marvin martian
Diamond Member
Welcome to permanent ignore. Bye...
I guess that's a no. I figured as much. You fascists always collapse when confronted with facts.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Welcome to permanent ignore. Bye...
Non answering feigning disbeliefuh-huh ... facts are facts & they happened. donny loves you long time for trying to defend him.
View attachment 925718
ummm.... what?
Everyone in the bubble, maybe.Everyone says it is... that its laughable
You’re confusing anger with laughing at leftism.She will soon be labeled a RINO and a Traitor.
True, the trump CULT is full of Anger
Right, it's the felonies he committed when filing false business records to cover up another crime.Hush money is not the issues because it’s fine for consenting adults to mutually agree to remain silent and receive money
It's funny because YOU are the victim.
Lie.He is being charged with something that isn't a crime, so yeah.
So if you don't like a defendant we can deny him the presumption of innocence?... is that really the kind of country you want to live in?....
you know.... if these child like judges would think about what they do to him and how it will cause an appeal maybe just maybe they could really "get Trump" but they can't control their hate for him long enough to follow the constitution and do this the right way... they are like you but with a black robe...
We do not here challenge the principle that there are special, limited circumstances in which speech is so interlaced with burgeoning violence that it is not protected by the broad guarantee of the First Amendment. In Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S.296, at 308 (1940), this Court said that "[n]o one would have the hardihood to suggest that the principle of freedom of speech sanctions incitement to riot." See also Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315U.S. 568, 572 (1942); Milk Wagon Drivers Union v. Meadowmoor Dairies, 312 U.S. 287, 294 (1941). Ordinarily, the State's constitutionally permissible interests are adequately served by criminal *181penalties imposed after freedom to speak has been so grossly abused that its immunity is breached. The impact and consequences of subsequent punishment for such abuse are materially different from those of prior restraint. Prior restraint upon speech suppresses the precise freedom which the First Amendment sought to protect against abridgment.[5].
Carroll v. President & Commissioners of Princess Anne, 393 U.S. 175 (1968).The Court has emphasized that "[a] system of prior restraints of expression comes to this Court bearing a heavy presumption against its constitutional validity." Bantam Books v. Sullivan, 372 U.S. 58, 70 (1963); Freedman v. Maryland, 380 U.S. 51, 57 (1965).
Carroll, id., at fn 5.[5] The elimination of prior restraints was a "leading purpose" in the adoption of the First Amendment. See Lovell v. Griffin, 303 U.S. 444, at 451-452 (1938).
So tell me today, who is Hope Hicks.You’re confusing anger with laughing at leftism.
Trump was named as an Unindicted co-conspirator.Didn’t Michael Cohen already go to jail for this crime?
A crime he committed with Trump
So tell me today, who is Hope Hicks.
1) RINO
2) Avid trump Supporter
3) Traitor
I KNOW, it all depends on what she says.
We are talking about the case where:I don’t care who she is. The case is a joke. That’s all that matters.
Oh another 5 word or under retort by the moron from Indiana...Everyone in the bubble, maybe.
And he did so right before an election to ensure his election chancesWe are talking about the case where:
1) trump committed adultery with a Porn Star......Right
2) trump paid the Porn Star $130,000 to keep quiet....Right
Bullshit.He knows exactly what he's doing despite his surging dementia.
INTIMIDATION: Why is Trump posting photos of Judge Merchan's daughter?
Judge Merchan needs to drop the hammer on Trump!
These are both false.The valid complaint is that this implicates the judge as being biased. (As do some of his rulings.)