This is a weird new troll account.
Supreme Court Live Updates: Conservative Majority Seems Ready to Limit Election Case Against Trump
- Thread starter cigaretteman
- Start date
That was my thought. Also consider the dedication it takes to create an account now, then start shit posting years later. I see that pattern happen over and over here.
A “mess” caused by the pandemic? However, gas/food prices were lower when Trump left office, interest rates were lower when Trump left office, the border was more secure when Trump left office, there were no wars in Ukraine and Middle East when Trump left office, there were not mass protests on college campuses when Trump left office. So, what was the “utter mess” that Biden inherited?
I disagree.
I am fully aware of how the government functions. I also am fully abreast of the way the constitution is intended to guide our republic.
I don't appreciate your accusations about my own criminality for one. I also know that I am not a social misfit or an outcast. Youd be surprised I assure you if you knew me IRL.
I believe it also possible to have two things be correct at the same time.
1- Trump is a narcissist and has many personality flaws I find quite objectionable. Accordingly, I'd prefer he wasn't our Presidential nominee for the R side. That having been said I think he is preferrable to Biden on a number of levels i have discussed in the past.
2- I think that the law has been weaponized by the Left against Trump. I'd agree with the Left's assertions of criminality and the claims that this prosecution is designed to protect our constitutional democratic republic from an unlawfully acting President. HOWEVER, Trump was targeted by the DOJ and FBI well before he was even President while he was only a candidate. These have, in large part, been found to have been a search for a crime after identifying a possible criminal. The Left has used its institutional control over the majority of the bureaucratic portions of government and with that they have tried to criminalize nearly every facet of his term. They have been trying to delegitimatize him since Day 1. This is inarguable.
Bottom line, there needs to be a set of controls that prevent this sort of abuse. The DOJ claims in Trump v US arent compelling IMO. They state that the institution of the government and its many layers are all the protection we need for the office of President. Clearly not. Barriers need constructed to allow for the office of the Presidency, and its future occupants, to not fear criminal or civil action. Impeachment exists as the remedy if clear wrongdoing has been committed. Some sort of set of rules could be created by the court to allow for separate action if evidence exists that his personal conduct was criminal as long as it was not done in furtherance of his official duties or office.
We will see what the court decides. But to pretend, as many on the Left have, that this President has committed a whole litany of crimes against humanity, if you'd just listen to them, is simply false and way overblown and it in itself is just as destabilizing as the conduct by Trump they claim to want to punish him for.
My God, they impeached him over a phone call for God's sake.
The Left should not continue to try to attack the SCOTUS. There are lots of ways to solve the concerns they have without calling into question the bedrock principals of our systems in the process.
The DOJ argued before the court the exact situation. They stated that if, on advice of legal staff, he was assured his actions were lawful that he would have protection from prosecution under the advice of counsel protections.
Now you could argue that the advice was bad or flawed but he would be protected, even the DOJ stated as such at oral arguments.
Last edited:
Hard to fathom how someone literate could be so brainwashed. For starters, impeachment isn't a criminal action. It's a political action. There is zero connection between the two. So this absurd argument that impeachment is a remedy to crimes is just that. Absurd. You've be brainwashed. Just so you know.
Last edited:
Well I guess there is a compliment in there somewhere so Ill take it and leave it at that.
There is no compliment. You've been brainwashed. Just giving you a friendly heads up that this has happened to you.
Weird how we have gotten along without these barriers to not fear criminal/civil action before now. wonder what changed?
as previously stated - Impeachment is not a criminal proceeding, it's political. As long as one's political support remains intact, then criminal proceedings become impossible. No sitting president has successfully convicted as a result of this.
By relying on impeachment as your barrier, you are de facto arguing for absolute immunity.
It’s really strange how cutscenes these folks believe that only Republican conservatives should be afforded these new found privileges. Criminals, even!
Nixon…. Now Trump! Nixon was gonna be convicted….Trump will be soared inky us ge wins the election in November and calls off all impending trials against him.
Trump is a traitor. I watched him post election 2020 and watched him in person on 1/5/21. Trump is a traitor. He heeds to be imprisoned.
Again, let’s see SOME proof. This is just right-wing conspiracy bullshit meant to scare the dumb at heart.
A "memory test" that he repeated over and over and over, like it was some masterful accomplishment.
Meanwhile, over the course of 4 years, he was unable to get "infrastructure week" even started.
Biden inherited a pandemic that came with a vaccine,.. Difficult, but certainly a situation that most would have been able to build a success story on...
Because it never existed. It was all just false accusations.
In stark contrast, in the NY trial Trump is facing, there are dozens, if not hundreds of documents backing up the verbal stories of those testifying against him. In Biden's case, you've literally got nothing.
I see you didn't respond to my post #323. BAU for the troll.
In defense of trump, he was very proud of completing that crossword puzzle in only one week, the one that said on the box "2-4 years".
Uh....he committed crimes in two difference phone calls.
Attempting to bribe Ukraine for military support in exchange for election help (illegal abuse of power) AND attempting to get a SoS to 'make up' 12,000 votes for him to steal an election (also illegal).
In what Bizarro Universe is this "the Libs out to get him"? Those are crimes, period.
Why are you now arguing things that never happened?
He was not given any of this advice; and if he'd installed a lackey like Eastman as his formal adviser, then your statement is not accurate, at all. It implies that if a group of people just "decide" something is legal, they can do whatever they want, which is entirely inconsistent with the concept of democracy, and the Constitution.
DOJ argued that if the advice was "impartial" AND determined legal, then that would shield him.
Trump has also behaved as those as pass/fail tests; which is just an interesting look at his worldview. He’s consistently shown he sees things as binary. You succeed or you fail, you win or you lose. He can’t conceive of outcomes where both sides of a situation can win.
And, being that this is the entire premise upon which capitalism is based, that implies he's not a capitalist...
Not even that. To be fair to him, too many things in our lives have binary outcomes, so a lot of people think similarly.
Yes, but they also questioned whether counsel was under undue influence because of their appointment.
Obama had US citizens executed without due process on advice of counsel.
There is conduct that is clearly unlawful, whether it's in the name of official duties, or not. Most lawyers can argue either side of an argument, and it wouldn't be too hard for a POTUS to find a lawyer to advise the POTUS as the POTUS wants.
Trump illegally tried to coerce a GA elections official to 'find' enough votes to win.
Trump incited a riot on January 26th.
Trump, after leaving office, obstructed efforts to return classified materials.
It doesn't matter what anyone else did before Trump. They all could have been prosecuted, but weren't.
No; he did not.
He had people actively in war zones supporting terrorists, who could not be arrested and returned for trial.
STOP defending Trump here; this is not remotely the same thing, Cletus.
Alito seems to be a blithering idiot, not understanding the gaping holes in his "claims" here.
Or....perhaps he DOES understand them, and simply does not care. Either way, he is demonstrating that he is unfit to be a SC justice and needs to be removed. Biden needs to exercise is "absolute immunity" and just take him off the Court.
Justice Alito & Co. parroted Trump and Fox News talking points that a rogue President isn't too worrisome because officials/military can simply refuse to do their bidding or they will be prosecuted. Except that POTUS can simply pardon them before leaving office, and of course those pardons could not be challenged because they are an official act. So all he needs to do is appoint people he knows will go along with him the second time around.
Or....perhaps he DOES understand them, and simply does not care. Either way, he is demonstrating that he is unfit to be a SC justice and needs to be removed. Biden needs to exercise is "absolute immunity" and just take him off the Court.
Justice Alito & Co. parroted Trump and Fox News talking points that a rogue President isn't too worrisome because officials/military can simply refuse to do their bidding or they will be prosecuted. Except that POTUS can simply pardon them before leaving office, and of course those pardons could not be challenged because they are an official act. So all he needs to do is appoint people he knows will go along with him the second time around.
Where in my post did I defend Trump?
You just make stuff up. You can't help yourself. And you threw out that Cletus stuff to somehow make yourself feel intelligent.
Put up or shut up. Where did I defend Trump?
As for your comment, the US doesn't have jurisdiction to do what they want in other countries, including arrest and extradition, and especially execution.
Last edited:
Read the whole thread; if someone can unravel to see the whole thing, do so.
Short version: Trump's counsel outright lied about the context of Franklin's statement here, when Franklin was conveying precisely the opposite meaning.
Short version: Trump's counsel outright lied about the context of Franklin's statement here, when Franklin was conveying precisely the opposite meaning.
Similar threads
