The lawfare against Trump takes a new twist

[BackAgain]

or



Now you're a backslider!

False, of course. But at least you highlight your mental retardation.

 

[Nostra]

You aren't a conspiracy theorist when the conspiracy happened.

What should dawn on you is that you can't see that 2000 was stolen when it was but you are so willing to jump on board with the idea that 2020 was stolen when it wasn't.

Link us up to my post saying 2020 was was stolen sealybobo

Bring it, or admit you are a lying sack of vermin shit.

GO!

 

[BackAgain]

First, different BS argument that Back is making. He's stating that the Supreme Court can't make a decision.

This person on X. (Great source btw) is claiming the question is too complicated or has to be made in to short of time by the Supreme Court of the United States, the final word on legal issues. Of course, Scotus already has with Nixon and the arguments Trump is making have been rejected several times already.

Fuckup is wrong, as expected.

I’d try to dumb it down sufficiently for even a moron like him to grasp, but that’s probably not worth all the effort.

What fuckup can’t quite fathom is that there is a very good chance (albeit not a certainty) that the SCOTUS may simply decide that this does seek an advisory opinion. And there’s no reason to do that.

In the normal course of events, the case will proceed and if there is a conviction, there will be appeals. When the case then appears before the SCOTUS, that will be a proper time to address the issues. Morons like fuckup seem to feel a “need” to rush to judgment.

The “need” is illusory.

Besides, if we assume a conviction, but we also assume that Trump wins the Presidency again, the federal cases will simply go away.

The State cases will have to be dealt with, just the same. There’s time enough for that.

 

[Billiejeens]

or



Now you're a backslider!

He was answering a question, Mr. No Relevance.

 

[rampart]

Saddam counted on the WMD not being located by having them in Syria. He figured no WMD no attack. He was wrong. It was mostly Colin Powell who believed they were still in Syria.

if saddam had anything we gave it to him. if he did not bush would never have admitted it.

 

[Marener]

Fuckup is wrong, as expected.

I’d try to dumb it down sufficiently for even a moron like him to grasp, but that’s probably not worth all the effort.

What fuckup can’t quite fathom is that there is a very good chance (albeit not a certainty) that the SCOTUS may simply decide that this does seek an advisory opinion. And there’s no reason to do that.

In the normal course of events, the case will proceed and if there is a conviction, there will be appeals. When the case then appears before the SCOTUS, that will be a proper time to address the issues. Morons like fuckup seem to feel a “need” to rush to judgment.

The “need” is illusory.

Besides, if we assume a conviction, but we also assume that Trump wins the Presidency again, the federal cases will simply go away.

The State cases will have to be dealt with, just the same. There’s time enough for that.

You’re advocating for unnecessary delays because it benefits your partisan purposes.

 

[Billiejeens]

No. It’s because it isn’t a present case or controversy.

Once a case is brought, and evidence has been presented and decisions have been rendered, the case becomes “ripe” for judicial review. Until then, what is being sought by the Special Persecutor is basically permission to proceed. It is asking for an advisory opinion. “Before we proceed, can you please tell us whether it is ok to proceed?”

One of the troubles with this is that the SCOTUS would then be rendering a legal opinion about a matter before the case is tried at all, and before any appellate litigation has taken place. Then, later on, the case is very likely to appear again before the SCOTUS. At that point, though, they would be in the position of having pre-decided one (or more) of the legal questions before the case ripened.

There isn’t much virtue in doing this.

Some folks (and I’m thinking of morons like forked up) can’t wrap their minds around why this is problematic. And I’m not guaranteeing that my view is how the SCOTUS will rule. Maybe they will grant Smith’s motion and entertain this matter in this fashion. I’m skeptical though.

I dunno -
I read it a little differently -

"This case presents a fundamental question at the heart of our democracy: whether a former President is absolutely immune from federal prosecution for crimes committed while in office or is constitutionally protected from federal prosecution."

If what Smith is trying him for is not against the law, then.......

 

[Batcat]

Rudy Giuliani Trial To Begin Over Lies About Georgia Election Workers

Attorneys in the case intend to ask the jury for between $15.5 million and $43 million in damages.

www.huffpost.com

If you believe 2020 was stolen it's because you believe Trump. Trump lied to you. Constantly for 4 years. This should be your time to wake up.

And Trump knew he lost

How Jack Smith can prove Trump knew he lost the 2020 election

Besides persisting in his claims of election fraud after having been told by authoritative sources they were baseless, Trump showed in other ways that he was uninterested in facts and evidence.

thehill.com

Yes, many people in jail told the judge they listened to too much right wing radio/media months leading up to the election.

Will you admit Joe Biden lied to you or will you contend he is an honest as George Washington.

Trump told a lot of exaggerations and false statistics. Much of the supposed 30,000 lies was simply minor untruths.

Let’s look at how CNN see the most important Trump lies.

Analysis: The 15 most notable lies of Donald Trump's presidency

Trying to pick the most notable lies from Donald Trump's presidency is like trying to pick the most notable pieces of junk from the town dump.

www.cnn.com

Whoopee-do. I’m really impressed. It seems the most important lie was the COVID-19 wasn‘t all that big of a deal. I agree Trump didn’t handle the COVID crisis was well as he should have but he did get a vaccine in record time. The fact that he lied about the size of the crowd at his inauguration doesn’t impress me in the least. Most politicians lie and lie all the time. Trump being a newbie at the game of politics isn’t as good as a life long politician.

No, Trump Hasn't Made 20,000 'False or Misleading' Claims | RealClearPolitics

There are now 21 on-the-record denials rebutting The Atlantics bombshell alleging President Trump called American soldiers losers and suckers....

www.realclearpolitics.com

I’ll just take a look at one of Joe Biden‘s most important lies.

Biden Lies About Not Meeting Hunter's Clients, but Media Ignore It

Biden denied he had any contacts with Hunter's associates, when the contacts are undeniable, even if pro-Biden media pretend otherwise.

www.dailysignal.com

 

[BackAgain]

You’re advocating for unnecessary delays because it benefits your partisan purposes.

You’re shallow.

The bottom line is that you’re also wrong.

You only want the persecutions at all because of your partisan hack purposes

But you also miss the point. It was the Special Persecutor who sought to have the SCOTUS intervene. The thrust would be to delay it only long enough for a decision. Or, it might scuttle the ongoing partisan political persecution all together.

And ok if there’s never a trial. I also don’t care if the SCOTUS decides not to accept his motion. So, what am I seeking to delay!?

 

[Marener]

You’re shallow.

The bottom line is that you’re also wrong.

You only want the persecutions at all because of your partisan hack purposes

But you also miss the point. It was the Special Persecutor who sought to have the SCOTUS intervene. The thrust would be to delay it only long enough for a decision. Or, it might scuttle the ongoing partisan political persecution all together.

And ok if there’s never a trial. I also don’t care if the SCOTUS decides not to accept his motion. So, what am I seeking to delay!?

I want a country where the president doesn’t think they have the capabilities to reverse the outcome of an election when they lose. You just want to protect Trump.

You started a thread attacking Smith asking for the advisory opinion so I don’t believe you when you claim not to care. There’s very little reason to be opposed to it. The public has an interest in having these matters settled promptly.

 

[eagle7-31]

Truth Social

Truth Social is America's "Big Tent" social media platform that encourages an open, free, and honest global conversation without discriminating on the basis of political ideology.

truthsocial.com

I’m shocked. Imagine asking the SCOTUS for what amounts to an advisory opinion.

Our courts don’t render advisory opinions. So, I expect the SCOTUS to take a pass on accepting the Special Persecutor’s “motion.” But, even so, maybe the guy is finally starting to dimly grasp that what he’s doing is improper.

This is the same dope who prosecuted then Gov Bob McDowell of Va and the conviction was overturned in a UNAMIOUS vote by the USSC. LOL

 

[Marener]

This is the same dope who prosecuted then Gov Bob McDowell of Va and the conviction was overturned in a UNAMIOUS vote by the USSC. LOL

It’s Bob McDonnell, not McDowell.

You‘re thinking of this guy:

Do you know what McDonnell was prosecuted for?

 

[BackAgain]

I dunno -
I read it a little differently -

"This case presents a fundamental question at the heart of our democracy: whether a former President is absolutely immune from federal prosecution for crimes committed while in office or is constitutionally protected from federal prosecution."

If what Smith is trying him for is not against the law, then.......

That’s only how the special persecutor is trying to frame the issue. It’s bullshit.

His choice of phraseology is mere propaganda for partisan political manipulation purposes.

What he is really asking is more basic:

Dear Justices,

I have this set of cases against the former President. I want you to tell me, in advance of trial, whether it is ok to proceed to trial.

Thanks in advance,

Jack Smith
Special Persecutor.

 

[BackAgain]

This is the same dope who prosecuted then Gov Bob McDowell of Va and the conviction was overturned in a [UNANIMOUS] vote by the USSC. LOL

Exactly.

 

[Billiejeens]

That’s only how the special persecutor is trying to frame the issue. It’s bullshit.

His choice of phraseology is mere propaganda for partisan political manipulation purposes.

What he is really asking is more basic:

Dear Justices,

I have this set of cases against the former President. I want you to tell me, in advance of trial, whether it is ok to proceed to trial.

Thanks in advance,

Jack Smith
Special Persecutor.

that actually seems prudent.

 

[Rawley]

I want a country where the president doesn’t think they have the capabilities to reverse the outcome of an election when they lose. You just want to protect Trump.

You started a thread attacking Smith asking for the advisory opinion so I don’t believe you when you claim not to care. There’s very little reason to be opposed to it. The public has an interest in having these matters settled promptly.

LOL So you support winners of an issue at the trial level being able to appeal that win? That makes sense to you? A good use of our judicial resources?

 

[BackAgain]

I want a country where the president doesn’t think they have the capabilities to reverse the outcome of an election when they lose. You just want to protect Trump.

Nice spin. But not honest. I want people prosecuted for crimes, not for politics. You just want to “get” Trump.

You started a thread attacking Smith asking for the advisory opinion so I don’t believe you when you claim not to care.

I don’t care and I’m indifferent to whatever you claim to believe or disbelieve. I don’t attack Smith. I suggested that what he was seeking amounted to a request for an advisory opinion. I was right. Still am.

There’s very little reason to be opposed to it.

Wrong. You don’t understand diddly dick about the law. But there are excellent reasons our Federal Courts don’t offer advisory opinions.

The public has an interest in having these matters settled promptly.

No. The public has an interest in them being decided properly.

 

[WEATHER53]

I want a country where the president doesn’t think they have the capabilities to reverse the outcome of an election when they lose. You just want to protect Trump.

You started a thread attacking Smith asking for the advisory opinion so I don’t believe you when you claim not to care. There’s very little reason to be opposed to it. The public has an interest in having these matters settled promptly.

Wishes are not the topic

 

[Hang on Sloopy]

Thanks for acting promptly.
But we aren't buying the 'editing excuse.

you look like such a faggot spell queen.wait you are a faggot..a frozen canadian one

 

[Nostra]

Link us up to my post saying 2020 was was stolen sealybobo

Bring it, or admit you are a lying sack of vermin shit.

GO!

: crickets: from sealybobo