Breaking News. SCOTUS rejects the premature Special Counsel bid to rule on his cases

I stated FACTS.
Psychopath Jack Smith wants to persecute Trump for his speech.
That doesn't fly in Constitutional America, so he and you can POUND SAND

What I find interesting is how so many cult fucks spun this as a loss for Trump.

These people are idiots.
 
And will get bitch slapped by SCOTUS, as they shove that crap decision right up YOUR backside you ass obsessed retard.
Hey assface, in case you missed it take a good look at your heroes. Two subhuman knuckle draggers who tried to steal the election from Biden, mouth breather. Here's the two tough guys in all their glory, try not to get all hot & bothered:
 

Attachments

  • OIP.jpeg
    OIP.jpeg
    11.6 KB · Views: 2
Try reading the whole thing moron. Not that you’ll understand it. No charge and no conviction since Trump did not engage in those activities. If he did, where are the charges, trial, and conviction? That is a requirement here. Otherwise you can NOT claim Trump participated in anything described here. Watch this pathetic dodge....
I’m not dodging a thing. You claimed that section 3 of the 14th amendment needed a conviction. I posted the actual text and nowhere does it say that. Also historical there have been a handful of cases of people being banned from office under this amendment and in none of those cases were there trials and convictions of insurrection. So you lose on the verbiage of the amendment and you lose on historical precedent. Got anything else?
 
Hey assface, in case you missed it take a good look at your heroes. Two subhuman knuckle draggers who tried to steal the election from Biden, mouth breather. Here's the two tough guys in all their glory, try not to get all hot & bothered:
Pathetic backpedaling. Your loss is recorded. Broadcasting your gay fantasies doesn’t help your reputation either.
 
I’m not dodging a thing. You claimed that section 3 of the 14th amendment needed a conviction. I posted the actual text and nowhere does it say that. Also historical there have been a handful of cases of people being banned from office under this amendment and in none of those cases were there trials and convictions of insurrection. So you lose on the verbiage of the amendment and you lose on historical precedent. Got anything else?
Try basing things on reality. You are claiming insurrection to bar Trump from the ballot when he has not been charged with that. Post the CIVIL statute for insurrection. One Never Trumper judge’s feelz don’t count. You lose again.
 
I’m not dodging a thing. You claimed that section 3 of the 14th amendment needed a conviction. I posted the actual text and nowhere does it say that. Also historical there have been a handful of cases of people being banned from office under this amendment and in none of those cases were there trials and convictions of insurrection. So you lose on the verbiage of the amendment and you lose on historical precedent. Got anything else?
The only thing they have is the bullshit spoonfed to them by Trump & his goon squad featured daily on Fox.

Which is the rule of law applies to everyone except their boy in orange.
 
Pathetic backpedaling. Your loss is recorded. Broadcasting your gay fantasies doesn’t help your reputation either.
Look, asshanger. Ever heard of Richard Nixon? Jerry Ford's pardon of him after Nixon left office? Guess what? Ford pardoned Nixon because he knew Nixon was going to be prosecuted for crimes he committed while IN office. The nonsense spoonfed to the Country at the time that Nixon was pardoned to "heal the nation" was a crock of shit right from the get go. Nixon was going to prison.

The same deal applies to Trump except he ain't getting pardoned.

Now go shed more MAGA tears for Trump if it makes you feel better.
 
Try basing things on reality. You are claiming insurrection to bar Trump from the ballot when he has not been charged with that. Post the CIVIL statute for insurrection. One Never Trumper judge’s feelz don’t count. You lose again.
The charge of insurrection involves much higher standards to make a criminal prosecution than the language of the constitution gives for disqualifying for office. All that the constitution requires is engagement in insurrection or rebellion, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.
 
What I find interesting is how so many cult fucks spun this as a loss for Trump.

These people are idiots.

If they had taken the case and ruled for Trump this would all be over and behind Trump. If they had ruled against him, it just continues on as it is now.

Trump had the best case scenario with the Supreme Court taking up the case.

Trump and his people believe he is going to lose and are hoping beyond hope that they can delay, delay, delay.

If you truly believe Trump is right, the Supreme Court not taking it, is a loss.
 
The left shoots itself in the foot again. If anything needs to be expedited, it’s the slap-down of the Colorado Kangaroo Court decision to prevent democracy in the upcoming elections.
It would be better if the US Supreme Court did it's job and supported the Colorado Supreme. Court as they should in dealing with those who commit sedition attempting an insurrection..
 
It would be better if the US Supreme Court did it's job and supported the Colorado Supreme. Court as they should in dealing with those who commit sedition attempting an insurrection..
Enjoy your delusions while you can, Stumb.
SCOTUS will rule soon enough.
 

Forum List

Back
Top