SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Bill who wrote (1471542)7/22/2024 5:56:22 PM
From: Tenchusatsu  Read Replies (1) of 1577191
 
Bill,
But that Act expired and was not renewed or replaced. So all principal officer appointments, like Smith, must be made in accordance with Article II Section 2. This requirement was ignored by AG Garland.
That directly contradicts U.S. vs. Nixon, and I already posted the text from that case last Friday:

Message 34744271

By the way, there was no expiration date on the U.S. vs. Nixon decision.

Meanwhile the Independent Counsel Act was passed in 1994. Once it expired, then going back to U.S. vs. Nixon for legal precedent is prudent in the interpretation of Article II Section 2.

Like I said, Judge Cannon came up with a new standard, one which Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas concurred with, but only in a side commentary.

And here you are pretending that Cannon and Thomas' interpretation is the only one that matters.

Combine that confirmation bias with your usual "reading comprehension" taunts, and we get the usual Bullshishka coming out of your keyboard.

Tenchusatsu

P.S. - And all of this is arguing over a technicality, not even the quality of the evidence, which has been my point from the moment Cannon threw out the case.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext