Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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 -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (1471592)	7/23/2024 11:36:57 AM
From: Bill	2 Recommendations Recommended By Broken_Clock longz Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1576865

Again, you show your dishonesty in claiming you read her decision. Judge Cannon analyzes at length the relevant paragraph in US v. Nixon and rightly concludes it non-binding dictum. The issue was not litigated at all in US v. Nixon, and the dicta in question is vague and not intended as a prescription for appointments. Dicta are common in court rulings and do not establish precedents. If you had read the decision, where she cited case law on the issue, you would know that. That was the reason congress created specific statutes regarding the appointment of special prosecutors. Those officers from the 70s, 80s and 90s served in positions created by statute -- but the latest one expired in 1999 and was not renewed. Nobody knows what the appeals court or supreme court will ultimately decide. But for now, the judge has made a credible case that the appointments clause was violated with the appointment of Jack Smith. Does that eliminate the evidence? Of course not. But if they're going to prosecute an Ex President, they better do it by the book.