And there we have it, you again lie through your teeth and don't answer the question. You ignore that canon was reprimanded by a higher court for legal malpractice. You also ignore that canon shut down the investigation by claiming special protectors were not constitutional. You bring up the appointments clause but clearly don't understand what it was about as that was where she claimed special prosecutors were not constitutional.
Who do you think brought the case successfully against Nixon? A special protector. That prosecutor was appointed in may 1973, Nixon resigned in August 1974 because back then Republicans didn't tolerate obstruction of the investigation. Just over a year. Smith was appointed in November 2022 but it was still ongoing in 2024, although with indictments achieved. That is slower than Watergate. He also had to refile the case as the supreme court decided a president is immune from prosecution for even criminal acts.
You also claim Smith complicated the case and then in the next breath claim he tried doing it too quickly. With actually simplified the prosecution, not accelerated it.
This is ignoring her earlier actions where she demanded a special council shift through the documents to determine what was and wasn't classified (not needed), accepted Trumps demand that all documents be viewed in a secure facility, but then denying Smith the right to use existing secure facilities. She said it must be in a facility set up by the Trump team but then allowed them to indefinitely postpone setting it up.
Your comment has proven you've taken it from pro trump sources and just copied and pasted with no fundamental understanding of anything behind it once again. You're a ******* liar Harry.
Even for you this is unhinged mate!
1. I literally referred to the reason for dismisal (not shut down) ill give you grace for not understanding the argument fully, but this is a fact check UNTRUE!
2. She did not make the claim special prosecutors were unconstitutional at all, she made the claim Dmith specifically was working outside of the usual constitutionally aligned appointments. This is a fact check LIE!
3. Watergate was not on par with Trumps classified documents scandal, strategically or evidenciary. As i said above, Smith made a mistake by overly complicating the case, and shooting himself in the foot, and Nixon was facing impeachment he wasnt indicted in any federal criminal procedures, he was also pardoned lol, which goes to show how every president and politician doesnt want to see precident set. This is fact checked a MANIPULATION of comparison, but ill give you grace for misunderstanding the situation.
4. YES. I absokutely claimed Smith comllicated the case the case while in the process of trying to accelerate the case, i think thats a fair criticism, if you want a quick indictment, superseding evidence constantly is going to contradict your original agenda. Fact check CONFUSED.
5. The SCIF issue is only a big issue in a conspiracy theory view that everything she did benefited Trump. Yes its rare, but it happens for certain reasons. The fact she cited concerns over Trump rights, and approved a Florida local SCIF is probably not the worst instinct for a judge.
If you hold the view that the special council is over reaching his powers, and a former president is potentially about to be criminalised, leading to unprecidented scrutiny of every politician and former politician who has rver held a clsssified document, its probably fair to say you know what, there are thousands upon thousands of documents, thos is extremely important, Trump is an elderly man, lets just make the secure facility thats totally legal a little more local and allow a robust defence. No?
Cannon os facing allegations of collusion from one side, and potentially election interference from the other, she must be seen to be fair.
The delay if i remember correctly was a few weeks, firstly Trumps entire strategy was to delay, but i dont think 2 weeks was the make or break, and secondly with the logistics of finding, and preparing a proposed site, negotiating with smith, allow the DOJ to do checks etc its not wildly unreasonable. Its a bit like an attacker while winning 1-0 to delay a throw in by 10 seconds.
So on this issue youve been fact checked BIAS.
Edit. She never said that Trump team had to set it up, the sites were proposed by Trumps team and the DOJ cooperated and approved all processes. This is changing your status from BIAS to WILLINGLY BIAS.
6. Ill ignore your pettiness.
To summarise, once again your thought process is a mix of extreme, with a central theme of bending the facts to what you want to see. Flat out lies like Trumps team 'set up' the SCIF, that i 'ignored' Cannons dismisal reasoning, that she made the claim that 'special council are unconstitutional' and you bad faith comparison of Trump and Nixon prove you are in an echo chamber, where content creators take facts, and lean them out of context in the most dishonest way to manipulate and rage bait an audience, just like TYT do.
When countered with thoughtful and careful analysis of the situation you resort to petty insults and anger, yet you honestly have this warped view that you, the agressive misleading insulting one, who only wants to uphold 1 viewpoint, and wants to desperately win a discussion at all costs is the good person.
This is textbook radicalisation, youve been exposed to extreme and manioulative content, you hold a view that is unquestionable, you hold a rage of injustice, youve become isolated from an alternative viewpoint, and sadly i suspect you would endorse, or at least make the argument and refuse to condemn a violent reaction to what you perceive is unacceptable.
Also who reprimanded Cannon, and what sanctions has been imposed on her? I have no idea of this.
NEE NAW NEE NAW 
