And now on to the more serious question of immunity. . .

[MagicMike]

Why on Earth would he publicly admit to a felony?

Are you fucking retarded?

Here's testimony of Fani Willis visiting the WH however.

So you have proven nothing but that Fani Willis visited The White House.
Yawn.

 

[MagicMike]

Why on Earth would he publicly admit to a felony?

Well just a while ago you tried to claim that he "admitted" this very thing.
But you were just talking out your ass about something you really don't know much about weren't you?

 

[WEATHER53]

Can a mod check on how many multiple names voted multiple times for the libbies

 

[Foxfyre]

And what I'm saying is the Repubs have counter programming of impeachment hearings all summer long. Make it a whole Nancy/Liz type January 6th Lolopalooza. All summer long.

Would make an interesting topic to discuss for sure but not for this thread.

This thread is about what SCOTUS should rule so that kind of political persecution/prosecution won't happen in the future. Not even to someone as dishonest, incompetent, malicious, destructive as Joe Biden.

 

[MagicMike]

Can a mod check on how many multiple names voted multiple times for the libbies

Such a typical MAGAt comment.
"We're losing (or tied) so.....must be something "phony" going on!"
You guys should be getting used to losing by now.

 

[WEATHER53]

Such a typical MAGAt comment.
"We're losing (or tied) so.....must be something "phony" going on!"
You guys should be getting used to losing by now.

So many prior polls were almost entirely conservative outcomes.i was told by my now departed insider that multiple screen names still had but one “id” number so they could only vote once.
That appears to now be different and may be tied to the departure of couple of moderate moderators

 

[Marener]

If a President, even one as hated as Donald Trump, does not have such protection, most especially malicious prosecution from a subsequent administration, the President simply cannot do his job

Every other president has done just fine without this protection.

 

[Foxfyre]

Every other president has done just fine without this protection.

For the most part that is true. But this is the first time a militarized/weaponized administration has declared political opponents to be public enemies, has taken political prisoners, has maliciously and vindictively tried to destroy a political opponent who was a threat.

So because of this administration, we need protection from the court to prevent it from happening again.

The OP however is not about misconduct by any particular President or administration but rather how SCOTUS should rule in order to protect the country from it happening again.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

That's the image you see as your feelings when responding to someone who disagrees with you isn't it Cult member?

No. When there is a disagreement with someone wo is not a brainwashed cult groupie, we have a civil, rational and adult conversation. That is the face I make when dealing with you irrational brainwashed MAGA morons who are living in an alternative reality

 

[mudwhistle]

Well just a while ago you tried to claim that he "admitted" this very thing.
But you were just talking out your ass about something you really don't know much about weren't you?

No. You asked me about Jan 6th being staged.
Biden admitted that he was trying to keep Trump from running using the constitution, which is why they claimed Jan 6th was an insurrection. Not because it was, but because they felt they could blame Trump for insurrection using the media. Which was going to be the excuse to take him off of the ballot in several states.

Even though he cannot be charged with insurrection.....they all want us to assume he's guilty of it, and a bunch of liberal judges and secretary of states have decided to take him off the ballot, up until the Supreme Court put the Kabash on that false premise permanently.

Are you really this slow, or are you just playing dumb.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Exactly. Which would render Jack Smith's 97 'crimes' null and void. Which is what prompted the request for a SCOTUS ruling in the first place. If a President, even one as hated as Donald Trump, does not have such protection, most especially malicious prosecution from a subsequent administration, the President simply cannot do his job. If SCOTUS does not clarify that protection for the Office of the Presidency, Joe Biden could be in court for the rest of his life if a subsequent administration was so inclined.

Holy shit on a shingle ! The temerity!! You are still claiming that Trumps ‘actions’ for which he was indicted were in the course of his official duties ? Yet you have failed to even attempt to explain how even a single criminal charge falls under that criteria? There seems to be something seriously wrong with you

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

However he said it, and I did not use his exact words, he intended to prevent President Trump from running in 2024 or at any other time. And it is up to SCOTUS now as to what the 'legitimate efforts of our Constitution are' instead of what a malicious and vindictive administration says they are.

Holy shit! WHAT????!!! Who is it exactly that is malicious and vindictive ? Are you really that out of touch with reality?

 

[mudwhistle]

So you have proven nothing but that Fani Willis visited The White House.
Yawn.

If Fani Willis is meeting with Kamala Harris then she's meeting with people that represents the White House.

Or don't you know who the Vice President is, shitforbrains?

 

[j-mac]

No. When there is a disagreement with someone wo is not a brainwashed cult groupie, we have a civil, rational and adult conversation. That is the face I make when dealing with you irrational brainwashed MAGA morons who are living in an alternative reality

You’re a hoot, now back in the closet with all the other bobo dolls…

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

You’re a hoot, now back in the closet with all the other bobo dolls…

WHAT!!??

 

[mudwhistle]

Such a typical MAGAt comment.
"We're losing (or tied) so.....must be something "phony" going on!"
You guys should be getting used to losing by now.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

For the most part that is true. But this is the first time a militarized/weaponized administration has declared political opponents to be public enemies, has taken political prisoners, has maliciously and vindictively tried to destroy a political opponent who was a threat.

That's all irrelevant nonsense that has no bearing on anything. You couldn't walk into a courtroom and spout that nonsense without being told to sit down and shut up by the judge.

You have not a shred of evidence of any of that, and the evidence of trump leading criminal conspiracies in his spare time is overwhelming.

I don't think you quite grasp all of these concepts.

 

[Foxfyre]

That's all irrelevant nonsense that has no bearing on anything. You couldn't walk into a courtroom and spout that nonsense without being told to sit down and shut up by the judge.

You have not a shred of evidence of any of that, and the evidence of trump leading criminal conspiracies in his spare time is overwhelming.

I don't think you quite grasp all of these concepts.

It is the sole reason that a SCOTUS ruling on the issue is needed now. There is no other reason whatsoever that a SCOTUS ruling on the issue is needed now.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

It is the sole reason that a SCOTUS ruling on the issue is needed now.

That's also total nonsense. The ruling needs to happen now, because now is when we have a president who committed criminal conspiracies in his spare time while in office.

If trump had not gone on these crime sprees and left overwhelming evidence for everybody to find , there would be no case in front of the SCOTUS right now.

And by "now", you actually mean "months from now", in hopes of delaying the trials. Let's be honest with each other.

 

[MagicMike]

Coincidence