lol.Yeah he's not going to face justice.
Former acting solicitor general says he’s ‘officially’ freaking out about Trump Jan. 6 case
Editor’s note: This report’s headline was updated to correct the former title of Neal Katyal. Former Acting U.S. Solicitor General Neal Katyal expressed alarm Sunday over how former Pre…thehill.com
Guy who always makes wrong predictions is very confident in his latest prediction.wE GoT HiM tHiS TiMe
WHY CAN"T YOU WAIT FOR THE SYSTEM TO WORK BEFORE SHITTING YOUR PANTS?wE GoT HiM tHiS TiMe
This is the guy so committed to filling his diaper that he convinced himself that Republicans were going to get 67 Senate seats in 2022, which would have required them winning more than 100% of the Democratic seats up for election.WHY CAN"T YOU WAIT FOR THE SYSTEM TO WORK BEFORE SHITTING YOUR PANTS?
Yeah he's not going to face justice.
Former acting solicitor general says he’s ‘officially’ freaking out about Trump Jan. 6 case
Editor’s note: This report’s headline was updated to correct the former title of Neal Katyal. Former Acting U.S. Solicitor General Neal Katyal expressed alarm Sunday over how former Pre…thehill.com
I am hard-pressed to think of one thing President Trump has done right in the last 11 days since his inauguration. Until Tuesday, when he nominated an extraordinary judge and man, Neil Gorsuch, to be a justice on the Supreme Court.
I have no doubt that if confirmed, Judge Gorsuch would help to restore confidence in the rule of law. His years on the bench reveal a commitment to judicial independence — a record that should give the American people confidence that he will not compromise principle to favor the president who appointed him. Judge Gorsuch’s record suggests that he would follow in the tradition of Justice Elena Kagan, who voted against President Obama when she felt a part of the Affordable Care Act went too far. In particular, he has written opinions vigorously defending the paramount duty of the courts to say what the law is, without deferring to the executive branch’s interpretations of federal statutes, including our immigration laws.
In their dissent, Justices Samuel Alito and Gorsuch said the court should have taken the case and declared the law unconstitutional.
Yeah but the GOP Is going to take all 175 Senate seats in 2024. Just you wait!This is the guy so committed to filling his diaper that he convinced himself that Republicans were going to get 67 Senate seats in 2022, which would have required them winning more than 100% of the Democratic seats up for election.
Like he never even bothered to check if what he was predicting was even possible before panicking about it.
Literally less than 24 hours later:Yeah he's not going to face justice.
Former acting solicitor general says he’s ‘officially’ freaking out about Trump Jan. 6 case
Editor’s note: This report’s headline was updated to correct the former title of Neal Katyal. Former Acting U.S. Solicitor General Neal Katyal expressed alarm Sunday over how former Pre…thehill.com
Literally less than 24 hours later:
LOL. Another slam dunk prediction by our resident Nostradamus.
He's Jim Cramer's secret account??You should start asking him for stocks to buy so you can short them.
Ohman… if he ever gets one right the Internet will cease to exist.Literally less than 24 hours later:
LOL. Another slam dunk prediction by our resident Nostradamus.
Another episode of As The World Turns.Fani Willis hit with "bombshell" new legal filing
The Fulton County district attorney is accused of starting her affair with prosecutor Nathan Wade before the case began.www.newsweek.com
If it is proved they lied in their filings denying the relationship started prior to his hiring, that is going to be a big issue. I believe one or both would be looking at perjury charges at a minimum, and likely professional misconduct charges against their licenses.Anyone shown us yet laws or rules broken or how it effects the merits of the case?
Just askin'
The general accusation is she hired someone she was in a relationship with, and he turns around and shares the proceeds of that hiring with her via vacations and other things. Kind of a weak thing, but basically saying they both have a financial incentive for him to continue prosecuting the case.I'm sorry but what is actually the issue here with regards to the case? They're on the same side, who care's if they're fucking?
A step further is the idea that she went after Trump so she'd be able to hire her boyfriend. Heard that one from an attorney on the news. His concern is that if it turns out to be the case, everything done becomes questionable and is grounds for dismissal.The general accusation is she hired someone she was in a relationship with, and he turns around and shares the proceeds of that hiring with her via vacations and other things. Kind of a weak thing, but basically saying they both have a financial incentive for him to continue prosecuting the case.
Normally a prosecutor gets a salary regardless of whether they prosecute or not, but in this case, he only gets paid if he's continuing to prosecute.
She would normally be the check on that incentive, making sure the evidence and law still supported moving forward, but if he is sharing that money with her, she is also incentivized to have him continue even if that is not "in the best interest of justice."
That is the conflict they are suggesting. The bigger deal is if he or she lied in their most recent filings. Any attorney filing false statements is an issue, but even more so for the prosecution.
The general accusation is she hired someone she was in a relationship with, and he turns around and shares the proceeds of that hiring with her via vacations and other things. Kind of a weak thing, but basically saying they both have a financial incentive for him to continue prosecuting the case.
Normally a prosecutor gets a salary regardless of whether they prosecute or not, but in this case, he only gets paid if he's continuing to prosecute.
She would normally be the check on that incentive, making sure the evidence and law still supported moving forward, but if he is sharing that money with her, she is also incentivized to have him continue even if that is not "in the best interest of justice."
That is the conflict they are suggesting. The bigger deal is if he or she lied in their most recent filings. Any attorney filing false statements is an issue, but even more so for the prosecution.
Is there evidence for any of this? It's all incredibly far fetched. Like, evidence that this is a week case against Trump and the only reason they're prosecuting him is to profit off of the case. I can't believe people are giving that any kind of legitimacy.A step further is the idea that she went after Trump so she'd be able to hire her boyfriend. Heard that one from an attorney on the news. His concern is that if it turns out to be the case, everything done becomes questionable and is grounds for dismissal.
Seems like quite the stretch to me. I guess we'll find out over the coming weeks.
Most if not all has been disproven already. The relationship started after she assigned him. The vacations were paid for with personal money not billings. But funny optics only matters here.Is there evidence for any if this? It's all incredibly far fetched. Like, evidence that this is a week case against Trump and the only reason they're prosecuting him is to profit off of the case. I can't believe people are giving that any kind of legitimacy.
Optics only matter for "not Republican". President operating a hotel down the street while in office? President's family running their international businesses while also working inside the White House? No big deal there.Most if not all has been disproven already. The relationship started after she assigned him. The vacations were paid for with personal money not billings. But funny optics only matters here.
The judge in the case thinks there’s enough evidence to warrant a hearing and testimony on it.Is there evidence for any of this? It's all incredibly far fetched. Like, evidence that this is a week case against Trump and the only reason they're prosecuting him is to profit off of the case. I can't believe people are giving that any kind of legitimacy.
It's speculation as far as I know, though I'm sure some folks will decide it's fact because it fits their agenda. Most of the story will come out, and the true believers on both sides of the issue will continue to believe whatever makes them comfortable.Is there evidence for any of this? It's all incredibly far fetched. Like, evidence that this is a week case against Trump and the only reason they're prosecuting him is to profit off of the case. I can't believe people are giving that any kind of legitimacy.