Lets play a game!

[rightwinger]

Most notably the SCOTUS….so, you lose…as always.

We will see how far SCOTUS is willing to bend without being obviously partisan.

In past decisions, they have not shown a deference to Trump

I doubt they would allow Trump to pardon himself

 

[konradv]

No one but an idiot would say that. Clear collusion between the DOJ, prosecutor & Hunter defense.

Sometimes the idiots prevail, e.g. 2016!

 

[konradv]

I also know in my heart that a band of politically corrupt Democrats will protect Hunter and Joe until Hell goes cold.

None of which exonerates Trump.

 

[j-mac]

We will see how far SCOTUS is willing to bend without being obviously partisan.

In past decisions, they have not shown a deference to Trump

I doubt they would allow Trump to pardon himself

Right the it is folks…The lefts obvious ignorance about the Constitution.

You’re going to be one upset mf’er come Nov 24.

 

[rightwinger]

Right the it is folks…The lefts obvious ignorance about the Constitution.

You’re going to be one upset mf’er come Nov 24.

Even a 6-3 TRUMPcourt would not tolerate a President pardoning himself.
Nixon looked into it and realized it was a nonstarter

No court is going to implement a position that a President is above the law

 

[j-mac]

Even a 6-3 TRUMPcourt would tolerate a President pardoning himself.
Nixon looked into it and realized it was a nonstarter

No court is going to implement a position that a President is above the law

I don't think you're even going to get there....These cases are built on a house of cards, glued with emotional disorder....

I mean come on, Jack Smith cited one of his J6 charges based of "fact checkers", are you kidding me? GTFOH!

 

[miketx]

Most people think a former president being indicted for 78 and counting felonies a big deal. It's kind of odd frankly that you don't.

As for the "corrupt" Biden family. The moment any of you can articulate an actual crimes. I promise you I will look at the evidence to support that crime very carefully.

So far what I understand is the the son of the president who's NOT nor ever was a public official used the name of his father to earn money. All the rest I heard is accusations by highly dubious sources, unverified government forms and a whole lot of bluster.

None of it amount to even the basis of any serious investigation in the only person either of us really cares about in this case, namely JOE BIDEN.

If you want to claim Hunter Biden is an asshole. You won't get an argument from me. But I would suggest you look at what you know and what you suspect. I promise you those things aren't the same thing.

Look another media fed imbecile.

 

[rightwinger]

I don't think you're even going to get there....These cases are built on a house of cards, glued with emotional disorder....

I mean come on, Jack Smith cited one of his J6 charges based of "fact checkers", are you kidding me? GTFOH!

Jack Smith structured a layered indictment that will ensure a conviction at some level. He knows what he is doing.

Trump will not be allowed to pardon himself if elected

What he will do is replace the prosecutors with his own men and order them to give a half hearted prosecution, not contest defense motions and drop charges

 

[j-mac]

Jack Smith structured a layered indictment that will ensure a conviction at some level. He knows what he is doing.

Trump will not be allowed to pardon himself if elected

What he will do is replace the prosecutors with his own men and order them to give a half hearted prosecution, not contest defense motions and drop charges

You're a fool....lol....

 

[forkup]

Look another media fed imbecile.

I don't need any media. The only thing I need, is an understanding of what's being alleged and knowing the applicable laws.

The conclusion is that there is not a shred of evidence against Joe Biden that can withstand the beyond reasonable doubt standard needed in a court of law.

What you are left with is a political attempt to smear the sitting president by disparaging his son, and hoping people like you don't know the difference between conformation bias and actual facts.

This in the vain hope that it will prove a sufficient distraction from the very real accusations against Trump. Based on actual offenses described in the United States Code of Criminal Justice that Donald J. Trump is accused of, and the Justice Department is fully prepared to attempt to prove in front of a jury of the defendants' peers.

 

[Mac1958]

why is it yall believe everyone lies but trump ....why"?

One of the fundamental tenets of cults.

 

[j-mac]

I don't need any media. The only thing I need, is an understanding of what's being alleged and knowing the applicable laws.

The conclusion is that there is not a shred of evidence against Joe Biden that can withstand the beyond reasonable doubt bar needed in a court of law.

What you are left with is a political attempt to smear the sitting president by disparaging his son, and hoping people like you don't know the difference between conformation bias and actual facts.

This in the vain hope that it will prove a sufficient distraction from the very real accusations against Trump. Based on actual offenses described in the United States Code of Criminal Justice that Donald J. that Trump is accused of, and the Justice Department is fully prepared to attempt to prove in front a jury of the defendants' peers.

Are you a lawyer?

 

[j-mac]

One of the fundamental tenets of cults.

STFU you moron....

 

[Mac1958]

One of the fundamental tenets of cults.

STFU you moron....

And right on cue.

 

[rightwinger]

You're a fool....lol....

Prove me wrong Skippy

 

[forkup]

I don't think you're even going to get there....These cases are built on a house of cards, glued with emotional disorder....

I mean come on, Jack Smith cited one of his J6 charges based of "fact checkers", are you kidding me? GTFOH!

A house of cards? Let's see.

I will not talk about Bragg since his indictment doesn't give many clues about what his evidence is. On the other hand, Jack Smiths are both speaking indictments. I will ask you a few questions, and I would like you to tell me you agree or disagree.

He is charged for the retainment of documents that contain national defense information. 18 U.S. Code § 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information
Do you deny Trump has such information in his possession?

He is charged further with trying to corruptly prevent the government from taking possession of documents bearing classification markings. It being obstruction of justice. Do you deny that Trump did indeed have such documents in his possession after his lawyers stated they had delivered all such documents?

Then he is charged with 3 separate conspiracies. All related to his attempts to overturn the legitimate election results. Do you deny he did this? I will gladly go in the separate conspiracies if you say no. (This is just me trying to get you on the record on what your position is.)

 

[j-mac]

A house of cards? Let's see.

I will not talk about Bragg since his indictment doesn't give many clues about what his evidence is. On the other hand, Jack Smiths are both speaking indictment. I will ask you a few questions, and I would like you to tell me you agree or disagree.

He is charged for the retainment of documents that contain national defense information. 18 U.S. Code § 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information
Do you deny Trump has such information in his possession?

He is charged further with trying to prevent the government taking possession of documents bearing classification markings. It being obstruction of justice. Do you deny that Trump did indeed have such documents in his possession after his lawyers stated they had delivered all such documents?

Then he is charged with 3 separate conspiracies. All related to his attempts to overturn the legitimate election results. Do you deny he did this? I will gladly go in the separate conspiracies if you say no. (This is just me trying to get you on the record on what your position is.)

Oh no! Charged you say? Well, that must mean automatic guilt, right?

 

[forkup]

Oh no! Charged you say? Well, that must mean automatic guilt, right?

I doesn't mean that at all. Neither did I claim it does. I simply want you to state exactly what you are denying Trump did? Trying to put up a strawman about what I said is not an answer to any of these questions.

 

[j-mac]

I doesn't mean that at all. Neither did I claim it does. I simply want you to state exactly what you are denying Trump did? Trying to put up a strawman about what I said is not an answer to any of these questions.

It’s your claim….I don’t have to do shit…..it’s on you to prove.

 

[forkup]

It’s your claim….I don’t have to do shit…..it’s on you to prove.

How can I prove anything if you're not even willing to state what you are denying?