|
|
Post by Ranger John on Jan 27, 2018 10:29:25 GMT -5
Speaking of incomprehension, the first paragraph says that it was dismissed. DISMISSED. As in, not adjudicated. The plaintiffs had no standing, no evidence, and no case. And that's the point, fool. It was dismissed. Not adjudicated. Not overturned. There was no decision made. Which is not what your said originally. The Courts did not say there is nothing there. They said nothing. But your continual inaccuracy and unthinking partisanship are what we expect from someone with no intellect. Wow... you didn’t read, did you? The judge found that the claims didn’t fall within the interests of the emoluments clause. In other words, the judge dismissed the case because it was nonsense. Just like most of the rest of the claims against Trump. The Left really needs to get back to reality. |
|
|
|
Post by palealeman on Jan 27, 2018 12:12:59 GMT -5
How's this for a definition of collusion: secret agreement or cooperation especially for an illegal or deceitful purpose acting in collusion with the enemy. One synonym is conspriracy. Of course, since you don't know much at all about legal matters, I can understand your not knowing this, though we've been trying to tell you it for months.
I don't know how you've waited for over a year to see what Mueller has when he's only been working for about 8 months. Trouble with the calendar? I'm guessing that we'll have information of some sort by the summer.
|
|
|
|
Post by palealeman on Jan 27, 2018 12:15:25 GMT -5
And that's the point, fool. It was dismissed. Not adjudicated. Not overturned. There was no decision made. Which is not what your said originally. The Courts did not say there is nothing there. They said nothing. But your continual inaccuracy and unthinking partisanship are what we expect from someone with no intellect. Wow... you didn’t read, did you? The judge found that the claims didn’t fall within the interests of the emoluments clause. In other words, the judge dismissed the case because it was nonsense. Just like most of the rest of the claims against Trump. The Left really needs to get back to reality. I did read, but obviously you only saw what your unthinking partisanship wanted to see. The case was dismissed BECAUSE THE PLAINTIFFS DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO BRING THE ACTION. It's there in black and white. There was no discussion of the merits of the case. It is possible that someone could have standing anBut, d that the case could be brought again. But, with your limited legal knowledge and unthinking partisanship, I doubt you understand much of that. |
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Jan 27, 2018 12:37:12 GMT -5
How's this for a definition of collusion: secret agreement or cooperation especially for an illegal or deceitful purpose acting in collusion with the enemy. One synonym is conspriracy. Of course, since you don't know much at all about legal matters, I can understand your not knowing this, though we've been trying to tell you it for months. I don't know how you've waited for over a year to see what Mueller has when he's only been working for about 8 months. Trouble with the calendar? I'm guessing that we'll have information of some sort by the summer. But that's just it. Conspiracy, by itself, is not a crime. No one has come up with a crime. |
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Jan 27, 2018 12:38:32 GMT -5
Wow... you didn’t read, did you? The judge found that the claims didn’t fall within the interests of the emoluments clause. In other words, the judge dismissed the case because it was nonsense. Just like most of the rest of the claims against Trump. The Left really needs to get back to reality. I did read, but obviously you only saw what your unthinking partisanship wanted to see. The case was dismissed BECAUSE THE PLAINTIFFS DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO BRING THE ACTION. It's there in black and white. There was no discussion of the merits of the case. It is possible that someone could have standing anBut, d that the case could be brought again. But, with your limited legal knowledge and unthinking partisanship, I doubt you understand much of that. No seriously, go read it. Lmao. |
|
|
|
Post by palealeman on Jan 27, 2018 13:00:38 GMT -5
I read it earlier, RJ. Several times to be sure. Trump's lawyers moved for dismissal because the plaintiffs lacked standing to sue. That motion was granted. Maybe you need to reread the decision. Of course, you've shown that you have comprehension problems with legal issues, so I doubt a reread would do much good in your case.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Jan 27, 2018 13:16:41 GMT -5
I read it earlier, RJ. Several times to be sure. Trump's lawyers moved for dismissal because the plaintiffs lacked standing to sue. That motion was granted. Maybe you need to reread the decision. Of course, you've shown that you have comprehension problems with legal issues, so I doubt a reread would do much good in your case. Redleg even highlighted it for you. What part of "the claims do not fall within the interests of the emoluments clause" do you not understand? |
|
|
|
Post by aboutwell on Jan 27, 2018 18:18:51 GMT -5
You're wasting you're time, Palealeman... you'd get more done taking a dump... they're NOT going to understand...
|
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Jan 27, 2018 19:17:36 GMT -5
Speaking of incomprehension, the first paragraph says that it was dismissed. DISMISSED. As in, not adjudicated. The plaintiffs had no standing, no evidence, and no case. And that's the point, fool. It was dismissed. Not adjudicated. Not overturned. There was no decision made. Which is not what your said originally. The Courts did not say there is nothing there. They said nothing. But your continual inaccuracy and unthinking partisanship are what we expect from someone with no intellect. What planet do you come from? A dismissal IS a decision. It's a decision that says that, not only do they not have standing to bring the case, they have no case to bring. IOW, they are idiots trying to use the courts to overturn an election, just like they have used the courts for decades to write laws that they can't get through Congress. Just like The Puppet imposed DACA because he couldn't get Congress to commit suicide by passing it. |
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Jan 27, 2018 19:25:14 GMT -5
Come on, RJ. His mandate was Russian interference and anything else he might uncover in the course of the investigation. . Another term for collusion is conspiracy. But, since you know so little about matters legal, I doubt that you know that. Conspiring to do something illegal is a crime. Love how you keep saying that the Logan Act is unconstitutional. That's never been determined. And, as I said, a case in that regard is being argued right now. We'll see what happens (and it's not the case the Commie mentiona). And firing the Director of the FBI TO HINDER AN INVESTIGATION can be obstruction of justice. I understand that you don't believe that -- unthinking partisanship on your part, as usual -- but that's the truth of the matter. Again, why not wait to see what Mueller reports. What are you afraid of? Or is this just more of your unthinking partisanship? Please enlighten all of us as to the exact crime that Mueller was appointed to investigate. Recite the exact code and paragraph that Trump allegedly violated. No, collusion does not equal conspiracy, except in the mindless vacuum that resides between the ears of the Party of the KKK sycophants. Conspiracy has a legal definition, collusion does not. So, you are all for indicting The Gigolo under the Logan Act, for conspiring with Hamas to undermine any peace plan Trump might come up with? How about sedition, since he indicated that he will try to get Trump removed from office within a year? How about treason for trying to surrender the US to North Viet Nam in '72? The Logan Act has never been prosecuted, never even been indicted, until Mueller, so desperate to get something, anything, on anyone at all that he could find, decided to pull it out of obscurity. Trump, any President, has the authority to hire or fire anyone at all, at any time, for any reason. Comey told him, 3 times, he was not under investigation. Comey is a liar, and a felon, so why would any President keep him on as director of the FBI. He wasn't "hindering" an investigation, there was no investigation, except in the fevered cesspools of Party of the KKK "leadership". There was nothing to investigate, except the DNC, Wasserman Schultz, The Felon, Podesta, and Comey. Now Mueller. All are prime candidates for 8x10 cells in Leavenworth. You want partisanship, you have to look no further than the fake investigation of The Felon, and the appointment of Mueller to investigate nothing. |
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Jan 27, 2018 19:28:53 GMT -5
How's this for a definition of collusion: secret agreement or cooperation especially for an illegal or deceitful purpose acting in collusion with the enemy. One synonym is conspriracy. Of course, since you don't know much at all about legal matters, I can understand your not knowing this, though we've been trying to tell you it for months. I don't know how you've waited for over a year to see what Mueller has when he's only been working for about 8 months. Trouble with the calendar? I'm guessing that we'll have information of some sort by the summer. Collusion with the enemy is a military crime, under UCMJ. You won't find it in any lawbooks, except as an accessory to treason or sedition. Both of which are exactly what The Felon and the DNC committed. No, the fake investigation has been going on since the day Trump won. Remember? It was The Felon that made up the story to cover her absolute destruction at the hands of someone she called "stupid". Since you claim to know so much about the law, what is the exact code and paragraph that Trump is accused of violating? I'll wait. |
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Jan 27, 2018 19:30:15 GMT -5
Wow... you didn’t read, did you? The judge found that the claims didn’t fall within the interests of the emoluments clause. In other words, the judge dismissed the case because it was nonsense. Just like most of the rest of the claims against Trump. The Left really needs to get back to reality. I did read, but obviously you only saw what your unthinking partisanship wanted to see. The case was dismissed BECAUSE THE PLAINTIFFS DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO BRING THE ACTION. It's there in black and white. There was no discussion of the merits of the case. It is possible that someone could have standing anBut, d that the case could be brought again. But, with your limited legal knowledge and unthinking partisanship, I doubt you understand much of that. I guess 'emoluments clause' were too big for your keeper to handle, because he also said that nothing the plaintiffs brought had anything to do with the emoluments clause. Nothing. As in, they had no case, as well as no standing. |
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Jan 27, 2018 19:31:33 GMT -5
You're wasting you're time, Palealeman... you'd get more done taking a dump... they're NOT going to understand... No, it's the Party of the KKK sycophants that don't understand. The judge said that they have no case under the Emoluments Clause. NO CASE. It didn't fall under it. It had nothing to do with it. |
|
