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

Also, can we assume you no longer do "LOCK HER UP!!!" ?

Edit : And that you were the sole voice among the sea of red hats following each chorus with the hearty but lonely refrain .... "but not without a fair and thorough trial, sufficiently delayed for her to provide a comprehensive defense, where we've seen the evidence!!!!!!"

 

It was so fun to watch Hillary toy with Curt Gowdy and the “unselect” Benghazi committee. 11 hours and they could not lay a glove. Now Hunter is no Hillary but he’s going to do just fine against that moron Comer.

 

You'd hope pointing out the absurdity of presidential immunity would register with them, but I should know better

 

Trey. Curt be dead. But I watched that and agree. They even asked her if she wanted a break but she said "no, lets keep going".

 

Everyone in the right wing sphere is in cahoots to delay everything until after the election. There's no way Thomas or the justices he appointed should do anything but recuse.

 

Oh good grief take off your Trump beer goggles. Where did I say he should be convicted BEFORE he has a trial?? Ever. That's just more ridiculous partisan drivel spewing from your keyboard. The whole issue here is whether he should even have a trial in the first place.

And it's so difficult for you to understand because you've misframed the issue to have something to whine about when we all agree he (nor any other president) shouldn't have unconditional immunity, which is what his lawyers have asked for.

I believe his lawyer testified at the appellate court hearing that Trump could assassinate his political rivals and be immune from prosecution. That's the nonsense you're senselessly advocating for because of your partisan Trump blinders.

Trump endorses idea he should be able to assassinate opponents without prosecution

 

Is this the case that will decide if it's completely legal for President Biden to kill Trump and anyone else who opposes him, as Trump's lawyers had inadvertently argued?

EDIT: I hadn't read the whole thread when I posted this, but I see it was mentioned in the previous post...

 

Jack Smith is corrupt, That's why he was appointed to go after Trump in Florida.

4 grounds for dismissal of the classified documents case in Florida. Robert Barnes (America:s greatest lawyer):

Do Not Let China Attack America from America

 

The poetic part is Biden is gonna stand in the middle of 5th Ave when he does it.

 

The linked article has absolutely nothing to do with Jack Smith. Since it does concern Chinese spying in the US this comes to mind.
Was Mar-a-Lago Trespasser a Tourist or a Spy? A Judge Said Her Story Didn’t Hold Up. (Published 2019)

https://www.npr.org/2019/11/25/7828...ing-at-mar-a-lago-sentenced-to-8-months-in-ja
And her visit to Mar-a-Lago occurred when Trump was still in office. The premises of Mar-a-Lago were less secure after Trump left office when he was moving the documents around the estate.

 

They will rule he doesn't have immunity, but won't issue the ruling until May or June.

 

What have they posted that leads you to believe they want Trump to be executed before a trial?

 

Robert Barnes gives 4 grounds for dismissal of the Florida classified documents case.

 

Smith was trying to narrowly focus this prosecution on Trump to get it done before the election. Now his lickspittles have mucked that up. There is now no reason to not round up the rest of them: Bannon, Stone, Jordan, MTG, etc.

Roll the paddy wagons up in front of the House and load them up.

 

What law do you think Trump broke?

 

If given an opportunity? All of them.

 

Frivolous in what way? Grand juries voted on indictments for each charge and no judge has thrown any of them out. They are felonies under federal law. Do you mean frivolous in that you don't like how they make you feel to consider them?

 

Your sentence makes no logical sense. You are asking what crimes he committed to get indicted for the crimes for which he was indicted. Well, he is accused, with supporting evidence sufficient to uphold indictments, of all those crimes. And no, free speech is not a crime. What he is accused of is a crime. As such, he is not accused of engaging simply in free speech.