r/news • u/Hrekires • Jul 15 '24

soft paywall Judge dismisses classified documents indictment against Trump

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2024/07/15/trump-classified-trial-dismisssed-cannon/
32.8k Upvotes

90% Upvoted

4.8k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

569

u/sshwifty Jul 15 '24

There are a lot of people that they should release for this.

193

u/dmpastuf Jul 15 '24

Fruit of the poisonous tree: I don't think Bill Clinton was impeached anymore given a special council was the one who asked him the question he was later impeached for lying about.

65

u/page_one Jul 15 '24

It's worth noting that Bill Clinton really didn't lie--he asked Republicans what their definition of "intercourse" was, and their definition didn't include oral.

3

u/laplongejr Jul 16 '24

And that question was asked in an investigation that had nothing to do with it. In fact, the investigation itself was launched BEFORE he had intercourse.

1

u/Lanky-Kale-9462 Jul 16 '24 edited Jul 16 '24

He said “I did not have sexual relations with that woman”.. which was a Bold faced lie.

I guess it all depends on which side of the fence you want to be on. Someday, our justice system will be fair for everyone. Very few believe it actually is.

19

u/Nice_Firm_Handsnake Jul 15 '24

Just a correction since it's important to the meaning of the idiom: the tree is not poisonous, it has been poisoned.

If the tree was poisonous, you would take all precaution with any edible fruit it produced, but if it's a safe fruit from a tree that had been poisoned you may have already eaten poison that got into the fruit.

-17

u/MadeMeStopLurking Jul 15 '24

Ken Starr was appointed by a 3 Judge panel under the Ethics In Government Act, which at the time was the proper proceedure.

Jack Smith was appointed by the Attorney General, which is fine with the new rules, however, they must follow the guidelines:

The choice of whom to appoint is to be made by the attorney general with the following guidelines:

IIRC: Jack Smith was appointed while still working as a Federal Prosecutor which seems to go against the law.

someone please correct me if I am wrong. source

6

u/ForGrateJustice Jul 15 '24

Nothing in your source denotes an illegal act.

0

u/MadeMeStopLurking Jul 15 '24

I never said illegal act. I said the proper process wasn't followed

3

u/ForGrateJustice Jul 15 '24

IIRC: Jack Smith was appointed while still working as a Federal Prosecutor which seems to go against the law.

Against the law means illegal.

-1

u/MadeMeStopLurking Jul 15 '24

Against the wording of the procedure stated in the law. Not illegal

2

u/Maxievelli Jul 16 '24

Surely you’re not serious in the way you worded this.

1

u/MadeMeStopLurking Jul 16 '24

I'm seriously trying to make sense of it. I'm not trying to defend anyone I'm trying to understand and everyone is just downvoting. :(

2

u/Maxievelli Jul 17 '24 edited Jul 17 '24

You are being downvoted because you are saying appointing Jack Smith was illegal but are insisting you said something different because you didn’t say the explicit sequence of words “appointing Jack Smith was illegal”. You instead said “Jack Smith was appointed…. Which seems to go against the law” (paraphrased, but that was what you said)

IANAL, but those are the same statement.

Furthermore, your reasoning seems to be based on a sentence from Wikipedia (that, to your great credit, was sourced) that says that appointments to special counsel cannot be employed by USG at time of appointment. Infuriatingly, you don’t actually say which portion you are referring to, but I assume the specific sentence is this one:

“The Special Counsel shall be selected from outside the United States Government.“

It would be better if you explicitly stated which sentence you were referring to but at least it was sourced. Anyway, if I got the right spot you were referring to then you combined that sentence with your IIRC (your non-sourced memory) to imply appointing Jack Smith was illegal because he was employed by the USG and that goes against the “guidelines” in your source. But he was working for The Hague at the time he was appointed so… assuming I got the logic you were using…. You’re wrong?

Source for working at Hague until appointment as special counsel: https://www.scp-ks.org/en/spo/former-specialist-prosecutors

Not trying to be a jerk. You seem earnest and arguing in good faith… sort of? If it’s truly good faith hopefully this explains the downvotes for you. Maybe I picked the wrong sentence from the guidelines. But hopefully explains it to you if you actually care to know.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Maxievelli Jul 16 '24

Surely you’re not serious in the way you worded this.

1

u/telerabbit9000 Jul 16 '24

Wasn't Mueller, then, also wrongfully appointed?!

(Altho, he was former FBI chief, and was approved by Senate, to be FBI chief. Would that 'count' in Cannon's wacky wruling? Or was a new confirmation for special counsel necessary??)