"Special Council Jack Smith Asks the Supremse Court To Decide Trump Immunity..."

You don't appear to enjoy logic and knowing the meaning of basic terms either. Is your objection to tic-tac-toe the inability to logically lay out a strategy?

 

I agree. I am not good at projecting. As such, I am not projecting. I am observing that you don't seem to be able to follow logical trains of thought. Perhaps, next time, if you want people to engage with you in good faith, you can think about what you asked, specifically, and not shift the goalposts around to avoid cognitive dissonance. Good luck with that!

 

Do you not know what that phrase means? And I think you mean "there." Your second question makes no sense as stated.

Definition of TRAIN OF THOUGHT

As I said, you seem to struggle with basic terminology and logic. If you wish people to engage in good faith with you, perhaps you could work on that.

 

Let's see if you can use logic and work it out.

 

Poor

when you’re in a hole it’s best to stop digging but in your case the flailing is quite amusing. Carry on.

 

I answered your question directly. If I was off topic, that would, logically, mean that your question was as well.

 

One general comment that I’d like to make is that the moral actions of particular people, such as Trump, Boebert, or Hunter Biden, shouldn’t reflect at all on the validity of the political movements with which they are associated.

If it is found that Trump is guilty of a crime, this would not be evidence that woke ideologies or open borders are good policies. Nor should Trump’s exoneration on these charges be viewed as a vindication of any of his political views.

I know that this sounds obvious in theory, but since the strengths and weaknesses of the case are being put forth almost entirely by left and right leaning posters, respectively, it doesn’t appear that we are acting with this distinction in mind.

 

That whole exchange was rather comical coming from the guy who titled the thread using the wrong version of the word "counsel".

 

Mr Snyder has it about right as he does in most things

The Supreme Court has agreed to consider whether a US citizen is above the law – a proposition that, if affirmed, would destroy the moral, legal, and political foundations of the Court itself.

 

Biden should just announce that the presidential election won't start until all of Trump's trials conclude.

Then the SCOTUS will really have to tie themselves in knots to say a president can do whatever he wants.

 

Now that SCOTUS has invalidated the purpose and usefulness of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, let's have some guesses as to how they will grant Trump and only Trump immunity for everything he's done since 2016.

I'm thinking the "Incompetent Legal Defense" exception. Since Trump was told everything he did would be legal by his lawyers, he and only he can't be held accountable.

 

Bare minimum, (more) incessant delaying.

We are in a very shameful period of US history.

 

It’s spelled correctly in the link. Looks like someone corrected it

 

Clearly that speaks volumes to the quality of the linked source. LOL