235 Years

[Independent thinker]

George Washington's first term began in 1789. Since then, 235 years, no President has asked for absolute immunity, much less received it.

I wonder why it's needed, so badly, now.

Let me guess: It involves victimhood.

President Washington's First Term (1789-1792)

www.mountvernon.org

The Supreme Court decision didn't really change anything. Nothing is different today than yesterday. Presidents have always had substantial immunity and today, they still do. The court just clarified the way it already was.

 

[Billiejeens]

Whenever you bring that up, they get triggered and they don't want you to point that out.

Mac made a post that was meant to denigrate President Trump.

That is all that Mac wants in response.
He needs that affirmation.

 

[SweetSue92]

The Supreme Court decision didn't really change anything. Nothing is different today than yesterday. Presidents have always had substantial immunity and today, they still do. The court just clarified the way it already was.

And of course, they had to do this because the Dems went after Trump using the courts....

 

[SweetSue92]

Mac made a post that was meant to denigrate President Trump.

That is all that Mac wants in response.
He needs that affirmation.

He does. It's a dopamine hit for him

 

[Billiejeens]

Rampant criminality.

There is no rampant criminality from President Trump.

If there was, President Trump would be subject to the same laws as he always would have been.

 

[Billiejeens]

He does. It's a dopamine hit for him

I believe it.

What an awful life he must have.

 

[jc456]

George Washington's first term began in 1789. Since then, 235 years, no President has asked for absolute immunity, much less received it.

I wonder why it's needed, so badly, now.

Let me guess: It involves victimhood.

President Washington's First Term (1789-1792)

www.mountvernon.org

respect of presidents?

 

[JustAGuy1]

George Washington's first term began in 1789. Since then, 235 years, no President has asked for absolute immunity, much less received it.

I wonder why it's needed, so badly, now.

Let me guess: It involves victimhood.

President Washington's First Term (1789-1792)

www.mountvernon.org

Do you always cry when you don't get what you want?

 

[Billiejeens]

Because a corrupt and evil group of people tried and are trying to imprison political rivals. You couldn't figure this out on your own?

Mac?

No.

He doesn't have that ability.

 

[jc456]

In all that time there wasn't a subverted group of scumbags pushing for "Fundamental Change" to our Constitutional Representative Republic that actively worked to undermine a dully elected president.
The unprecedented LAWFARE to prevent his reelection is another EVIL that this country has never seen until now.
Whatever point the OP was trying to make is overshadowed by these FACTS.
Nice try, Mac, but this thread is a step on a rake into your face FAILURE.
GTFOH!!!!!!!

demofks pushing to end democracy!!!

 

[Rawley]

235 years and no citizen has ever been criminally prosecuted simultaneously in four separate jurisdictions.

Even a Bidenfluffer such as yourself can understand that math.

Mac1958 why the crickets?

 

[22lcidw]

The Supreme Court decision didn't really change anything. Nothing is different today than yesterday. Presidents have always had substantial immunity and today, they still do. The court just clarified the way it already was.

They did it because of the Progressive expanding dictatorial powers in that they could trample anyone. In truth they can trample most and that is sad. Not Trump though. Up to now when Progs move on him, he counter moves. Progs have destroyed a lot of people though.

 

[Billiejeens]

It started to unravel when the GOP packed the court with right wing politicians.

I know right.

Smooth sailing when the court was packed with far-left politicians.

 

[Marener]

No, because you wanted the court "on your side" for political purposes, obviously.

So now we learned your game. Too bad, so sad.

Gibberish.

We wanted to avoid insane rulings like this most recent one. No one should be celebrating SCOTUS giving the president immunity for commiting crimes. This doesn't serve the people of the nation, unless you intend to elect a president who commits crimes.

 

[jc456]

The Supreme Court decision didn't really change anything. Nothing is different today than yesterday. Presidents have always had substantial immunity and today, they still do. The court just clarified the way it already was.

Wasn't Trump stating he had immunity before the SCOTUS ruling? I would expect a president know this, he did. Doesn't creepy know this? Truly not right?

 

[jc456]

It started to unravel when the GOP packed the court with right wing politicians.

so you only want packed demofks? ahhhhhh you want control!!!!!! ewwwwwww bugs the fk out of you huh? Democracy fking can't be tolerated right?

 

[jc456]

Gibberish.

We wanted to avoid insane rulings like this most recent one. No one should be celebrating SCOTUS giving the president immunity for commiting crimes. This doesn't serve the people of the nation, unless you intend to elect a president who commits crimes.

and the only way to get what you want is to have only people who think like you, so no democracy, we fking get it!!!! Why be so shy about admitting what you want?

 

[SeaMajor7]

Gibberish.

We wanted to avoid insane rulings like this most recent one. No one should be celebrating SCOTUS giving the president immunity for commiting crimes. This doesn't serve the people of the nation, unless you intend to elect a president who commits crimes.

That's not what happened you fucking pathetic asshole.

 

[Billiejeens]

Gibberish.

We wanted to avoid insane rulings like this most recent one. No one should be celebrating SCOTUS giving the president immunity for commiting crimes. This doesn't serve the people of the nation, unless you intend to elect a president who commits crimes.

Rest easy
That's not what happened.

 

[SweetSue92]

Gibberish.

We wanted to avoid insane rulings like this most recent one. No one should be celebrating SCOTUS giving the president immunity for commiting crimes. This doesn't serve the people of the nation, unless you intend to elect a president who commits crimes.

Murder is a crime.

Barack Obama had Osama bin Laden murdered.

Did you intend to elect a president who commits crimes?