Trump will appeal the Colorado ruling removing him from the 2024 ballots.

[BackAgain]

Our DOJ and justice system has become criminal when it comes to Trump.

Certainly in how it is used for partisan political purposes in an unlawful manner.

 

[Dante]

Rico is a real stretch. I was for mobster king pins who had people assassinated. It's really not applicable in any legal way in this case yet, our corrupt justice system is pushing it through an ignorant slut named Fani.

I'm talking about the broader use of RICO. RICO Act is used for cases it was not originally designed for.

The arguments going on here are the clause in the 14th cannot be used outside of what it was originally for.

That is not how the laws work.

 

[Dante]

Certainly in how it is used for partisan political purposes in an unlawful manner.

Leo123

On November 16, 2022 Mr. Trump announced a White House bid.

When did the investigations that Jack Smith took over, begin?


I'll assist: https://www.reuters.com/world/us/major-moments-trump-documents-investigation-2023-06-08/

 

[Freedomisneverfree]

I don't see it standing on appeal. He has been convicted of nothing. SCOTUS will overrule.

Colorado Liberal Clowns at it again...

 

[BackAgain]

RICO Act example of how a law does it.

RICO act was written to go after...? But has been used to go after...? And teh courts have ruled it's okay.

and...

great read: brief:
"Of course the Supreme Court is going to weigh in and likely overturn the Colorado state Supreme Court's interpretation of Colorado state law [...] but," Mystal said on Tuesday.

"I would like to point out that they [the Colorado Supreme Court's justices] were so aware of what SCOTUS was about to do in terms of bending over backwards, that they literally quote Neil Gorsuch, Neil Gorsuch when he was sitting in the federal circuit in Colorado—they quote Gorsuch for the opinion that Colorado gets to decide its own rules about who's qualified or not for ballot in Colorado," he continued.

"That's a Gorsuch opinion that they quote in the thing, so if Gorsuch had any logical consistency he would likely uphold the Colorado state court's opinion, but what we're about to see if just how again hypocritical and unserious this Supreme Court is when it comes to protecting their partisan sugar daddies like Donald Trump."

MSN

www.msn.com

keeper post

Zzzz

You’re incapable of coherence. RICO applies to this analysis — how?



Yes. We all know it was initially crafted to go after the mob. We also know that its original (more limited) reason for existence had been expanded.

What that has to do with this discussion is left unstated in your bleating attempt at communicating. Try your words, the Dainty.

Your post is a keeper — but not for the reason you foolishly imagine.

 

[Dante]

Zzzz

You’re incapable of coherence. RICO applies to this analysis — how?



Yes. We all know it was initially crafted to go after the mob. We also know that its original (more limited) reason for existence had been expanded.

What that has to do with this discussion is left unstated in your bleating attempt at communicating. Try your words, the Dainty.

Your post is a keeper — but not for the reason you foolishly imagine.

Leo123

like I said:

I'm talking about the broader use of RICO. RICO Act is used for cases it was not originally designed for.

The arguments going on here are the clause in the 14th cannot be used outside of what it was originally for.

That is not how the laws work.

 

[Clipper]

How could it be for anyone other than the civil war confederate soldiers and officials it was directed at?

This case is a good example. Without any conviction, morons like you claim that Trump aided an alleged insurrection. No proof required. Your claim is sufficient to have the 14th Amendment become “self executing?”

I realize that, once again you will point to some claimed authority for the proposition that it is “self executing.” But it’s beyond stupid. In fact, it’s kind of meaningless.

Yiur position is designed to endorse having some random person strike a candidate for a ballot based on — what? You can’t actually say.

It’s based on your whim, your wish and your own bias.

Your fake tanned assbuddy wants it both ways. He's trying to get all these cases pushed back to past the election while at the same time claiming he hasen't been convicted of anything.

So let's take care of this once & for all & put Trump on trial in March 2024 & let a jury decide one way or the other & put an end to that orange knuckle dragger playing whack a mole with the court system.

Let's do that but of course we'll have to listen to Trump & you cultists howl & piss & moan in protest.

 

[Leo123]

Leo123

like I said:

I'm talking about the broader use of RICO. RICO Act is used for cases it was not originally designed for.

The arguments going on here are the clause in the 14th cannot be used outside of what it was originally for.

That is not how the laws work.

Yeah, like I said, using RICO is a stretch, and a desperate stretch at that.

 

[Concerned American]

Your fake tanned assbuddy wants it both ways. He's trying to get all these cases pushed back to past the election while at the same time claiming he hasen't been convicted of anything.

So let's take care of this once & for all & put Trump on trial in March 2024 & let a jury decide one way or the other & put an end to that orange knuckle dragger playing whack a mole with the court system.

Let's do that but of course we'll have to listen to Trump & you cultists howl & piss & moan in protest.

Yawn, the crackerjack box lawyer has spoken.

 

[Dante]

Yeah, like I said, using RICO is a stretch, and a desperate stretch at that.

The arguments going on here are the clause in the 14th cannot be used outside of what it was originally for.
Those very same arguments were used trying to get RICO tossed from prosecutions.

 

[Clipper]

Yawn, the crackerjack box lawyer has spoken.

Thanks. But I already knew that you Trump cultists are petrified of your dear leader put on trial.

 

[Dante]

Yawn, the crackerjack box lawyer has spoken.

Hey! BackAgain will be highly insulted and will file a slander case.

 

[Leo123]

Your fake tanned assbuddy wants it both ways. He's trying to get all these cases pushed back to past the election while at the same time claiming he hasen't been convicted of anything.

So let's take care of this once & for all & put Trump on trial in March 2024 & let a jury decide one way or the other & put an end to that orange knuckle dragger playing whack a mole with the court system.

Let's do that but of course we'll have to listen to Trump & you cultists howl & piss & moan in protest.

Trump doesn't have to just claim he has not been convicted because it's true, he has NOT been convicted. What would you put Trump on trial for? Mean tweets?

 

[BackAgain]

Leo123

like I said:

I'm talking about the broader use of RICO. RICO Act is used for cases it was not originally designed for.

The arguments going on here are the clause in the 14th cannot be used outside of what it was originally for.

That is not how the laws work.

The Dainty is so shallow.

Many laws get used for purposes beyond what they were originally passed to cover.

That has no bearing at all on the question of whether a state court can disqualify a presidential candidate (even at primary stage) based on an absurd assumption that no proof of that alleged disqualification is required.

 

[Leo123]

Thanks. But I already knew that you Trump cultists are petrified of your dear leader put on trial.

Of course because the DOJ, FBI, run by Democrats, need no real evidence they already have him guilty, you clueless idiot. Besides, for what are you going to put him on trial?

 

[Dante]

The Dainty is so shallow.

Many laws get used for purposes beyond what they were originally passed to cover.

That has no bearing at all on the question of whether a state court can disqualify a presidential candidate (even at primary stage) based on an absurd assumption that no proof of that alleged disqualification is required.

misinterpreting what the court was asked to rule on, and how ad why it ruled the way they did.

read the ruling

 

[bodecea]

Maybe. But Trump's presidential immunity claim is going down the terlet, which is where he belongs. And prison.

Next up will be the Epstein list....the orange jesus has THAT to worry about.

 

[Clipper]

Of course because the DOJ, FBI, run by Democrats, need no real evidence they already have him guilty, you clueless idiot. Besides, for what are you going to put him on trial?

DOJ, etc will not decide Trump's fate. THAT decision will be up to a jury, you moron. Which is why you Trump asslickers soil yourselves even thinking about what that could mean.

Now go shed more MAGA tears.

 

[BackAgain]

Your fake tanned assbuddy wants it both ways. He's trying to get all these cases pushed back to past the election while at the same time claiming he hasen't been convicted of anything.

So let's take care of this once & for all & put Trump on trial in March 2024 & let a jury decide one way or the other & put an end to that orange knuckle dragger playing whack a mole with the court system.

If you were in his position, you would too. However, it is perfectly proper to seek delay where it is needed. Your agreement that it is needed isn’t required, you asshole. And of course it’s also true that he hasn’t been convicted. That’s not wanting things both ways. They’re just the facts. Sucks to be you.

And no. Your fervent desire for a quick trial is the antithesis of seeking justice. So fuck yourself.

Let's do that but of course we'll have to listen to Trump & you cultists howl & piss & moan in protest.

Poor shitsucker Clap. He should ejects to the appellate process. Oh well. Still sucks to be Clap.

 

[Clipper]

Trump doesn't have to just claim he has not been convicted because it's true, he has NOT been convicted. What would you put Trump on trial for? Mean tweets?

BTW, take a good look at your subhuman assbuddies Don The Con & Rudy Hands Down His Pants Guiliani in all their tough guy glory: