Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty

[Js1 85,104]

Just now, wildcat09 said:

The fact that there were 4 votes for this is extremely fucking bad.

While I agree, I do think it being heard and then shut down would put it to bed more than “well SCOTUS didn’t take it up so it’s actually not decided” 

Put it in the fucking books

[Pato del Muerto 52,342]

3 minutes ago, Smax said:

 

 

If SCOTUS says the president is immune, Biden should drone strike Maralago and end all of this bullshit

Intel suggested there was a high value target there that was an imminent threat to the USA. 

[Brisketexan 104,590]

1 minute ago, wildcat09 said:

The fact that there were 4 votes for this is extremely fucking bad.

 

Just now, Js1 said:

While I agree, I do think it being heard and then shut down would put it to bed more than “well SCOTUS didn’t take it up so it’s actually not decided” 

Put it in the fucking books

It's America 2024 where the GQP MAGA movement exits.  Always bet on "this is bad, really bad."

[SimonBolivar 10,913]

Just now, Pato del Muerto said:

Intel suggested there was a high value target there that was an imminent threat to the USA. 

The best collateral damage.

[Gatorubet 30,088]

1 minute ago, Smax said:

If SCOTUS says the president is immune, Biden should drone strike Maralago and end all of this bullshit

Marge and others to gitmo - and tactical nukes to Ukraine? Drink!!  Also, Hunter’s Dong on the new $20 bill instead of Jackson.  

Executive Order like Prez Comacho!

[Chewbacca 7,730]

6 minutes ago, Smax said:

 

 

If SCOTUS says the president is immune, Biden should drone strike Maralago and end all of this bullshit

Why drone strike?  Just tell his SS protective detail to kill him.  All legal and such.

[YGIFS 19,449]

Fucking drone strike amateur hour with you sweet kids.  

The entire catering menu comes from one food supplier.  

[Red Five 40,649]

3 minutes ago, Chewbacca said:

Why drone strike?  Just tell his SS protective detail to kill him.  All legal and such.

"Dotard's SS unit, the time has come. Execute Order 66." 

[dcbc 14,404]

11 minutes ago, YGIFS said:

The entire catering menu comes from one food supplier.  

Send in the clowns!

 

Edited February 28 by dcbc

[BehoId, The Underminer! 11,668]

So a decision in this term. How long afterward to get to trial?  She was ready for a month from now right?  So a month after the ruling and mandate? August then?

6 minutes ago, Chewbacca said:

Why drone strike?  Just tell his SS protective detail to kill him.  All legal and such.

Order 66, imo

[BehoId, The Underminer! 11,668]

3 minutes ago, Red Five said:

"Dotard's SS unit, the time has come. Execute Order 66." 

[Biff Tannen 45,492]

12 minutes ago, Js1 said:

While I agree, I do think it being heard and then shut down would put it to bed more than “well SCOTUS didn’t take it up so it’s actually not decided” 

Put it in the fucking books

Would be nice to not have to worry about the election to decide our fate.  Just let the SCOTUS take care of it.  For real, if they decide in favor of dotard, Biden kinda has to do something drastic doesn't he?

[Bullneck 18,987]

30 minutes ago, Js1 said:

Put it in the fucking books

The reason we’ve had so much trouble over the past eight years is there hasn’t been enough in the books. We relied on people to behave, but apparently that isn’t going to work anymore.

[Slacks 6,791]

19 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

 For real, if they decide in favor of dotard, Biden kinda has to do something drastic doesn't he?

"So, let me get this straight. If you all say he's right, I have total immunity, right?

Clarence, I want you to be 100% certain Ginny agrees with this. Trust me, I'll be fine with either outcome."

[Exposition 93]

I'm not holding my breath for any clear resolution to his immunity claims. Most likely outcome is SCOTUS rules he doesn't have 'absolute' immunity, but a sitting President does have immunity from A,B,C,D scenarios. So Trump will keep ranting and using a defense that each of his cases falls under one of those scenarios. 

[Foosters 17,730]

48 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

 

It's America 2024 where the GQP MAGA movement exits.  Always bet on "this is bad, really bad."

Ah, you're a betting man. Care to make a wager on this one?

[Brisketexan 104,590]

Just now, Foosters said:

Ah, you're a betting man. Care to make a wager on this one?

I've also learned not to place bets on games of Calvinball.  Because my bet cannot account for the new rule of "you lose all your points if you touch the 'no touching' tree before you dunked the ball into the barrel."  Seriously.  I regularly have no fucking idea what this court will do, which is a huge problem in itself (courts and the law are supposed to be relatively predictable -- that way, people can make informed decisions about how to behave).  I mean, we DO know how Alito and Thomas will go.  But as to the rest of them....no fucking idea.  Just maintain pessimism.  It's been the safe bet since 2016.

[The Dog 43,801]

Does this only affect the J6 case or also the documents case in Florida?

Does this also affect the civil cases against him or are those also covered by this?

[RDCanecutter 26,250]

2 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

Lemme fix that for you:

That's the play.  The Saudis, Russians, etc. will happily float a few hundred million on the chance that ends up being the winning bid to take full legal title to an actual president of the United States.  Shit, they'd be dumb NOT to take that flyer.

The first US President impeached twice, convicted of multiple crimes, and bone-sawed once.

[tx 3 putt 76,347]

1 hour ago, aggie08 said:

Kind of depressing that we have to go all the way to the Supreme Court to (hopefully) decide that, "No, nobody gets to do whatever the fuck they want without legal consequence."

[Slacks 6,791]

6 hours ago, speed817 said:

 

 

Nah, son. Pay up.

[Slacks 6,791]

48 minutes ago, Exposition said:

I'm not holding my breath for any clear resolution to his immunity claims. Most likely outcome is SCOTUS rules he doesn't have 'absolute' immunity, but a sitting President does have immunity from A,B,C,D scenarios. So Trump will keep ranting and using a defense that each of his cases falls under one of those scenarios. 

Wouldn't they only rule on the question before them? (I don't know exactly what that is.) Why would they interject and make a ruling they weren't asked about? Is this a thing? Wouldn't that pretty much be the Judicial becoming the Legislative and Executive?

 

Oooooooh... 

 

[wildcat09 29,235]

1 hour ago, Js1 said:

While I agree, I do think it being heard and then shut down would put it to bed more than “well SCOTUS didn’t take it up so it’s actually not decided” 

Put it in the fucking books

They're going to Mazars this. They'll wait until the very last day to release an opinion that's something along the lines of "the president is not absolutely immune but is immune for X types of acts so before a trial can be held the district court must determine whether the coup qualifies as X," effectively punting the trial until next year.

[Gatorubet 30,088]

25 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

They're going to Mazars this. They'll wait until the very last day to release an opinion that's something along the lines of "the president is not absolutely immune but is immune for X types of acts so before a trial can be held the district court must determine whether the coup qualifies as X," effectively punting the trial until next year.

counterpoint: Trump has given the deep state monied interests all he can give them on taxes and such, but if reelected he will cause all kinds of wars and international strife, which will be terrible for business.   Therefore, the conservatives on the court will hear their master’s voice - and put an end to Trump because he’s uncontrollable now - unlike before, and therefore he is no longer of used to them.

That’s my story and I’m sticking to it until I’m arrested in my home for writing this and executed in the camp

Edited February 29 by Gatorubet
damn voice changes text as i hit send

[TwiceHorn 31,268]

1 hour ago, The Dog said:

Does this only affect the J6 case or also the documents case in Florida?

Does this also affect the civil cases against him or are those also covered by this?

It would only cover things that occurred while he was in office. So shouldn't cover MAL.  But, the government alleged the section of 793 that requires that he initially be wrongfully in possession of the docs before he refused to return them, which might have occurred while he was in office? I don't know. 

Civil immunity has already been dealt with and he has it to the extent the actions were within the outer perimeter of his official duties. 

[miguelito 11,218]

Geez, why is George Soros making this so complicated?

[Satchel 6,908]

If people 9200 miles away can understand and see the threat, why can’t millions of Americans?

 

Edited February 29 by Satchel

[TheRealRonWeaver? 1,258]

I mean, I guess to the uneducated, unwashed observer, one might be excused for thinking he's going to get away with it, if you didn't understand the reasons why he was able to before and haven't understood why those reasons aren't here now.
But each day that passes is getting us closer and closer to the Find Out phase.
He got away with civil judgments by bullying smaller people. These are not civil judgments.
He got away with saying bullshit in the 2016 election because the Democrats' candidate was even worse, and even he didn't think he'd win.
He got away with impeachable offenses because his party controlled enough of Congress that any proceedings were doomed from the beginning.
BUT NOW...
There are criminal trials, and even the civil trials' plaintiffs aren't backing down.
There is a good President in the White House, who's beating him in every poll now.
The judges and prosecutors aren't fucking around (except for Fanni, but even she is getting away with it).
He. Is. Turbofucked. We've got some firm, very hard to overturn judgments. He's running out of money, his lawyers suck, and there is no white knight coming to save him; he stole all his political party friends' funds, the judges either are state-level, overseen by actual adults, or simply ruling against him because they have no choice.
The wheels are moving slowly, but there are just so many crimes, so many cases, so many judgments pending or otherwise, and he's got nothing left.
Turbofucked.

[Hookah Horns 3,078]

Court really selling out the country and basic justice with this move. All to protect their boy. 

Everyone knows the immunity claim is bullshit. COA was unanimous and wrote a flawless opinion destroying the dumbass question. There is no reason at all for SCOTUS to take this case. Accomplishes not a damn thing aside from ensuring mango Mussolini doesn't get tried before election day. 

The combo of their:

1. refusal to take this case when Smith tried to get them to do so months ago, 

2. taking 2.5 weeks to say whether they're taking it, 

3. setting it for 7 weeks from now when the issue is dead ass simple and the facts are universally known 

makes it so fucking obvious. They've fully disgraced themselves and the court and ruined any remaining credibility they had. 

Edited February 29 by Hookah Horns

[The Dog 43,801]

Well on the bright side he’ll keep racking up higher and higher legal bills.

[Chuckie Finster 22,599]

41 minutes ago, Hookah Horns said:

 They've fully disgraced themselves and the court and ruined any remaining credibility they had. 

Here’s the thing: they don’t give a fuck.

While the NY Dems are worried about looking too partisan, the Republican Justices are ready to declare Donald Trump a King.

One side has concluded that winning is all that matters and it’s why we are a nation circling the drain.

[Rimbo 25,777]

Call me crazy, but it seems to be that it's at least equally possible that SCOTUS picked up the case to drive a final nail into the coffin of immunity, not to crown Trump King.

[BehoId, The Underminer! 11,668]

Regardless of the ultimate ruling though they seem to have done a favor for him with the delay. 

[RomaVicta 29,781]

I shoulda got a lawyer that looks like Ivanka. I should have gone to beauty school.

[Fudge Nuggets 19,149]

On 2/27/2024 at 7:56 PM, locodos said:

Last time I was deposed, "on July15th  2017 at 2pm you had a meeting entitled 'Weekly Contract Compliance' can you tell us everything about this meeting and who was in attendance?"

A: "no, I don't recall this meeting"

Bob was there, does that refresh your recollection?

A: "no"

 

I wasn't hiding anything, it's just stupid to treat humans like perfect recall computers... we aren't.   They got all indignant, but what did you have for lunch on 7/15/2017?  It was lunchtime, does that refresh your recollection?

July 15, 2017 was a Saturday according to the googles.  That being the case, I had a hamburger and french fries for lunch.  Guaranteed.

[The Dog 43,801]

JACK SMITH: “I’m not going to be able to convict him before November”

FANI WILLIS: “I’m not going to be able to convict him before November”

NATHAN WADE: “I’m not going to be able to convict him before November”

STORMY DANIELS: “hold my beer”

[atomheartbevo 89,416]

1 hour ago, RomaVicta said:

I shoulda got a lawyer that looks like Ivanka. I should have gone to beauty school.

 

 

[atomheartbevo 89,416]

 

Please MAGA, buy this to help with Trump’s legal fees   Don’t ask yourself how it will help, just buy it.

 

[Keef 757]

7 hours ago, Rimbo said:

Call me crazy, but it seems to be that it's at least equally possible that SCOTUS picked up the case to drive a final nail into the coffin of immunity, not to crown Trump King.

Crazy

[miguelito 11,218]

8 hours ago, The Dog said:

JACK SMITH: “I’m not going to be able to convict him before November”

FANI WILLIS: “I’m not going to be able to convict him before November”

NATHAN WADE: “I’m not going to be able to convict him before November”

STORMY DANIELS: “hold my beer”

Yes, but Stormy had a much ... shorter issue to deal with.

[Captainant 27,447]

5 hours ago, atomheartbevo said:

 

Please MAGA, buy this to help with Trump’s legal fees   Don’t ask yourself how it will help, just buy it.

 

You should post that to the crypto 6sJ thread - they're always looking to hitch their wagon to go to the moon

[Hard Times 299]

Bad man removed in IL.🤣 Like I said, this is over before election day.

Judge Orders Trump Removed From Illinois Primary Ballot - The New York Times (nytimes.com)

[Hookah Horns 3,078]

12 hours ago, Rimbo said:

Call me crazy, but it seems to be that it's at least equally possible that SCOTUS picked up the case to drive a final nail into the coffin of immunity, not to crown Trump King.

Not at all necessary. Everyone knows it's a laughable question that only a shamelessly criminal clown would raise to delay proceedings. And the COA opinion is unassailable. There was a 0% lifetime chance of a circuit split on the issue. 

Face it, the SCOTUS sold out the country to do a favor to one man. Super cool that we have 4 completely unethical motherfuckers on the court who refuse to recuse™ despite having obvious conflicts and bias. 

[Hookah Horns 3,078]

1 hour ago, Hard Times said:

Bad man removed in IL.🤣 Like I said, this is over before election day.

Judge Orders Trump Removed From Illinois Primary Ballot - The New York Times (nytimes.com)

SCOTUS will be overruling this any day now with their Colorado ruling. 

[BehoId, The Underminer! 11,668]

i keep coming back to the order granting cert that said "answer the question of whether criminal liability can attach to official acts in office."

to me, that says that the opinion will come out answering the question yes or no (imo, no).  but what it won't answer is whether his acts were official acts.  that means we have another round of argument at the court to determine that (and appeals there).  i think that second issue will be what pushes trial beyond the election.

[High Plains Drifter 10,974]

8 minutes ago, BehoId, The Underminer! said:

i keep coming back to the order granting cert that said "answer the question of whether criminal liability can attach to official acts in office."

to me, that says that the opinion will come out answering the question yes or no (imo, no).  but what it won't answer is whether his acts were official acts.  that means we have another round of argument at the court to determine that (and appeals there).  i think that second issue will be what pushes trial beyond the election.

 

which is a win for dOTarD. Any delay is a win. Which is why they granted cert. 

['stache 21,770]

16 hours ago, Exposition said:

I'm not holding my breath for any clear resolution to his immunity claims. Most likely outcome is SCOTUS rules he doesn't have 'absolute' immunity, but a sitting President does have immunity from A,B,C,D scenarios. So Trump will keep ranting and using a defense that each of his cases falls under one of those scenarios. 

 

12 hours ago, Rimbo said:

Call me crazy, but it seems to be that it's at least equally possible that SCOTUS picked up the case to drive a final nail into the coffin of immunity, not to crown Trump King.

Yup, if Uncle Clarence and Grampa Sam can get three of the other shit gibbons to join them, they won't declare absolute immunity, but say they aren't sure whether his acts were presidential or that of a candidate and remand for a 3 year trial. I don't see them getting there though, it should be a per curium "Nobody is absolutely immune, stop breaking the law asshole" but you know at least two will use the opportunity to kiss the ring in extensive dissents.

[pyrohornIII 4,809]

4 hours ago, miguelito said:

Yes, but Stormy had a much ... shorter issue to deal with.

But it could mushroom into something bigger.  

[Hookah Horns 3,078]

This is one of those things that keeps pissing me off even more the more I think about it. 

[wildcat09 29,235]

1 hour ago, BehoId, The Underminer! said:

i keep coming back to the order granting cert that said "answer the question of whether criminal liability can attach to official acts in office."

to me, that says that the opinion will come out answering the question yes or no (imo, no).  but what it won't answer is whether his acts were official acts.  that means we have another round of argument at the court to determine that (and appeals there).  i think that second issue will be what pushes trial beyond the election.

This man gets it.