Trump's Supreme Court To Hear Trump's Immunity Case

[jomar]

The just following illegal orders immunity defense, lol

 

[dmallord]

So, when will we be indicting and charging Barack Obama for the extrajudicial murder On October 14, 2011, of Anwar al-Awlaki, a 16-year-old American citizen, was killed in Yemen in an American drone strike. President Obama directed the CIA to assassinate him despite the fact that he had never been charged with or convicted of any crime.

You repeat this lie, again and again. I've given you sources to correct this. The boy was not a target. You are perpetuating lies.

 

[Pad_Foot]

You repeat this lie, again and again. I've given you sources to correct this. The boy was not a target. You are perpetuating lies.

If you leave out enough words, that’s what the report says! It’s a lie of omission. Oh, maybe swap around a few words afterwards for grammatical reasons.

 

[ll74]

Was listening to the lawfare pod today and they made a good observation: with the entire "the court is blind to the timing" aspect of things.. The court seems to acknowledge that they are deliberating a decision for the ages while ignoring the age itself.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Was listening to the lawfare pod today and they made a good observation: with the entire "the court is blind to the timing" aspect of things.. The court seems to acknowledge that they are deliberating a decision for the ages while ignoring the age itself.

Worth repeating that Bush v. Gore was signed, sealed and delivered in 72 hours, yet Trump immunity sees the partisan Supreme Court slow-walking this case until June, at which time they'll most likely kick it back down to the Court of Appeals for re-hearing.

Speed apparently is highly dependent upon teh needs of the Republic celebration (formally know as the "Republcan Party" until Judge JimArpy informed us on what words REALLY meant yesterday).

 

[Rightguide]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1786532208334852584

Who's orders were these? Click the link.

 

[ll74]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1786532208334852584

Who's orders were these?

Lol

 

[Rightguide]

Worth repeating that Bush v. Gore was signed, sealed and delivered in 72 hours, yet Trump immunity sees the partisan Supreme Court slow-walking this case until June, at which time they'll most likely kick it back down to the Court of Appeals for re-hearing.

Speed apparently is highly dependent upon teh needs of the Republic celebration (formally know as the "Republcan Party" until Judge JimArpy informed us on what words REALLY meant yesterday).

In Bush V Gore they were up against a certification deadline. No such deadline here.

 

[RobDownSouth]

In Bush V Gore they were up against a certification deadline. No such deadline here.

Categorically not true, as you once again bring shame to yourself and soil your family's name.
The "deadline" is the first Tuesday in November, which is Election Day.

Trump has a vested interest in pushing court cases out past that date, knowing there is a good chance that people in America won't vote for a convicted felon.

He's counting on the combined legal pettifoggery of Federal judge Aileen Cannon and six compromised Supreme Court Justices to defer his various federal conspiracy charges for as long as possible.

 

[butters]

Schumer pushing bill to strip trump of virtually unlimited immunity after SCOTUS ruling.

does this stand a chance? will it have to go from the Senate to the House and then back again as i believe is the norm?

Schumer, invoking Congress’s powers to regulate the courts, said Democrats are working on legislation to classify Trump’s efforts to subvert the results of the 2020 election as “unofficial acts” so they do not merit immunity from criminal prosecution under the high court’s recent 6-3 decision.

“They incorrectly declared that former President Trump enjoys broad immunity from criminal prosecution for actions he took while in office. They incorrectly declared that all future presidents are entitled to a breathtaking level of immunity so long as their conduct is ostensibly carried out in their official capacity as president,” Schumer said on the Senate floor.

Schumer said the court’s conservative justices had “effectively placed a crown on Donald Trump’s head,” putting him above the law and making him “in many ways untouchable.”

“I will work with my colleagues on legislation classifying Trump’s election subversion acts as unofficial acts not subject to immunity,” he announced. “We’re doing this because we believe that in America no president should be free to overturn an election against the will of the people, no matter what the conservative justices may believe.”

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...&cvid=b6209c3ff4a04593cf4cef9de0f255f5&ei=544

 

[ll74]

Schumer pushing bill to strip trump of virtually unlimited immunity after SCOTUS ruling.

does this stand a chance? will it have to go from the Senate to the House and then back again as i believe is the norm?









https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...&cvid=b6209c3ff4a04593cf4cef9de0f255f5&ei=544

Nope. This is the same type of legislation that the house is working on to delegitamize the J6 committee's subpoena.

Retroactive legislation might be a thing they are trying, but both pieces of legislation will not pass and even if it did, would be struck down...as it should be.

The only things reversing SCOTUS will either be another SCOTUS decision or a Constitutional amendment.

 

[adrina]

Schumer pushing bill to strip trump of virtually unlimited immunity after SCOTUS ruling.

does this stand a chance? will it have to go from the Senate to the House and then back again as i believe is the norm?









https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...&cvid=b6209c3ff4a04593cf4cef9de0f255f5&ei=544

DOA.

Now if the house and senate were super majority or majority democrats they could pass some legislation. Would it be constitutional? Maybe if the democrats expand the court to 13. But in this court, never. Even if it was.

 

[adrina]

 

[KeithD]

DOA.

Now if the house and senate were super majority or majority democrats they could pass some legislation. Would it be constitutional? Maybe if the democrats expand the court to 13. But in this court, never. Even if it was.

This is a blueprint for November. Folks wanting to save this country need to get out there and give the Democrats a working majority in the House and the Senate.

 

[ByteMe13]

This is a blueprint for November. Folks wanting to save this country need to get out there and give the Democrats a working majority in the House and the Senate.

The Senate is almost guaranteed to turn Republican. Only hope is for Dems to flip the house

 

[Lazaran]

^
A waaaaaay better lawyer than Derpy.



Derpy should watch that entire video and take notes. (I know, I know - Derpy’s limited attention span won’t allow for it, but maybe Derpy could digest it in small portions.)



Derpy