“Attempting to steal” MY ASS!
I’ll guess we’ll know by the end of June. We’ll see how MSLSD comments on it tonight. They’ll have an idea of how well...or how badly...things went for the Big Guy.
“attempting to steal the 2020 election”
Total BS
I am very concerned about Trump’s lawyers. Sauer to me is worthless. He has no clue about the PR aspect of this and with respect to that he screwed up royally. First, in the DC court he gave an abysmal answer to the assassination scenario that said that you needed conviction of impeachment and that painted the picture to the public (especially with media’s help) that the immunity allows everything. That is, of course, nonsensical. He did not waiver from that position in this hearing.
Even worse, Deeben from the special council brought up that there was the advocation of a very narrow immunity based upon the safeguards of professionalism by the prosecutors and grand jury process. I wanted the justices to pipe in about what is occurring in New York. To their credit they were circumspect and addressed this mildly. (I got the impression that the judges were well aware of the gravity and importance of writing effective rules).
However, on a PR scale, this should have been pitching a grapefruit to Sauer who should have knocked this out of the park by briefly addressing the abuses in New York. My response would have been one of ridicule. For example, “Did I hear correctly that the special counsel said that we have safeguards of the professionalism of the prosecutors and the grand jury to protect the sanctity of insuring that no unworthy prosecution of a president will take place? Hello McFly! Look at New York. The DA ran on a campaign of “get Trump”. Every legal scholar notes that the charges are ridiculous in that they used a federal election law (which the FEC said was no crime) to put on a state misdemeanor which passed the statute of limitations and with a conflicted judge whose daughter benefits financially and whose wife works for the very same DA who campaign on “get Trump”. Also this judge restricts his ability to communicate while all of the other people involved have no restrictions to disparage him. We do not have to speculate on a hypothetical when that situation is occurring now. Of course, you may say that the appeals process will solve that but we all know that the effort is election interference.
This response would have had no effect on the judges as they seem to want to do the right thing but it would have had a big effect in the PR process. So what did Sauer do when his time came to rebut? Crickets. We have nothing further to comment.
I no longer have faith in the judicial branch anymore. I wouldn’t be shocked if the ruling would be evenly split with Roberts being the deciding vote and siding with the left evil judges. They’re never gonna let Trump go ….the judicial black robe lawfare POS evil SOBs have him by the short hairs. They will hunt him down until they have what they want…they’re never going to let go because if they do, they will all fall. They cannot risk letting Trump be president in 2024. Just remember the motto show me the man and I’ll show you the crime! Look at what’s going on in Arizona they’re gonna keep hammering him until they can drive the stake deep through his heart!
Apparently our wonderful justices on the SC, Republicans included, seemed to forget the plain reading of the Constitution addressing High Crimes and Misdemeanors, which as we know, means whatever Congress determines it means and thus, would cover any act by a President, criminal or civil. If Congress were to find a President guilty and then remove he/she from office, the President would then be liable for criminal prosecution. We did this with Nixon, which is why he was subject to prosecution after he resigned. Conversely, if a President is found Not Guilty after their impeachment trial, then end of story. This is not hard. We all learned this in 8th grade Civics. Unfortunately, like everything else, our political and judicial system has been corrupted beyond repair.
the fact of the matter is the president is NOT immune from prosecution. He is held accountable by congress through the impeachment process.
It is illogical that a president which can pardon himself can be held accountable. If that was the case as was pointed out in the case today, every president would simply pardon himself of any and all offenses committed while president before leaving office. Which would have the exact same effect as him being immune.
What crime(s)? There aren’t any except the ones pulled out of someone’s commie butt.
Can someone please explain this to me as if I were a 10 year old please
I just don’t understand what’s going on reading different points of view and I can’t make anything out
Please thank you
This mis-states the facts at issue. Article I states it very well:
"Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.
A sitting President is immune from prosecution, but once removed by impeachment or the passage of time, "[He] shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law"
The Supreme Court justices are not blind nor are they ignorant on what the Democrats are doing.
The choice they have is to go along with allowing the Democrats to prosecute President Trump on false charges and in effect open up every President from this day forth open to be charged, convicted and imprison by any prosecutor in the Nation.
Or, they could follow the Constitution that would have any misconduct (or crime) be dealt first with Congress via impeachment and if there was any criminal law violation charged in Federal Court. By bypassing Congress they will seal the fate of our nations as being just one more banana republic.
Would the Grand Jury vote the same toward Trump if they were selected in Cheyenne?
“Chief Justice John Roberts”
has been compromised since Obama was in the White Hut.
It would be good if the Court just threw the case out, but the problem is that the Court may feel that it can only rule on the Constitutional question and not on the facts of the case.
this article and the way it is framed and the quote are more lefty stalin propoganda-repeat it often enough and people will accept it,