174d
Hard to find a case site online BUT:
"U.S. District Judge Maryellen Noreika denied defense efforts to scuttle the prosecution charging Hunter Biden with lying about his drug use in October 2018 on a form to buy a gun that he kept for about 11 days.
Hunter Biden’s lawyers had argued the case was politically motivated and asserted that an immunity provision from an original plea deal that fell apart still holds. They had also challenged the appointment of special counsel David Weiss, the U.S. attorney in Delaware, to lead the prosecution.
https://www.politico.com/news/2024/04/12/judge-hunter-biden-gun-case-00152099
174d
@no1marauder saidIf Trump were to be installed in the WH again, would he have authority to quash the charges?
It will be reversed by the Federal Appeals Court.
But this will significantly delay the case which has been Trump's and Cannon's game all along.
173d
@sonhouse saidYou’ve already schooled us in this. Will there be a quiz?
@AverageJoe1
Actually we SAID and KNEW there would be appeals, that is part of law and order.
But of course all you can do is weaponize even THAT. Now I am desperate. It is YOU who WILL be desperate in a couple of years after you find out your hero is not the man you thought he would be and it will be a HARD thing for you to finally understand, WAY too late.
Another thin ...[text shortened]... .
You can't even admit he HAS lied. Much less understand just how evil your orange Jesus really is.
@no1marauder saidLOL since when is "challenging" equal to "litigating"? the judge did not say anything about the validity of the SC
Hard to find a case site online BUT:
"U.S. District Judge Maryellen Noreika denied defense efforts to scuttle the prosecution charging Hunter Biden with lying about his drug use in October 2018 on a form to buy a gun that he kept for about 11 days.
Hunter Biden’s lawyers had argued the case was politically motivated and asserted that an immunity provision from an or ...[text shortened]... he prosecution.[/b]
https://www.politico.com/news/2024/04/12/judge-hunter-biden-gun-case-00152099
face it, you lied and I called you out
173d
@AverageJoe1
That's ALL you have, distraction one after another to avoid actual debate like you thinking Trump never lies.
ALL you do is weaponize again and again, that is your HOBBY.
173d
@Mott-The-Hoople saidYou're a complete moron; the article says the judge denied the motion to dismiss which was based, in part, on the argument that the appointment of the Special Counsel was unconstitutional i.e. the same argument that idiot Cannon accepted.
LOL since when is "challenging" equal to "litigating"? the judge did not say anything about the validity of the SC
face it, you lied and I called you out
Really, why do you choose to make an utter fool of yourself by claiming someone is "lying" when it takes about a 15 second Google search to show they are not? You do this constantly.
173d
@moonbus saidSure, the Special Counsel can be fired by the Attorney General plus any charging decisions they make can be overriden by the same. This has been the basis for every single other legal decision regarding this issue i.e. that these ultimate oversight powers render Special Counsels "inferior" officers and thus Senate confirmation is unnecessary under the provisions of the Appointment Clause.
If Trump were to be installed in the WH again, would he have authority to quash the charges?
Unless Cannon is as stupid as Mott and Joe, she knows this decision is going to be overturned by the appeals courts but it will certainly delay the case until the middle of next year at least. So she's banking on a Trump win (and maybe a nice, cushy job in a Trump administration).
@no1marauder saidTHAT is when the “litigation” will START
Sure, the Special Counsel can be fired by the Attorney General plus any charging decisions they make can be overriden by the same. This has been the basis for every single other legal decision regarding this issue i.e. that these ultimate oversight powers render Special Counsels "inferior" officers and thus Senate confirmation is unnecessary under the provisions of the Ap ...[text shortened]... r at least. So she's banking on a Trump win (and maybe a nice, cushy job in a Trump administration).
and no, the attorney general is not an all powerful being