SCOTUS will hear Trump's IMMUNITY claim over criminal election interference charges

[SeaMajor7]

How about you fuck off and get some evidence...

You look like a guy sitting there wanking off using you imagination...

PROJECTION

 

[eagle1462010]

How about you fuck off and get some evidence...

You look like a guy sitting there wanking off using you imagination...

Go to hell. Whole world knows you are lying Sacks.

 

[Billiejeens]

There is no way the SCOTUS is going to let what Trump did as a part of a Presidents roles..

They could slow ball it but they are not letting future Presidents rig an Elections...

They let the current one rig one.

 

[pknopp]

You fuckers always confuse Trump for Biden.

Yeah the Big Guy. Money Laundeter N Chief. And lets put a top secret server in bathroom Clinton

Trump had the opportunity to prosecute Hillary (and should have) but did nothing.

 

[Billiejeens]

Trump had the opportunity to prosecute Hillary (and should have) but did nothing.

As a first world country we were always above that.
Although President Trump surely wanted to.

We have lost our 1st world status at this point.

We are a 2nd world country who does prosecute our political opponents while borrowing ourselves into 3rd world status trying to buy the outcomes that we want all over the planet.

 

[Billiejeens]

Justice Alito suggests that, if former presidents are subject to prosecution after leaving office, they'll be more likely to seek to unlawfully remain in office after they were defeated for re-election/their term has ended.

 

[Billiejeens]

Democrats and their media activists are burning down hundreds of years of norms about not using lawfare to go after political opponents like a bunch of Stalinists and seem to have not thought for a second about the obvious consequences of same.

 

[pknopp]

As a first world country we were always above that.
Although President Trump surely wanted to.

We have lost our 1st world status at this point.

We are a 2nd world country who does prosecute our political opponents while borrowing ourselves into 3rd world status trying to buy the outcomes that we want all over the planet.

I threw up a little reading that.

 

[hadit]

Oops, sorry, nobody asked you if you like it. And they don't have to ask you.

Just like nobody asked me if it was okay to replace, weeks before an election, the champion of women's rights for decades on the court with a religious nutsack whose title in her cult is literally, "Handmaiden".

Let's get a beer and cry together.

Sounds like you need a good cry. Then you can try to convince me that a perfectly legitimate replacement of a Justice on the Supreme Court, done constitutionally, with the advice and consent of the Senate, complete with open hearings and everything above board is somehow equivalent to a petty, petulant president simply adding Justices of his own pick until he gets the results he wants. Good luck with that, and good luck trying to maintain the legitimacy of the Court while doing it. Here's a clue, you won't, and that's one BIG reason why presidents and the Senate don't just add Justices every time a new president takes office.

It doesn't matter if you like it or not, or how many times you stomp your feet and hold your breath, TRUMP! had a legitimate opportunity and took it. Quid Pro has no moral or ethical grounds on which to add Justices, and yelling, "No fair, I didn't get a chance like he did!" doesn't give him one. You know, if it is so important and stuff to keep liberal Justices on the bench, maybe more of them should retire while they have a liberal president who then can replace them (after checking with you, of course), instead of hanging on until they die. Maybe they should simply all resign as soon as a new liberal president gets into office so he can replace them with younger models. You know, because it's so important that the Court be another arm of the democrat party instead of all that archaic applying the Constitution and all.

 

[Billiejeens]

I threw up a little reading that.

Why?

 

[pknopp]

Why?

1st world countries prosecute law breakers.

 

[Billiejeens]

Supreme Court appears poised to grant presidents immunity for official conduct only . . . Most of the justices — and even the lawyers on opposite sides in the case — seemed to agree that a former president can be prosecuted for private conduct while in office. But when the Supreme Court agreed to take the case, it rephrased the question it would consider as: “whether and if so to what extent does a former president enjoy presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office.” That means the high court’s ruling is likely to require lower courts to separate out Trump’s official acts from his private ones, as alleged in the indictment, before proceedings can restart in the election obstruction case.

 

[Lesh]

Justice Alito suggests that, if former presidents are subject to prosecution after leaving office, they'll be more likely to seek to unlawfully remain in office after they were defeated for re-election/their term has ended.

That certainly is how TRUMP thinks and largely why he did what he did

 

[Billiejeens]

That certainly is how TRUMP thinks and largely why he did what he did

It's not, Lush.

 

[Lesh]

It's not, Lush.

“Lush”

Aren’t you the asshole…

 

[hadit]

That certainly is how TRUMP thinks and largely why he did what he did

I keep telling you, those foil helmets really don't give you mind-reading powers, but here we are...

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Trump had the opportunity to prosecute Hillary (and should have) but did nothing.

Well of course not. He and his nepo babies were using personal email servers and unsecured cell phones.

Also, I don't think the president quite has the power to order prosecutions that you think he has. Prosecutions don't work that way. You don't get to prosecute someone just because you feel like it.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Sounds like you need a good cry.

Uh , no, you are the one crying up a little storm at the perfectly legal suggestion of expanding the court.

Right after insisting McConnell broke no rules or laws, so everyone should stop complaining.

And I am enjoying every second of it.

Duplicity on parade.

 

[Lastamender]

There is no way the SCOTUS is going to let what Trump did as a part of a Presidents roles..

They could slow ball it but they are not letting future Presidents rig an Elections...

It is too late for that an election was already stolen.

 

[hadit]

Uh , no, you are the one crying up a little storm at the perfectly legal suggestion of expanding the court.

Well, in order for any of this to approach reality, they have to be true. One, I've explicitly said repeatedly that it is legal to expand the court. It's also wrong-headed, democrat party level stupid, and would rebound immediately to the democrats' detriment, but it's legal.

Right after insisting McConnell broke no rules or laws, so everyone should stop complaining.

Which laws or rules were broken that you think were, and why did you not send your information to the proper authorities?

And I am enjoying every second of it.

Duplicity on parade.

I'm sure you enjoy your imagination quite a lot, but you have yet to even attempt explaining how Quid Pro cravenly expanding the court solely to get the rulings he wants in any way equates to TRUMP! duly replacing Justices lost to death, with the advice and consent of the Senate. And yes, I am enjoying watching you try to come up with some plausible excuse to think such democrat-level stupid things. Name the rule and/or the law that was broken.