Without giving security protocols away, newer radios are assigned to a particular officer, however, 31 unassigned Motorola VX-P949s are unaccounted for and have access to all channels. Assuming these can be disabled at any particular moment?

— Tony Seruga (@TonySeruga) June 17, 2024

That's not good, if true.

Ever wonder how you get Die Hard with a Vengeance? This is how you get Die Hard with a Vengeance.

aggiehawg said:

---

Without giving security protocols away, newer radios are assigned to a particular officer, however, 31 unassigned Motorola VX-P949s are unaccounted for and have access to all channels. Assuming these can be disabled at any particular moment?

— Tony Seruga (@TonySeruga) June 17, 2024

That's not good, if true.

---

What is the relation of this to the Trump trial?

His sentencing is coming up in July. Security will be beefed up meaning not all of the cops will know each other. Easier for imposters to infiltrate the security.

aggiehawg said:

---

His sentencing is coming up in July. Security will be beefed up meaning not all of the cops will know each other. Easier for imposters to infiltrate the security.

---

You have to write it in crayon for the slower ones

Foreverconservative said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

His sentencing is coming up in July. Security will be beefed up meaning not all of the cops will know each other. Easier for imposters to infiltrate the security.

---

You have to write it in crayon for the slower ones

---

When everyone is out to get you, paranoia is just good thinking./Dr. Johnny Fever WKRP in Cincinnatti

Foreverconservative said:

---

Alvin Bragg just dropped charges on every person arrested at Columbia University who took over Hamilton Hall and held the maintenance staff hostage for days and caused millions of dollars worth damages.

---

some protests are (d)ifferent

Quote:

---

Hello Judge Merchan.

---

I am guessing Merchan and his acolytes in the press will just claim that Donald Trump has already been convicted of his 34 felonies, so this does not apply to his case.

Yes, that is absurd. As is charging him for 34 felonies for "covering up a crime" he was never even charged with. These people absolutely do not care about justice or truth.

They will say this is State law and will just ignore it.

Rest of that.

Quote:

---

The ruling and the rhetoric in the opinion have obvious implications for both the illegal Bragg witch trial against Trump in New York City and the bogus J6 1512(c) charges and sentencing enhancements that corrupt federal judges have announced they will implement if the Supreme Court nukes 1512(c).

---

I think that is how the Court comes down in Fischer. Sidenote: Also think Cannon's opinion on the illegality/legality of Smith's appointment will be appealed to the 11th Circuit whichever way she rules.

GenericAggie said:

---

They will say this is State law and will just ignore it.

---

They will "ignore it" because the Supreme Court case was about whether a Judge could deny a criminal defendant a jury and then use a preponderance of the evidence standard to make the factual determination about whether his 4 convictions occurred during one criminal episode or happened on separate occasions.

That has nothing to do with Trump's case, which, of course, was submitted to a jury to decide.

Quote:

---

We agreed to take up Mr. Erlinger's case to decide whether ACCA's occasions inquiry must be resolved by a jury. (Page 4)

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Rest of that.

Quote:

---

The ruling and the rhetoric in the opinion have obvious implications for both the illegal Bragg witch trial against Trump in New York City and the bogus J6 1512(c) charges and sentencing enhancements that corrupt federal judges have announced they will implement if the Supreme Court nukes 1512(c).

---

I think that is how the Court comes down in Fischer. Sidenote: Also think Cannon's opinion on the illegality/legality of Smith's appointment will be appealed to the 11th Circuit whichever way she rules.

---

If the Biden DOJ is smart which I doubt, if Cannon tosses Trump's documents case it will give Hunter Biden the out on his cases because Weiss is appointed in the same manner as Smith if I remember right.

There argument being Smith was appointed from within the DOJ instead of like Meuller being brought in from private practice regardless if he was once a former US prosecutor and Dir of FBI

Quote:

---

If the Biden DOJ is smart which I doubt, if Cannon tosses Trump's documents case it will give Hunter Biden the out on his cases because Weiss is appointed in the same manner as Smith if I remember right.

There argument being Smith was appointed from within the DOJ instead of like Meuller being brought in from private practice regardless if he was once a former US prosecutor and Dir of FBI

---

Incorrect. Weiss is a confirmed US Attorney in Delaware. His appointment does not suffer from the same infirmity.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

If the Biden DOJ is smart which I doubt, if Cannon tosses Trump's documents case it will give Hunter Biden the out on his cases because Weiss is appointed in the same manner as Smith if I remember right.

There argument being Smith was appointed from within the DOJ instead of like Meuller being brought in from private practice regardless if he was once a former US prosecutor and Dir of FBI

---

Incorrect. Weiss is a confirmed US Attorney in Delaware. His appointment does not suffer from the same infirmity.

---

Interesting

The first time I read the Ed Meese amicus on the subject of Smith's appointment not passing constitutional muster I thought it was persuasive and had legs. It is therefore very proper for Cannon to be exploring it. It is novel theory because Smith's appointment was a novel appointment, not authorized by law but instead by DOJ regulation only.

And that DOJ regulation (under Reno) has not been tested until now.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

If the Biden DOJ is smart which I doubt, if Cannon tosses Trump's documents case it will give Hunter Biden the out on his cases because Weiss is appointed in the same manner as Smith if I remember right.

There argument being Smith was appointed from within the DOJ instead of like Meuller being brought in from private practice regardless if he was once a former US prosecutor and Dir of FBI

---

Incorrect. Weiss is a confirmed US Attorney in Delaware. His appointment does not suffer from the same infirmity.

---

Forgive me if I'm misremembering but isn't part of the argument that the DOJ can't appoint a current fed gov attorney as a special counsel? Meaning that Weiss couldn't be both a US Attorney and a Special Counsel. He'd have to resign in order to take the Special Counsel role.

I'm a little foggy on this because I'm on hour 32 of being awake with our baby being born last night.

Foreverconservative said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

If the Biden DOJ is smart which I doubt, if Cannon tosses Trump's documents case it will give Hunter Biden the out on his cases because Weiss is appointed in the same manner as Smith if I remember right.

There argument being Smith was appointed from within the DOJ instead of like Meuller being brought in from private practice regardless if he was once a former US prosecutor and Dir of FBI

---

Incorrect. Weiss is a confirmed US Attorney in Delaware. His appointment does not suffer from the same infirmity.

---

Interesting

---

I don't know that Hunter Biden's legal team would agree. You are confirmed by the Senate for a particular office. You can't just move into another office requiring confirmation because you've been confirmed to another. In fact, you could be required to be confirmed again for the exact same office if your assigned duties change enough.

At any rate, Cannon isn't tossing Jack Smith's appointment unless she's ready to lose an appeal again.

Quote:

---

Forgive me if I'm misremembering but isn't part of the argument that the DOJ can't appoint a current fed gov attorney as a special counsel? Meaning that Weiss couldn't be both a US Attorney and a Special Counsel. He'd have to resign in order to take the Special Counsel role.

I'm a little foggy on this because I'm on hour 32 of being awake with our baby being born last night.

---

First, congrats on the new baby!

Second, no the prohibition is about appointing someone who has not been confirmed by the Senate. So a sittng US Attorney who has been confirmed (not "acting" unless otherwise confirmed) can serve as Special Counsel.

If you recall, John Durham was US Attorney in Connecticut when Barr appointed him.

Quote:

---

At any rate, Cannon isn't tossing Jack Smith's appointment unless she's ready to lose an appeal again.

---

And you know that how? Have you even read the Meese amicus on the subject?

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

At any rate, Cannon isn't tossing Jack Smith's appointment unless she's ready to lose an appeal again.

---

And you know that how? Have you even read the Meese amicus on the subject?

---

I've read it and the similar versions he's filed in other cases in other jurisdictions (where his argument went nowhere) probably 5 or 6 times by now.

TXAggie2011 said:

---

GenericAggie said:

---

They will say this is State law and will just ignore it.

---

They will "ignore it" because the Supreme Court case was about whether a Judge could deny a criminal defendant a jury and then use a preponderance of the evidence standard to make the factual determination about whether his 4 convictions occurred during one criminal episode or happened on separate occasions.

That has nothing to do with Trump's case, which, of course, was submitted to a jury to decide.

Quote:

---

We agreed to take up Mr. Erlinger's case to decide whether ACCA's occasions inquiry must be resolved by a jury. (Page 4)

---

---

Was the jury's decision unanimous?

Are you referring to Mueller?

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Forgive me if I'm misremembering but isn't part of the argument that the DOJ can't appoint a current fed gov attorney as a special counsel? Meaning that Weiss couldn't be both a US Attorney and a Special Counsel. He'd have to resign in order to take the Special Counsel role.

I'm a little foggy on this because I'm on hour 32 of being awake with our baby being born last night.

---

Second, no the prohibition is about appointing someone who has not been confirmed by the Senate. So a sittng US Attorney who has been confirmed (not "acting" unless otherwise confirmed) can serve as Special Counsel.

If you recall, John Durham was US Attorney in Connecticut when Barr appointed him.

---

There were some questions about John Durham because Barr never cited his authority for the appointment for awhile, or even notified Congress for several months. One set of the Special Counsel regulations requires the Special Counsel to come outside of the U.S. Government, meaning Durham couldn't be legally appointed under that particular regulation (28 C.F.R. 600.3)

There was debate about, then, whether other various regulations in that set therefore applied to Durham and what that meant.

Barr eventually came out, I think, and said he appointed Durham under another authority, the same authority used to appoint Mueller and Smith.

aggiehawg said:

---

Are you referring to Mueller?

---

Where?

Ag with kids said:

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

GenericAggie said:

---

They will say this is State law and will just ignore it.

---

They will "ignore it" because the Supreme Court case was about whether a Judge could deny a criminal defendant a jury and then use a preponderance of the evidence standard to make the factual determination about whether his 4 convictions occurred during one criminal episode or happened on separate occasions.

That has nothing to do with Trump's case, which, of course, was submitted to a jury to decide.

Quote:

---

We agreed to take up Mr. Erlinger's case to decide whether ACCA's occasions inquiry must be resolved by a jury. (Page 4)

---

---

Was the jury's decision unanimous?

---

The jury was required to be unanimous except as to the "unlawful means" required by the object crime of election interference.

While a Court *could* say that was incorrect of Merchan, that's a whole other issue implicating other cases. Today's decision isn't going to move the needle, that's all I'm saying.

TXAggie2011 said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

GenericAggie said:

---

They will say this is State law and will just ignore it.

---

They will "ignore it" because the Supreme Court case was about whether a Judge could deny a criminal defendant a jury and then use a preponderance of the evidence standard to make the factual determination about whether his 4 convictions occurred during one criminal episode or happened on separate occasions.

That has nothing to do with Trump's case, which, of course, was submitted to a jury to decide.

Quote:

---

We agreed to take up Mr. Erlinger's case to decide whether ACCA's occasions inquiry must be resolved by a jury. (Page 4)

---

---

Was the jury's decision unanimous?

---

The jury was required to be unanimous except as to the "unlawful means" required by the object crime of election interference.

While a Court *could* say that was incorrect of Merchan, that's a whole other issue implicating other cases. Today's decision isn't going to move the needle, that's all I'm saying.

---

So...no.

Thanks for the extra words, though.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Forgive me if I'm misremembering but isn't part of the argument that the DOJ can't appoint a current fed gov attorney as a special counsel? Meaning that Weiss couldn't be both a US Attorney and a Special Counsel. He'd have to resign in order to take the Special Counsel role.

I'm a little foggy on this because I'm on hour 32 of being awake with our baby being born last night.

---

First, congrats on the new baby!

Second, no the prohibition is about appointing someone who has not been confirmed by the Senate. So a sittng US Attorney who has been confirmed (not "acting" unless otherwise confirmed) can serve as Special Counsel.

If you recall, John Durham was US Attorney in Connecticut when Barr appointed him.

---

Thank you on both. Baby and bottle in one arm while mama sleeps, phone in the other hand because millennials can't function without phone in hand.

Smith just feels like a very corrupt prosecutor in general so I'd love for him to go down…I just want it to be for the right reasons. Don't want bad facts making for bad case law.

richardag said:

---

Foreverconservative said:

---

Alvin Bragg just dropped charges on every person arrested at Columbia University who took over Hamilton Hall and held the maintenance staff hostage for days and caused millions of dollars worth damages.

---

If true, Alvin Bragg and the Democratic Party leadership are rubbing it in the nose of Conservatives that believe in equal treatment under the law. They are pointed laughing at people that believe in the Constitution and its tenets and have seized control of the judicial system in several states.
Anyone considering voting for a Democratic candidate at any level of government needs to immediately reconsider their voting preferences.

---

If Adams had any stones he would call him out publicly. Should be a drumbeat for any Republican in that **** hole.

Judge Judy: “As a person who owns property in Manhattan I would be happier if Alvin Bragg took care of criminals who make it impossible to ride the subway or walk the streets, than spending $10 million of taxpayer money trying Donald Trump on nonsense.” pic.twitter.com/YBD2uBEub8

— Bad Hombre (@joma_gc) June 21, 2024

BREAKING: The former Democrat Governor of New York just admitted live on air that the Trump case would've never been brought if Trump wasn't running for President

"I'm telling you, that case would have never been brought. And that's what's offensive to people. And it should be."… pic.twitter.com/KHrq7asKNh

— George (@BehizyTweets) June 22, 2024

will25u said:

---

BREAKING: The former Democrat Governor of New York just admitted live on air that the Trump case would've never been brought if Trump wasn't running for President

"I'm telling you, that case would have never been brought. And that's what's offensive to people. And it should be."… pic.twitter.com/KHrq7asKNh

— George (@BehizyTweets) June 22, 2024

---

Interesting. Bet you won't find that on MSM. Cuomo not happy with whats happening in NY?