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

[Marener]

No. It’s brilliant. It’s so far over your biased petty mind you can’t comprehend it.

That’s ok, you hack. Our courts tend to end up being brighter than you. By far.

lol. Dipshits like you call Trump’s lawyers brilliant despite his abysmal record of winning in court.

Trump is quite used to being spanked by judges.

We both know that this is not an argument that his lawyers are making because they think it will succeed. The only purpose is delay.

 

[Slade3200]

Zzz

You couldn’t see reality if it tried to bite you in your eyelid.

The topic ain’t Hunter. It actually isn’t about Potato, either.

It’s about what will be a crucial decision from the SCOTUS.

ENJOY the suspense.

Perfect I’d love to get back to the subject if you’re done emoting.

So what do you think the constitutional argument will be from SCOTUS to overturn the CO ruling?

 

[pknopp]

Perfect I’d love to get back to the subject of your done emoting.

So what do you think the constitutional argument will be from SCOTUS to overturn the CO ruling?

It's in the Constitution don't you know? You just have to read between the lines and add a few of your own.

 

[Slade3200]

It's in the Constitution don't you know? You just have to read between the lines and add a few of your own.

Seems to be the response I’m getting most often… people saying there wasn’t a conviction or other nonsense that is not defined as criteria in the constitution.

Haven’t heard one constitutional argument yet

 

[BackAgain]

lol. Dipshits like you call Trump’s lawyers brilliant despite his abysmal record of winning in court.

Zzz
I was referring to the Trump legal team who put together that brilliant brief. Spin all you want. But you can’t dispute it. You don’t know enough to even grasp why your wish that they weren’t brilliant is so misguided. You are just a simple-minded and appallingly ignorant hack.

Trump is quite used to being spanked by judges.

Zzz. Actually, over time, he is well used to winning.

We both know that this is not an argument that his lawyers are making because they think it will succeed. The only purpose is delay.

No. Neither of us “know” any such thing. You’re wrong. And the fact that you say such stupid petty ignorant shit established clearly that you don’t know wtf you’re talking about.

I will assist you.

Their argument is spot on. It should succeed. It won’t cause a “delay.” If it succeeds it will terminate the federal bullshit cases at the very least.

 

[d0gbreath]

Jack's no dummy. He new that SCOTUS would deny his appeal. What it's done, is it's caused the appeals court to fast track it's decision. If they uphold the CO supreme court decision, that will likely cause SCOTUS to deny Trump's appeal to them.

 

[BackAgain]

Perfect I’d love to get back to the subject if you’re done emoting.

Lie. You’re the one that deliberately stated off topic. I am happy to have gotten you back on topic. You’re welcome.

So what do you think the constitutional argument will be from SCOTUS to overturn the CO ruling?

Already explained. Try reading next time.

A. The President isnt eligible for disqualification under the 14th Amendment.

B. It is not for a state court (especially in some bogus hearing setting or even at the state’s Supreme Court setting) to render opinions on federal issues such as the disqualification clause of the 14th Amendment pertaining to the election of federal officials.

C. There was no “insurrection.”

D. Even if the 1/6 incident could possibly be construed as an “insurrection,” there is insufficient evidence under the law or the facts to determine that the then President was involved in it.

 

[Slade3200]

A. The President isnt eligible for disqualification under the 14th Amendment.

CO Supreme Court ruled otherwise. The president is an elected official and included in the 14 amendment parameters. If this is your strongest argument then that’s pretty

 

[Slade3200]

B. It is not for a state court (especially in some bogus hearing setting or even at the state’s Supreme Court setting) to render opinions on federal issues such as the disqualification clause of the 14th Amendment pertaining to the election of federal officials.

States run their own elections and have their own process for referring to be on their ballots.

 

[Slade3200]

C. There was no “insurrection.”

Insurrection per definition occurred and has been backed up in court

 

[BackAgain]

CO Supreme Court ruled otherwise.

Duh. No shit. That’s why I was answering the question asked about the appeal. The lower court decision can be reversed. You slot.

The president is an elected official and included in the 14 amendment parameters. If this is your strongest argument then that’s pretty

 

[Slade3200]

D. Even if the 1/6 incident could possibly be construed as an “insurrection,” there is insufficient evidence under the law or the facts to determine that the then President was involved in it.

The entire world saw him involve on video. This is like you saying there’s no proof the civil war happened. Ummm yes there is and yes Trump was engaged with stop the steal and what happened on Jan 6

 

[Marener]

Zzz

I was referring to the Trump legal team who put together that brilliant brief. Spin all you want. But you can’t dispute it. You don’t know enough to even grasp why your wish that they weren’t brilliant is so misguided. You are just a simple-minded and appallingly ignorant hack.


Zzz. Actually, over time, he is well used to winning.

No. Neither of us “know” any such thing. You’re wrong. And the fact that you say such stupid petty ignorant shit established clearly that you don’t know wtf you’re talking about.

I will assist you.

Their argument is spot on. It should succeed. It won’t cause a “delay.” If it succeeds it will terminate the federal bullshit cases at the very least.

I did dispute it and you ignored it because you’re not smart enough to formulate a rebuttal. You won’t say why it should succeed or why it’s brilliant. You don’t know.

Trump‘s lawyers were already slapped around by Judge Chatkan. Im sure it’ll be slapped around by the circuit court too.

Trump’s lawyers have a long track record of losing in court. They also have something of a track record of going to jail.

As for your judgement, I bet you were one of those people arguing that Trump‘s request for a special master was also “brilliant” and should succeed, but we both know that his lawyers (and Judge Cannon) were ***** slapped by the circuit court too.

 

[JGalt]

I get it.

You boot lickers will PRAISE every Court decision that appears to go the way of team trump. Yea......Courts Righteous and Good.

But, hold on................ as soon as a Court Decision finds trump Guilty then the Court will be considered Corrupt and Dangerous........Courts are Corrupt.

So Predictable.

Quit yer bitchin'. It's never been our side that weaponized the Judicial branch to harass and attack your side.

That's exclusively a Democrat thing.

 

[BackAgain]

States run their own elections and have their own process for referring to be on their ballots.

Yeah? Do you recall Bush v. Gore?

You're telling us what you wish to be true. But that isn’t the test.

 

[BackAgain]

The entire world saw him involve on video.

False. I saw the video and it showed no such thing. Your misinterpretation is a different issue.

This is like you saying there’s no proof the civil war happened.

It’s not even remotely like any such thing.

Ummm yes there is and yes Trump was engaged with stop the steal and what happened on Jan 6

False.

 

[BackAgain]

I did dispute it and you ignored it because you’re not smart enough to formulate a rebuttal. You won’t say why it should succeed or why it’s brilliant. You don’t know.

Trump‘s lawyers were already slapped around by Judge Chatkan. Im sure it’ll be slapped around by the circuit court too.

Trump’s lawyers have a long track record of losing in court. They also have something of a track record of going to jail.

As for your judgement, I bet you were one of those people arguing that Trump‘s request for a special master was also “brilliant” and should succeed, but we both know that his lawyers (and Judge Cannon) were ***** slapped by the circuit court too.

You just don’t grasp any of it.

You didn’t refute a single thing in his brief.

Maybe you never even saw his brief.

Want a link?

 

[Marener]

You just don’t grasp any of it.

You didn’t refute a single thing in his brief.

Maybe you never even saw his brief.

Want a link?

I made the same point several times because you decided to ignore it.

The impeachment clause specifically states that the impeached president is subject to indictment and prosecution.

A made up doctrine of presidential immunity is not going to directly contradict the text of the constitution.

 

[BackAgain]

I made the same point several times because you decided to ignore it.

The impeachment clause specifically states that the impeached president is subject to indictment and prosecution.

Impeachment and conviction.

Article I​

• Section 3 Senate​

  • Clause 7 Impeachment Judgments
  • Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

Don’t be so obviously dishonest and deceptive, you dipshit. President Trump was not convicted. Try again; but be honest next time.

A made up doctrine of presidential immunity is not going to directly contradict the text of the constitution.

It doesn’t. And it wasn’t “made up.”

You don’t know a damn thing about the entire topic.

 

[Slade3200]

Yeah? Do you recall Bush v. Gore?

You're telling us what you wish to be true. But that isn’t the test.

I do recall… why?