Just When You Think They Can't Be More Cowardly

[g5000]

One of the most sickening displays of cowardly evasiveness occurred just last week when Senator Coons asked four of Trump's judicial nominees if Trump was ineligible under the 22nd Amendment to run for a third term. I bolded judicial because these guys want to be federal judges.

Not one of them had the tiniest, de minimus ounce of courage to say Trump cannot run for a third term.

One example:

COONS: Is President Trump eligible to run for president again in 2028?

MARCK: Senator, with ah, without considering all the facts and looking at everything, depending on what the situation is, this to me strikes as more of a hypothetical of something that could be raised.

COONS: It’s not a hypothetical.

MARCK: Um, I would have to, to review the, the actual wording of it.


Marck couldn't say a simple no. He couldn't even approach a negative. Because Dear Leader is always watching.

Do these spineless sycophants strike anyone as having the balls to provide objective rulings on Trump's illegal activities?

Me, either.

Trump’s judicial nominees are fact-challenged and unfit​

​

 

[Mac1958]

One of the most sickening displays of cowardly evasiveness occurred just last week when Senator Coons asked four of Trump's judicial nominees if Trump was ineligible under the 22nd Amendment to run for a third term. I bolded judicial because these guys want to be federal judges.

Not one of them had the tiniest, de minimus ounce of courage to say Trump cannot run for a third term.

One example:

COONS: Is President Trump eligible to run for president again in 2028?

MARCK: Senator, with ah, without considering all the facts and looking at everything, depending on what the situation is, this to me strikes as more of a hypothetical of something that could be raised.

COONS: It’s not a hypothetical.

MARCK: Um, I would have to, to review the, the actual wording of it.


Marck couldn't say a simple no. He couldn't even approach a negative. Because Dear Leader is always watching.

Do these spineless sycophants strike anyone as having the balls to provide objective rulings on Trump's illegal activities?

Me, either.

Trump’s judicial nominees are fact-challenged and unfit​

​

They have to do that, as absolutely insane as it is.

Otherwise they're summarily excommunicated from the cult.

 

[ColonelAngus]

King Trump.

You guys said he is a King.

KINGS DO NOT LEAVE OFFICE.

 

[g5000]

King Trump.

You guys said he is a King.

KINGS DO NOT LEAVE OFFICE.

That's why he attempted a coup.

 

[g5000]

.
A golden statue of Dear Leader in Pyongyang, North Korea:

A golden statue of Dear Leader at the Doral county club:

[

 

[Lesh]

Gutless

The Constitution means nothing to these guys

All they care about is getting the job

 

[g5000]

.
Not even Kim Jong Un or Vladimir Putin or Xi Jinping have the megalomania to put their mugs on their nations' passports.

.

 

[g5000]

Whenever a Trump appointee is asked by the Senate who won the 2020 election, they invariably say Biden was "certified" as president.

Not one has had the honesty, integrity, or the tiniest bit of courage to go against Dear Leader and simply say, "Biden won."

Our country is at a dangerous new low.

 

[citygator]

It's a cult.

 

[theHawk]

One of the most sickening displays of cowardly evasiveness occurred just last week when Senator Coons asked four of Trump's judicial nominees if Trump was ineligible under the 22nd Amendment to run for a third term. I bolded judicial because these guys want to be federal judges.

Not one of them had the tiniest, de minimus ounce of courage to say Trump cannot run for a third term.

One example:

COONS: Is President Trump eligible to run for president again in 2028?

MARCK: Senator, with ah, without considering all the facts and looking at everything, depending on what the situation is, this to me strikes as more of a hypothetical of something that could be raised.

COONS: It’s not a hypothetical.

MARCK: Um, I would have to, to review the, the actual wording of it.


Marck couldn't say a simple no. He couldn't even approach a negative. Because Dear Leader is always watching.

Do these spineless sycophants strike anyone as having the balls to provide objective rulings on Trump's illegal activities?

Me, either.

Trump’s judicial nominees are fact-challenged and unfit​

​

Why on earth would he make a summary judgement on a particular case without actually hearing the case?

The question is a loaded one making it all about Trump.

No one being appointed as a judge is going to declare a judgment on a possible upcoming specific case. It would be unprofessional to do so.

This is what democrats do though, they try to force a litmus test for judicial nominees on things like abortion.

 

[ColonelAngus]

The White House will be renamed the Trump House.

 

[cnm]

King Trump.

You guys said he is a King.

KINGS DO NOT LEAVE OFFICE.

MAGAts know nothing about abdication.

 

[cnm]

The question is a loaded one making it all about Trump.

The plain language of the US Constitution be damned.

 

[Manonthestreet]

Lot o lib butthurt going down

 

[g5000]

Why on earth would he make a summary judgement on a particular case without actually hearing the case?

The question is a loaded one making it all about Trump.

No one being appointed as a judge is going to declare a judgment on a possible upcoming specific case. It would be unprofessional to do so.

This is what democrats do though, they try to force a litmus test for judicial nominees on things like abortion.

Wow. What awesome prevarication! Congratulations, you should be a Trump appointee.

Sadly for you, the 22nd Amendment is unequivocal. Trump is ineligible to run for a third term.

No ifs, ands, or b-b-b-b-b-buts.

Cowards. All of them. And you.

 

[g5000]

The plain language of the US Constitution be damned.

MAGAs have never read it.

In fact, during the hearing when Coons asked one of the judicial appointees about the 22nd Amendment, you could tell by his face he had no idea which one it was.