Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
In Georgia, he’s in trouble because he did absolutely crazy shit that no president in their right mind would ever do.
Tell me why I shouldnt have a problem with a president using their official authority to fuck with the outcome of their own election? The president should feel impotent to use their office to reverse the outcome of their own election. Jesus, imagine that. It’s like I don’t want the president to engage in complete fucking corruption. Fuck me.
Commanding the military is an official act. Says so right in the constitution.
He had plenty of ways to prove fraud, but never could.What did he do? And more importantly, what actually was damaged?
The President in question had concerns about fraud in the election. Yet nothing he did stopped Biden from taking office when he was supposed to.
A President that thinks fraud occurred should just let it happen?
He had plenty of ways to prove fraud, but never could.
That’s when he just straight up lied to everyone and told elected officials to change the results based on those lies.
Such a naive like cuck likes you just thinks Trump’s motive was innocent, and he just wanted the truth. Bullshit. He wanted to win. He didn’t give a fuck about the truth. That’s why he lied over and over again.
No one in their right mind would be okay with this, except you don’t care because it’s Trump and you hate the political opposition. You don’t care what he does, legal or not.
You really don’t think the president should have to worry about the legal consequences of fucking with their own election?
You keep talking about his motive as if it matters. Under these stupid fucking rules, the motive doesn't make any fucking difference.And we can't prove Jimmy Hoffa was killed by the Mafia, but he's just as dead.
And yet nothing got changed, Biden is in office.
If He thought he actually won, and he thought there was fraud, he was just supposed to sit there and take it?
Plenty of people agree with me, some are even more vehement about cheating happening.
Fixing their own elections in this case.
You keep talking about his motive as if it matters. Under these stupid fucking rules, the motive doesn't make any fucking difference.
He could have thought he lost big time and he could have known full well there wasn't any fraud. He can still fuck with the outcome of the election and it's an official act until proven otherwise. And if you try to prove it wasn't an official act, SCOTUS said you CANNOT consider his motive whatsoever. It's against these stupid fucking rules.
If he thinks there's fraud, he doesn't have to sit there and take it. He can go to the courts and present his evidence. You just said that's what courts are for.
In criminal law, mens rea (/ˈmɛnz ˈreɪə/; Law Latin for "guilty mind"[1]) is the mental state of a defendant who is accused of committing a crime. In common law jurisdictions, most crimes require proof both of mens rea and actus reus ("guilty act") before the defendant can be found guilty.
Court says that motive doesn't matter.Motive always matters, especially if what you think he did is criminal.
Court says that motive doesn't matter.
View attachment 979867
Again, Trump could have wanted to fuck with the election merely for personal gain, to keep the presidency. We aren't allowed to question it for some stupid fucking reason.
We aren't talking about lawsuits. We are talking about criminal prosecution. There's not going to be some flurry of prosecutions because the president isn't supposed to be breaking the law. This is a manufactured concern that has no basis in reality.If you read the whole thing, it just means they don't want every single court to file lawsuit anytime the President makes a decision on something. Once you decide between official and unofficial, and you decide unofficial, THEN you can discuss motive.
We aren't talking about lawsuits. We are talking about criminal prosecution. There's not going to be some flurry of prosecutions because the president isn't supposed to be breaking the law. This is a manufactured concern that has no basis in reality.
The structure of the ruling makes it almost impossible to decide official vs unofficial.
Is it an official act to fuck with the outcome of an election you lost just because you didn't want to lose?
Since you can't consider the president's motive when determining what is an official and unofficial act, then its basically impossible to prove that fucking with an election because you wanted to win isn't an official act. Which, by the way, it's automatically assumed to be and the prosecution has to PROVE that it wasn't.We see it happening now, which is why Trump had to go to the SC in the first place.
It makes it very possible. Read the Constitution, read the laws passed by congress. figure it out.
No, but as President he is bound to assure the election was not corrupted.
Again, in the end, Biden took office when he was supposed to.
Let's see how the Dems play when Trump beats them.
Since you can't consider the president's motive when determining what is an official and unofficial act, then its basically impossible to prove that fucking with an election because you wanted to win isn't an official act. Which, by the way, it's automatically assumed to be and the prosecution has to PROVE that it wasn't.
The decision has a basically worthless. They claim it's not absolute immunity but in practice it is.
The prosecution usually can include things like MOTIVE to prove their case, except that's off the table to even get the case to trial. The decision makes it virtually impossible to prosecute anything.It's perfectly possible. you have the act, you have the results, you have the Constitution.
The Prosecution ALWAYS has to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. Do you want to remove that from out Justice system?
The prosecution usually can include things like MOTIVE to prove their case, except that's off the table to even get the case to trial. The decision makes it virtually impossible to prosecute anything.
How does one prove that fucking with the election isn't an official act when they can't bring motive into it?
Catch 22. Can't prove it's unofficial without discussing motive. So it'll never be decided as unofficial.Only in deciding if the act is official or not. once defined as unofficial, motive is back in play.
Lots of ways, and happens not infrequently. Do you want to remove the requirement to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt?How does one prove an election done by secret ballot was fucked with, or more importantly, not fucked with?
Catch 22. Can't prove it's unofficial without discussing motive. So it'll never be decided as unofficial.
Lots of ways, and happens not infrequently. Do you want to remove the requirement to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt?
As if conservatives care what the constitution said, given they invented immunity out of nothing. There is no difference between the president fucking with the election because they thought there was fraud and the president fucking with the election because they just wanted to win. These are now both official acts, according to you and SCOTUS. They are both immune from prosecution.Sure you can. The Constitution says what is official.
Always been true of every crime. Are you going to remove the requirement to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt?And lots of ways to hide what happened and then destroy the evidence.
As if conservatives care what the constitution said, given they invented immunity out of nothing. There is no difference between the president fucking with the election because they thought there was fraud and the president fucking with the election because they just wanted to win. These are now both official acts, according to you and SCOTUS. They are both immune from prosecution.
Always been true of every crime. Are you going to remove the requirement to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt?
The fuck it is. Your side was willing to take away the votes of millions of Americans because you felt like you won. You're so delusional you think that's okay because you've been given divine truth and don't have to have any proof of anything. Maybe you used to give a shit about the constitution but now all you really care about is winning. To win, you have to protect Trump. To protect Trump you had to invent some crazy idea of immunity for the dumbest fucking reason ever.The Constitution is held more dear by the right than anyone on the left.
It's not fucking with, it's trying to fix.
Civil courts don't operate on proof beyond a reasonable doubt and never have, dipshit.Dems already did that by moving Trump's "rape" trial to a civil court,
Nope. Still had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt and they did.the jury instructions in his hush money trial.
Trump brought it on himself when he crossed the line over and over again. He chose this.But that's all to get Trump, so you are OK with it.
The fuck it is. Your side was willing to take away the votes of millions of Americans because you felt like you won. You're so delusional you think that's okay because you've been given divine truth and don't have to have any proof of anything. Maybe you used to give a shit about the constitution but now all you really care about is winning.
Civil courts don't operate on proof beyond a reasonable doubt and never have, dipshit.
Nope. Still had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt and they did.
Trump brought it on himself when he crossed the line over and over again. He chose this.
There's nothing in the construction of the constitution that suggests the president is immune from prosecution. There's even less to suggest the president should be able to fuck with the results of their own election.Your side ignores the 1st amendment, ignores the 2nd, ignores the 10th. Hell they are even figuring out a way to ignore a version of the 3rd by seeing if they can force people to accommodate illegals.
God has nothing to do with this, strict constructionism does.
A civil court should have never heard the "rape" case, and considering she doesn't remember when it happened, and impartial jury would have never ruled for her.
Blaming the lawfare victim, how quaint.
