School.