Originally posted by DwightShrute
-
No, are you? With this SCOTUS, who would ultimately make the call, you never know, what they will do. Most political SCOTUS in memory. Completely depends on who it would help at the time. To hell with the constitution with this court.Comment -
Originally posted by jackpot269
No one is saying a president can go kill anyone or doing anything like that. Those are pathetic fear tactics which only demonstrate how Trump has broken people's brain.
Presidents have always had immunity but like so many other things since June 2015, its only a problem if it applies to Trump somehow.Comment -
Who is no one? They could be a lot of things that are not murder, that there could be questions about. Since this weak-minded court gave no guidance on what is and is not official acts. That way they can crawfish, depending on who is POTUS in the future. Most politicians are like Trump and would push 1 inch a mile.Originally posted by DwightShruteComment -
Originally posted by jackpot269
Amazing that you actually believe this.Comment -
Originally posted by DwightShruteComment -
is that you?Originally posted by khicks26Comment -
Originally posted by DwightShruteComment -
Following the MAGA Supreme Court's disastrous immunity ruling:
I'm introducing the No Kings Act.
This bill would reaffirm that the President is not immune to legal accountability and remove the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction to hear appeals related to presidential immunity.
Chuck SchumerComment -
Obama killed American citizens in drone strikes. Should he have immunity or be prosecuted?Comment -
Originally posted by gauchojake
Like I said before, the president has always had immunity just as your example shows. Everyone know this. Immunity has always been a given, like so many things. And like so many things, they apparently don't apply when Trump is added into the mix. Intellectually honesty and logic are a couple others.Comment -
I would not have thought he could fly one.Originally posted by gauchojakeComment -
~~~Originally posted by jackpot269
Really?
This is all that you have?Comment -
Go back to your street conner. Make you some crack money.Originally posted by 19th Hole
You have no understanding of sarcasm.Comment -
Judge Chutkan REJECTS Trump's motion to dismiss the Jan 6 case on vindictive prosecution grounds, says there is no evidence to support Trump's claims of political targeting.
A J6 trial of Trump before the election is highly unlikely.
Because SCOTUS delayed it to make it so.
BUT
A trial of Trump before inauguration is much more likely.
And so JDV as VP and de facto POTUS becomes a real possibility.Comment -
You wish.Originally posted by Hareeba!Comment -
Originally posted by Hareeba!
The sight and feel of desperation oozing from the left .Comment -
Jack Smith has appealed the loose Cannon's dismissal of Trump's classified documents case
Comment -
Only Trump cult members would have a Trump sex doll. They also have Trump dildos. Sick mutherfukkersOriginally posted by DwightShruteComment -
Comment -
Circuit assignmentsOriginally posted by Hareeba!Jack Smith has appealed the loose Cannon's dismissal of Trump's classified documents case
- For the Eleventh Circuit - Clarence Thomas, Associate Justice
- (Alabama, Florida, Georgia)
lolComment -
Originally posted by jackpot269
Just because some democrats believe that black people can't get internet and ID's and don't know what a computer is, doesn't necessarily mean they aren't capable of flying drones.Comment -
dude, my last blow up doll I had, I got pregnant. Don't act like you're not impressed. Never again though.Originally posted by Mac4Lyfe
Also, Mr. Big Cream? What's up with that shit anyways? The directions said to run it on your unit and it will get bigger. Wouldn't your hands get bigger also? I don't understand that stuff.
That's all for today. Don't forget to tip your waitress.Comment -
Doesn't it make you a little sad that the people seem to expect the judiciary to rule based on partisan politics instead of being unbiased and purely based on the law?Originally posted by jt315
If it continues down that path eventually the whole idea of the rule of law will not be respected by anyone. eg anarchy..Comment -
Anarchy could be a viable/possible solution to the present Administrations dereliction of their duties. Their attempts to take over the Government and turn it into a world order communist government.Originally posted by Optional
The FBI for starters. They hid the infamous LapTop and then claimed it was Russian Misinformation. This may not seem relevant by itself, but it did happen to help one party win an election. Which may have or may not have been legally attained to begin with. Meta was made to print there was no laptop that would have been damaging information to the Biden campaign. Would you consider that Anarchy.?.
Then you throw in the mismanagement from Biden/Harris policy. Division of Americans, the border, Afghanistan mistake, Wars around the globe and a leader who is totally incapable of decisions and leadership. Yes you may be right. The country has been set up for the possible ''anarchy'' you mentions. However unassumingly you mention.
What you mention about expected judiciary rule due to partisan politics has been done now for 4 years against a former President and the person running against the Leftist attempt to destroy American traditions and values. It actually started 8 years ago with Russian Collusion farces and phony impeachments.
If Trump does win the election, I predict Antifa and all radical groups will take to the streets fighting. Destroying cities and peoples lives.
I would call this Anarchy. Which one would only hope would be handled with brute force. To end this anarchy once and for all. To wipe out it's soldiers and leadership.
Michelle and Barach Obama spoke at the convention for an hour. Not one mention of ''policy''. Only destroying a candidate who is running against their Democrat candidate. All the hatred in America started with the Obama's. It continued vehemently after Trump beat Hillary. There is no denying the facts.
It's all like an 8 year bad dream.Comment -
When part of the Biden administration’s campaign strategy was to use political prosecution , tying Trump up in courts during election campaign season and hoping the phrase convicted felon would sway voters , I’m not saddened in the least .Originally posted by OptionalComment -
A grand jury has returned a superseding indictment against Donald Trump in Washington, D.C. retaining the same four core charges against him for trying to subvert the election.
Comment -
Refined thanks to Supreme Court immunity decision. Yawn !Originally posted by Hareeba!A grand jury has returned a superseding indictment against Donald Trump in Washington, D.C. retaining the same four core charges against him for trying to subvert the election.
Comment -
Trump: “Legal Scholars are extremely thankful for the Supreme Court’s Decision today to take up Presidential Immunity.”
No, they aren’t.
They have unilaterally condemned it, and rightfully so.
Once again for the people in the back: PRESIDENTIAL. IMMUNITY. IS. NOT. A. THING.Comment -
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson appears surprised the Constitution deals with potential criminality by the president differently than ordinary American citizens:
"I was concerned about a system that appeared to provide immunity for one individual, under one set of circumstances, when we have a criminal justice system that would ordinarily treat everyone the same."Comment -
Just gotta love this:
Jack Smith is now offering Judge Aileen Cannon lessons in phonics and grammar in light of her wayward, illogical, and meritless dismissal ruling, which is sure to be reversed and remanded on appeal.
Comment -
she refused the National Guard. She wanted this to happen.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Nancy Pelosi admits regret at not calling in National Guard ahead of J6 in newly released video<a href="https://t.co/4Ec8BAI8Zw">https://t.co/4Ec8BAI8Zw</a></p>— The Post Millennial (@TPostMillennial) <a href="https://twitter.com/TPostMillennial/status/1828822405403263224?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw" >August 28, 2024</a></blockquote><script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>Comment -
Originally posted by jt315
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Just a reminder that Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson was who originally refused to define what a woman was during her confirmation hearing. <a href="https://t.co/yckqiH6ysG">pic.twitter.com/yckqiH6ysG</a></p>— Tim Young (@TimRunsHisMouth) <a href="https://twitter.com/TimRunsHisMouth/status/1674511917044453382?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw" >June 29, 2023</a></blockquote><script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>Comment -
these people are political activists. They aren't interested in truth
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Jason Whitlock <a href="https://twitter.com/WhitlockJason?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@Whit lockJason</a> reacts to Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson not defining what a woman is:<br><br>"She can't answer because the goal is to create chaos and disorder by dismantling truth." <a href="https://t.co/xtHQ1ehNiO">pic.twitter.com/xtHQ1ehNiO</a></p>— The Post Millennial (@TPostMillennial) <a href="https://twitter.com/TPostMillennial/status/1506801759200628737?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw" >March 24, 2022</a></blockquote><script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>Comment -
Dwight - maybe you can answer that same question. Better yet… what is a hermaphrodite? Man or woman?Originally posted by DwightShrute
Comment
