Columbia University 1970! The black panther, armed criminal, and now....Attorney General of the United States.
Posted on 05/28/2013 2:05:53 PM PDT by Biggirl
Columbia University 1970! The black panther, armed criminal, and now....Attorney General of the United States.
So these were not Article III judges?
There is a coup d’etat going on and the Judges
have prevented Americans from seeing the Invader’s
documentation. They are therefore complicit.
I would be very curious about the wording the FBI used in the document he gave to the judge requesting the warrant.
You know the warrant was a complete fabrication and politically motivated. They lied to all three judges, yet you defend it as normal?
Holder lied to a Federal judge when he claimed James Rosen was a flight risk.
hi, m ... I’m curious, too ... not enough to pay out to PACER.
Lamberth looks very bad on this.
Anyone wanting on or off this ping list, please advise. Thanks.
Two words: Presidential Pardon
no matter what.
Judges are reall nit wits for allowing themselves to become “ham sandwich” subpoena issuers.
The judges just rubber stamp whatever the prosecutor puts in front of them.
While we want to remove the evil clowns, it’s best we not embarrass our selves in the process. http://www.volokh.com/2013/05/28/notice-for-e-mail-warrants-and-the-james-rosen-case/
ourselves
The racist coward Holder and mass murderer of women, children and babies at Waco went judge shopping for another coward like him. That’s not surprising.
What’s the SOB’s name?
Look, be my guest. Keep believing whatever it is you want to believe, divorced from all semblance of reality. It's what the Left does. It's only fair -- and to be expected -- that the Right should do it, too, in these latter (last?) days.
No, the two magistrate judges involved here are not Article III judges. That is why an appeal of a magistrate's decision to a U.S. district court judge (i.e., Judge Lamberth, in this instance) is a routine practice, since the judicial power of the United States ultimately resides solely in Article III judges.
Nope, understood your point. Didn’t understand why you bothered to defend the indefensible. The warrant was a political hatchet job to target a conservative press critic. Naming him a co-conspirator and a complete fabrication of the facts. The fact that it was not technically in your eyes judge shopped is irrelevant
It was an illegal search and seizure of records with no notification to the party (normal press procedure), kept in the dark and not made public until after the election (with no logical explanation).
Everything about this stinks to the high heaven and I mean everything! There is no justification for what was done or how it was done. Even with the assumption you’re correct. That it was brought before three judges makes it worse. And yet you ride your high horse and say our condensation isn’t technically legit.
You could have explained your point without attacking the people on this forum. Without the senseless attack I might have responded and agreed or at least waited for some other intelligent responses before making a conclusion.
Unfortunately, you jumping to conclusions about what we on the Right do makes me question your judgment about this matter. Are you jumping to conclusions about this? Was this in-fact normal?
With the everything I know about how this administration audits its enemies, targets conservative groups to silence them, and sends squads of arm guards to guitar manufacturers (stealing computers, manufacturing materials, etc...) questions this assertion. I do not give them the presumption of innocence, I am not a court of law and they do not deserve it.
Utterly ridiculous, - and politically motivated.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.