So lets do some FBI math
- Thread starter Cali4x4
- Start date
Bluehair
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 7,844
….and black, jewish, puerto rican, etc etc 
Bluehair
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 7,844
Well, just to keep the record complete here’s the appeals court decision.
The trumpsters can see how their jailhouse lawyer version of reality measures up against that panel of trump judges. Thank God he did such a good job with those judicial appointments.
Its 21 pages long, so for those of you with a meme attention span I’ll recap it by saying its not good for the CRIMINAL investigation of poor donald. He was b!tch slapped??
The trumpsters can see how their jailhouse lawyer version of reality measures up against that panel of trump judges. Thank God he did such a good job with those judicial appointments.
Its 21 pages long, so for those of you with a meme attention span I’ll recap it by saying its not good for the CRIMINAL investigation of poor donald. He was b!tch slapped??
Last edited:
Bluehair
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 7,844
God bless America ??
“None of the Richey factors favor exercising equitable jurisdiction over this case. Plaintiff, however, asks us to refashion our analysis in a way that, if consistently applied, would make equitable jurisdiction available for every subject of every search warrant. He asks us to ignore our precedents finding that a callous disregard for constitutional rights is indispensable. He asks us to conclude that a property interest in a seized item is a sufficient “need” for its immediate return. He asks us to treat any stigma arising from the government’s access to sensitive personal information or the threat of potential prosecution as irreparable injuries. And he asks us to find that he has no other remedy apart from equitable jurisdiction, even though he faces no remediable harm. Anyone could make these arguments. And accepting them would upend Richey, requiring federal courts to oversee routine criminal investigations beyond their constitutionally ascribed role of approving a search warrant based on a showing of probable cause. Our precedents do not allow this, and neither does our constitutional structure.
Only one possible justification for equitable jurisdiction remains:that Plaintiff is a former President of the United States. It is indeed extraordinary for a warrant to be executed at the home of a former president—but not in a way that affects our legal analysis or otherwise gives the judiciary license to interfere in an ongoing investigation. The Richey test has been in place for nearly fifty years; its limits apply no matter who the government is investigating. To create a special exception here would defy our Nation’s foundational principle that our law applies “to all, without regard to numbers, wealth, or rank.” State of Georgia v. Brailsford, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 1, 4 (1794).
***
The law is clear. We cannot write a rule that allows any subject of a search warrant to block government investigations after the execution of the warrant. Nor can we write a rule that allows only former presidents to do so. Either approach would be a radical reordering of our caselaw limiting the federal courts’ involvement in criminal investigations. And both would violate bedrock separation-of-powers limitations. Accordingly, we agree with the government that the district court improperly exercised equitable jurisdiction, and that dismissal of the entire proceeding is required.
The district court improperly exercised equitable jurisdiction in this case. For that reason, we VACATE the September 5 order on appeal and REMAND with instructions for the district court to DISMISS the underlying civil action.”
“None of the Richey factors favor exercising equitable jurisdiction over this case. Plaintiff, however, asks us to refashion our analysis in a way that, if consistently applied, would make equitable jurisdiction available for every subject of every search warrant. He asks us to ignore our precedents finding that a callous disregard for constitutional rights is indispensable. He asks us to conclude that a property interest in a seized item is a sufficient “need” for its immediate return. He asks us to treat any stigma arising from the government’s access to sensitive personal information or the threat of potential prosecution as irreparable injuries. And he asks us to find that he has no other remedy apart from equitable jurisdiction, even though he faces no remediable harm. Anyone could make these arguments. And accepting them would upend Richey, requiring federal courts to oversee routine criminal investigations beyond their constitutionally ascribed role of approving a search warrant based on a showing of probable cause. Our precedents do not allow this, and neither does our constitutional structure.
Only one possible justification for equitable jurisdiction remains:that Plaintiff is a former President of the United States. It is indeed extraordinary for a warrant to be executed at the home of a former president—but not in a way that affects our legal analysis or otherwise gives the judiciary license to interfere in an ongoing investigation. The Richey test has been in place for nearly fifty years; its limits apply no matter who the government is investigating. To create a special exception here would defy our Nation’s foundational principle that our law applies “to all, without regard to numbers, wealth, or rank.” State of Georgia v. Brailsford, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 1, 4 (1794).
***
The law is clear. We cannot write a rule that allows any subject of a search warrant to block government investigations after the execution of the warrant. Nor can we write a rule that allows only former presidents to do so. Either approach would be a radical reordering of our caselaw limiting the federal courts’ involvement in criminal investigations. And both would violate bedrock separation-of-powers limitations. Accordingly, we agree with the government that the district court improperly exercised equitable jurisdiction, and that dismissal of the entire proceeding is required.
The district court improperly exercised equitable jurisdiction in this case. For that reason, we VACATE the September 5 order on appeal and REMAND with instructions for the district court to DISMISS the underlying civil action.”
roadrunner
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 5,756
"Nobody F's with a Biden"
Now that's hilarious.
Now that's hilarious.
Bluehair
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 7,844
No - his base also includes Christian Nationalists who have openly advocated for compulsory religious indoctrination.
Google it.
Boy are they gunna be sorry when I show up for church drunk every Sunday
Bluehair
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 7,844
Yeah, well it gets a little personal down here. And I consider my posts proportional responses, even though I stopped short of calling the other members “c u n t s”.
Plus my hands hurt from building some steel-braided lines with Army-Navy fittings. Ouch.
I don’t believe I’ve ever insulted you personally, and if I did it was unintentional.
Snoopdogg
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 3,088
I'm just pointing out that your "base" statements might be inaccurate.Yeah, well it gets a little personal down here. And I consider my posts proportional responses, even though I stopped short of calling the other members “c u n t s”.
Plus my hands hurt from building some steel-braided lines with Army-Navy fittings. Ouch.
I don’t believe I’ve ever insulted you personally, and if I did it was unintentional.
Quite possibly, it may be my interpretation of what you reference as his base may be off.
While you haven't insulted me personally, I don't seem to fit in the "base" category you and others often refer to and felt the need to share that.
Bluehair
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 7,844
Yeah, well I don’t fit where I’m being lumped in either.
You’ll just have to take my word that I don’t have a beef with you. Or not. Your choice.
In the meantime, I’m pushing back on anti-American bullchit. Sorry if you get swept up in that.
And if trump throws out the constitution, how will he hide behind the 5th amendment? Yup, he’s still a moron.
Last edited:
