Cannon's ruling was that the entire concept of the DoJ appointing a special prosecutor is unconstitutional. Following that same logic, anyone who has ever been the subject of a special prosecutor investigation that was later adjudicated guilty can and should have their convictions thrown out.
That's why Hunter is saying his case should be thrown out. He was investigated by a special prosecutor on behalf of the Department of Justice. That investigator ruled he broke the law when he had the temerity to own a firearm while he was using illegal drugs, and then the case went to court.
Under Cannon's ruling, Hunter has got every right to ask for this. So does Bill Clinton for Whitewater. And the ghost of Richard Nixon for Watergate. Anyone who was ever investigated by a special prosecutor appointed by the DoJ who then faced any sort of legal consequences for their actions can now ask to have their convictions overturned on these grounds.
Cannon's ruling is a pretty intense case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater with regards to judicial procedure, and it's likely to be reversed by the appeals court. On the other hand, her ruling was only meant to delay the trial, which worked flawlessly. When her peers in the appeals court reverse the ruling and remove her from the bench for it or any other reason, look forward to seeing her as a talking head on conservative news networks. She's certainly earned her place there.
I may have a flawed understanding, but I think it’s worse than that. She’s actually trying to get the case dismissed completely because of a catch she put in the special counsel stuff. That catch being that the thing that illegal about the special counsel is not the special counsel itself, but rather that the person pursuing special counsel should be an elected official.
Now I think this still does a number on our legal system and I don’t know enough about Hunters counsel here to say if that applies, but this was suggested to her and it’s a way to target throwing out trumps specific case while retaining the right to use special counsel elsewhere.
I wish I were joking but the Supreme Court can and likely will make yet another carve out in the law so that the law can survive but is severely crippled in a way that massively benefits Trump.
Has a special counsel ever been elected before?
It’s not that the special counsel themselves is elected, they’re all appointed. But rather that some of them haven’t been elected at any point which is different. Basically she said that the public never chose to give some of these people power at all so they shouldn’t hold any.
It doesn’t make any sense but it doesn’t need to. It just needs to cancel trumps case while keeping a way for special counsel to exist
Right? Like she's obviously not allowed to say "This Prosecutor doesn't count" That's... some ol' bullshit
Cannon's ruling was that the entire concept of the DoJ appointing a special prosecutor is unconstitutional. Following that same logic, anyone who has ever been the subject of a special prosecutor investigation that was later adjudicated guilty can and should have their convictions thrown out.
That's why Hunter is saying his case should be thrown out. He was investigated by a special prosecutor on behalf of the Department of Justice. That investigator ruled he broke the law when he had the temerity to own a firearm while he was using illegal drugs, and then the case went to court.
Under Cannon's ruling, Hunter has got every right to ask for this. So does Bill Clinton for Whitewater. And the ghost of Richard Nixon for Watergate. Anyone who was ever investigated by a special prosecutor appointed by the DoJ who then faced any sort of legal consequences for their actions can now ask to have their convictions overturned on these grounds.
Cannon's ruling is a pretty intense case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater with regards to judicial procedure, and it's likely to be reversed by the appeals court. On the other hand, her ruling was only meant to delay the trial, which worked flawlessly. When her peers in the appeals court reverse the ruling and remove her from the bench for it or any other reason, look forward to seeing her as a talking head on conservative news networks. She's certainly earned her place there.
I may have a flawed understanding, but I think it’s worse than that. She’s actually trying to get the case dismissed completely because of a catch she put in the special counsel stuff. That catch being that the thing that illegal about the special counsel is not the special counsel itself, but rather that the person pursuing special counsel should be an elected official.
Now I think this still does a number on our legal system and I don’t know enough about Hunters counsel here to say if that applies, but this was suggested to her and it’s a way to target throwing out trumps specific case while retaining the right to use special counsel elsewhere.
I wish I were joking but the Supreme Court can and likely will make yet another carve out in the law so that the law can survive but is severely crippled in a way that massively benefits Trump.
Has a special counsel ever been elected before?
It’s not that the special counsel themselves is elected, they’re all appointed. But rather that some of them haven’t been elected at any point which is different. Basically she said that the public never chose to give some of these people power at all so they shouldn’t hold any.
It doesn’t make any sense but it doesn’t need to. It just needs to cancel trumps case while keeping a way for special counsel to exist
Right? Like she's obviously not allowed to say "This Prosecutor doesn't count" That's... some ol' bullshit
You've got to be kidding me lol. Wtf.