Trumps "immunity" defence is punctured by the first question

Quote some of the words in that fire driven speech that were so inciting, specifically to do violence at the capitol.
Wow! Seriously?

I'm guessing you never watched his lie filled speech?

"We fight like hell. And if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore."
 
  • Thanks
Reactions: IM2
Nobody admitted that, liar. Goddamn you are dumb. What happened to you? It's like someone put your brain in a porta potty and turned it over. You were not always this fucking stupid, I swear.
Goddamn you are dumb. What happened to you? It's like someone put your brain in a porta potty and turned it over.
 
Wow! Seriously?

I'm guessing you never watched his lie filled speech?

"We fight like hell. And if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore."

It's a figure of speech...

1704934400706.png


1704934472529.png


1704934520497.png
 
Ah, the. Surely it's ridiculous to state a president can't be prosecuted because it still has to fall within the scope of his duties argument.


If you have lawyers who are willing to argue that a president can't be impeached because the law will take care of it. And in another case argue that the law can't take care of it UNLESS he's impeached.

I don't think there's any crime he can't justify as being within the "outer boundaries" of presidential power.
^ Functionally illiterate moron.

But just barely functional.

Has no idea how the law works. :dunno:
 
No, that's stupid. An educated lawyer doesn't "hope" an argument has merit. Lawyers go to law school to learn which arguments have merit and which do not.

Trumps lawyers know full well their arguments have no merit. They are engaging in theater for Trump and for the public.
^ Another Democrat who has no idea how the law works.
 
I'm shocked, shocked I tell you, that a Republican would selectively quote a single paragraph from a reply. Claiming I'm dishonest and then make the same argument I make in that reply.

I neither deny nor am shocked that lawyers make whatever argument they think they can get away with. In fact, it's precisely that, that invalidates the premise that there's any act that could not be justified as falling within the scope of Presidential Power.

Something, that is the exact fault the judge exposed in Trump's absolute immunity claim by posing the hypothetical. And what I said and demonstrated in my reply.


Something that brings me to this.

How, can anybody support a person that tries to argue that a President is absolutely immune from prosecution. If it is acknowledged that a lawyer is trained to be able to justify every position?
"Here is a dime. Go and call your mother..." :)
 
No,, no, no, don't try comparing trumps incitement to these comments. Because this rally was held for nothing, he knowingly lied about a stolen election and urged people to fight for his lie. Add that to the other speakers and it's obvious.


I see. So Biden can say "fight like hell," but when Trump says the exact same words, it's different. Hmmmm.

It's a call for violence, since Trump said it, right?

Even though Trump said at the same speech to be peaceful.

Only Dems can say "fight for Democaracy," like Raskin, eh?
 
I see. So Biden can say "fight like hell," but when Trump says the exact same words, it's different. Hmmmm.

It's a call for violence, since Trump said it, right?

Even though Trump said at the same speech to be peaceful.

Only Dems can say "fight for Democaracy," like Raskin, eh?
Let's stop with the false equivalences. That rally was purposefully held on 1-6 to stop the certification of the election.
 

Forum List

Back
Top