And yet somehow her ruling comes in at a whopping 93 pages of dense legalese and prior case citations.

"Dense legalese" would appear to be the perfect description of any prose written by Cannon on any subject. No other court has held that the Special Counsel statute is un-Constitutional. No one in Trump Administration 1.0 objected to using the Special Counsel statute to appoint an investigation into Comey. The claim now being made by Trump's counsel (and likely campaign) that tossing this case will "un-do" the "weaponization" of the Justice Department and particularly the Special Counsel statute is completely antithetical to the "logic" of Cannon's reasoning. She tossed the case because she didn't think the Attorney General (and thereby the President) had ENOUGH control over the actions of the counsel, calling into question the legitimacy of any action taken by the Special Counsel because he was not appointed by the President or confirmed by the Senate.

The only consistency to be found in this ruling lies in its incompetence and corruption.


WTH

US Policy FAQ

---

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.