Posted on Jun 10, 2024
Judge Cannon Expands Hearing on Validity of Trump Special Counsel
686
7
3
5
5
0
Posted in these groups: 
Law
Law
Posted 6 mo ago
Responses: 2
1
1
0
I admit to not being a lawyer. Both sides of this argument appear convoluted and more "wishful thinking" than law-based clear right or wrong.
This right here is why the public hates lawyers. When I literally have no idea what the law is, how am I supposed to follow it?
And, yes, I know. This is not really a law that applies to me, as I am not in the political sphere, and I am not in the business of appointing special counsels. But the principle holds. And if the government takes similar actions against me, how do I know if what they did was even legal?
I have to HOPE that the government is not cheating - which I would never put stock in - or HOPE that my court appointed lawyer is smart enough to find those irregularities AND competent enough to effectively argue them in court.
Laws should be clear. All of them.
Personally, I do not know whether or not this appointment was TECHNICALLY legal. But I think trying to ouster Jack Smith on these grounds is wrong. It may be a LEGAL way to get out of the current charges, and Trump's lawyers are duty bound to pursue every possible avenue. I don't hold it against them in any way. But if it DOES work, it will at the same time be both a brilliant legal maneuver AND a horrible miscarriage of (true) justice.
This right here is why the public hates lawyers. When I literally have no idea what the law is, how am I supposed to follow it?
And, yes, I know. This is not really a law that applies to me, as I am not in the political sphere, and I am not in the business of appointing special counsels. But the principle holds. And if the government takes similar actions against me, how do I know if what they did was even legal?
I have to HOPE that the government is not cheating - which I would never put stock in - or HOPE that my court appointed lawyer is smart enough to find those irregularities AND competent enough to effectively argue them in court.
Laws should be clear. All of them.
Personally, I do not know whether or not this appointment was TECHNICALLY legal. But I think trying to ouster Jack Smith on these grounds is wrong. It may be a LEGAL way to get out of the current charges, and Trump's lawyers are duty bound to pursue every possible avenue. I don't hold it against them in any way. But if it DOES work, it will at the same time be both a brilliant legal maneuver AND a horrible miscarriage of (true) justice.
(1)
(0)
MAJ Dale E. Wilson, Ph.D.
I agree with much of what you say, but the Democrats' actions speak much louder than their words. It started--with this case--when the FBI went into the president's private home and far exceeded the parameters of search authorized in the warrant. They already KNEW where all of the documents were being held. The acts of rummaging through Trump's and Melania's closets and the drawers in their chests and bureaus were done out of sheer spite. Ditto for harassing Barron. We should all be afraid--VERY afraid of what this administration might do to US . . .
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google