Why is Trump so stupid?

[Bn2f]

You begin with the assumption that he committed a crime and then deny him any defense.

Basically you and kangaroos are equal in your courtroom.

91 indictments brought before independent grand juries that determined that there was enough material evidence to warrant a trial is not beginning with the assumption of guilt. The process, other than the expected delays that the defendant is prone to do, is working just fine.

But I will grant that maybe you are thinking there is a presumption of guilt from previous cases that have shown that Donald J Trump committed fraud in his online university 25million judgment for stealing money from military veterans or that he committed fraud with his New York State charities or him being liable in the E Jean Carroll case.

 

[HisArpy]

His defense was that the crime he was accused of was part of his official duties as President, which is manifestly false. I don’t have to be a lawyer to understand that.

His defense is that he, as the current President, was acting in his capacity as President when he addressed the people in attendance at the rally and is therefore immune.

What you don't understand, because you're a ninny, is that he was acting in his capacity as President because, AS PRESIDENT, he is always acting in that capacity regardless of where he is or what he is doing. This is established SCOTUS precedent.

Thus you begin with either ignorance or an outright lie, expand either to fit your needs, and invite the kangaroo into the courtroom to support the preconceived outcome.

 

[DeluxAuto]

Trump is so stupid because he only has to be a little smarter than MAGAts like Derpy who defend his criminal behavior.

 

[ll74]

His defense is that he, as the current President, was acting in his capacity as President when he addressed the people in attendance at the rally and is therefore immune.

What you don't understand, because you're a ninny, is that he was acting in his capacity as President because, AS PRESIDENT, he is always acting in that capacity regardless of where he is or what he is doing. This is established SCOTUS precedent.

Thus you begin with either ignorance or an outright lie, expand either to fit your needs, and invite the kangaroo into the courtroom to support the preconceived outcome.

What specific case established that everything a President does is done as in their official duties of President?

That's ridiculous. If that were the case, Clinton lied under oath in his official capacity as President.

Lmao

 

[Bn2f]

His defense is that he, as the current President, was acting in his capacity as President when he addressed the people in attendance at the rally and is therefore immune.

What you don't understand, because you're a ninny, is that he was acting in his capacity as President because, AS PRESIDENT, he is always acting in that capacity regardless of where he is or what he is doing. This is established SCOTUS precedent.

Thus you begin with either ignorance or an outright lie, expand either to fit your needs, and invite the kangaroo into the courtroom to support the preconceived outcome.

Instead of doing your usual misogynistic attack against BSG, (who, by the way, is repeating exactly what the federals appeals court ruled) - why not, as a lawyer, you poke holes in what THEY ruled and is going before the Supreme Court now? Tell us how THEY, the 3 judge bipartisan panel, are wrong?

 

[BrightShinyGirl]

His defense is that he, as the current President, was acting in his capacity as President when he addressed the people in attendance at the rally and is therefore immune.

What you don't understand, because you're a ninny, is that he was acting in his capacity as President because, AS PRESIDENT, he is always acting in that capacity regardless of where he is or what he is doing. This is established SCOTUS precedent.

Thus you begin with either ignorance or an outright lie, expand either to fit your needs, and invite the kangaroo into the courtroom to support the preconceived outcome.

The official duties of the President don’t include addressing a rally of your supporters.

By your reasoning, it’s not illegal for President Biden to accept bribes from China.

 

[Bn2f]

The official duties of the President don’t include addressing a rally of your supporters.

By your reasoning, it’s not illegal for President Biden to accept bribes from China.

I think he’s gone. He’s pulled an Elvis.
He’s a lawyer who enjoys giving a blustery opening statement, but cares nothing for cross examination.

 

[butters]

What specific case established that everything a President does is done as in their official duties of President?

That's ridiculous. If that were the case, Clinton lied under oath in his official capacity as President.

Lmao

i wonder if harpy would still defend trump if he had literally shot someone on 5th avenue whilst president as it being done under his official duties as a president? clearly it's a ridiculous stance but one that trump would happily see as the status quo just so long as he was president: he could then make quite sure he remained president for as long as he wanted, handing down his dynasty to family members in his wake.

 

[KeithD]

The fun thing is that the powers Trump wants connected to the presidency means he wouldn't have a problem with Biden sending a assassination team to wipe him out.

 

[HisArpy]

The official duties of the President don’t include addressing a rally of your supporters.

By your reasoning, it’s not illegal for President Biden to accept bribes from China.

The official duties of the President follow him wherever he goes, including the bathroom to take a dump. This is why the President can take flights on AF1 to political rallies. He's still the President and still on the job.

By your stupid and insipid thinking, the President is only the President when he's sitting behind the Resolute Desk. Which is worse than fucking stupid but, given who you are, totally expected.

 

[HisArpy]

The fun thing is that the powers Trump wants connected to the presidency means he wouldn't have a problem with Biden sending a assassination team to wipe him out.

True. Except there's a EO forbidding the President, or any member of the government, using assassination as a political tool or for political purpose. Thus, were Biden to do this, he'd be acting outside the authority of the office of the President.

So, you're correct in theory, wrong on the law and powers of the President.

 

[ll74]

True. Except there's a EO forbidding the President, or any member of the government, using assassination as a political tool or for political purpose. Thus, were Biden to do this, he'd be acting outside the authority of the office of the President.

So, you're correct in theory, wrong on the law and powers of the President.

So an executive order...... If only there was position that could revoke an executive order

 

[BrightShinyGirl]

True. Except there's a EO forbidding the President, or any member of the government, using assassination as a political tool or for political purpose. Thus, were Biden to do this, he'd be acting outside the authority of the office of the President.

So, you're correct in theory, wrong on the law and powers of the President.

Instead of killing Donald Trump, President Biden should just send some thugs to beat him up. That's not assassination, so it wouldn't run afoul of the executive order.

 

[HisArpy]

Instead of killing Donald Trump, President Biden should just send some thugs to beat him up. That's not assassination, so it wouldn't run afoul of the executive order.

Umm, yeah, if you say so.

I guess its perfectly fine in your world to use and encourage violence to ensure the outcome of an election. That's totally "free and fair," right?

And of course here we see a perfect example of how it's "the Right" which is the violent segment of our society... [/sarcasm]

 

[DeluxAuto]

Umm, yeah, if you say so.

I guess its perfectly fine in your world to use and encourage violence to ensure the outcome of an election. That's totally "free and fair," right?

Trump literally said he would pay for the lawyers if one of you MAGAts would beat people up.

Quit being so damn hypocritical, snowflake.

 

[Rightguide]

There is no cost to join NATO it's not a club.. There is no mention of that in the treaty. We signed the treaty we must honor the treaty. If you give your word then be a man of your word. Why is that so difficult to understand..

The NATO treaty does not explicitly mandate direct financial payments by individual member countries. However, national contributions play a crucial role in funding NATO’s activities. Here’s how it works:

1. National Contributions:
   • The largest component of NATO funding comes from national (or indirect) contributions borne by each member country.
   • These contributions include the forces and capabilities held by each nation, which can be provided to NATO for deterrence, defense activities, and military operations1.
2. 2% Guideline:
   
   • While not a strict requirement of the NATO treaty, an informal agreement among members exists.
   • According to this agreement, each member country aims to allocate at least 2% of its gross domestic product (GDP) to national defense or military spending2.
   • However, this guideline is not legally binding, and actual spending varies among member nations.
3. Voluntary Commitments:
   • NATO allies voluntarily choose to contribute troops, capabilities, and funding to the alliance.
   • The specific amount each country spends on its defense is not mandated but is guided by self-imposed standards and guidelines to ensure the alliance’s military preparedness3.

In summary, while NATO does not directly require financial payments, member countries’ contributions are essential for maintaining the alliance’s strength and security.

Learn more​

1nato.int2usafacts.org3abcnews.go.com4nato.int5gettyimages.com

So in essence the US is not required to spend any money and could refuse to provide monetary aid like 2/3ds of Nato members do as we speak. right?

 

[HisArpy]

Trump literally said he would pay for the lawyers if one of you MAGAts would beat people up.

Quit being so damn hypocritical, snowflake.

You poor misunderstood tiny dicked little fuckwad, if only there was someone who could set the world right about how you completely fail and SUCK at everything you've ever posted on Lit.

As for the rest of us, Trump wasn't President when he said that. Thus, not within the duties of the office of the President.

Nor is it illegal since people pay for the legal representation of others all the time.

So, tiny dicked little fuckwad, it's now been shown once again that you're an idiot. That you got a thumbs up from the ninny girl only makes it worse because she has yet to give approval for anything which isn't fucking idiotic on its face let alone application.

 

[ll74]

The NATO treaty does not explicitly mandate direct financial payments by individual member countries. However, national contributions play a crucial role in funding NATO’s activities. Here’s how it works:

1. National Contributions:
   • The largest component of NATO funding comes from national (or indirect) contributions borne by each member country.
   • These contributions include the forces and capabilities held by each nation, which can be provided to NATO for deterrence, defense activities, and military operations1.
2. 2% Guideline:
   
   • While not a strict requirement of the NATO treaty, an informal agreement among members exists.
   • According to this agreement, each member country aims to allocate at least 2% of its gross domestic product (GDP) to national defense or military spending2.
   • However, this guideline is not legally binding, and actual spending varies among member nations.
3. Voluntary Commitments:
   • NATO allies voluntarily choose to contribute troops, capabilities, and funding to the alliance.
   • The specific amount each country spends on its defense is not mandated but is guided by self-imposed standards and guidelines to ensure the alliance’s military preparedness3.

In summary, while NATO does not directly require financial payments, member countries’ contributions are essential for maintaining the alliance’s strength and security.

Learn more​

1nato.int2usafacts.org3abcnews.go.com4nato.int5gettyimages.com

So in essence the US is not required to spend any money and could refuse to provide monetary aid like 2/3ds of Nato members do as we speak. right?

NATO isn't a transactional body.

It's an alliance.

Your brain seems to understand loyalty to a man, but somehow malfunctions when it comes to allies.

 

[BrightShinyGirl]

Umm, yeah, if you say so.

I guess its perfectly fine in your world to use and encourage violence to ensure the outcome of an election. That's totally "free and fair," right?

And of course here we see a perfect example of how it's "the Right" which is the violent segment of our society... [/sarcasm]

It's a hypothetical. I don't want President Biden to order Donald Trump to be beaten to a bloody pulp. I was just pointing out that according to you it would be perfectly legal if he did so.

It fact, according to your theories, it would be perfectly legal for President Biden to order the Department of Justice to seize Donald Trump without evidence and hold him indefinitely without a trial.

 

[DeluxAuto]

You poor misunderstood tiny dicked little fuckwad, if only there was someone who could set the world right about how you completely fail and SUCK at everything you've ever posted on Lit.

As for the rest of us, Trump wasn't President when he said that. Thus, not within the duties of the office of the President.

Nor is it illegal since people pay for the legal representation of others all the time.

So, tiny dicked little fuckwad, it's now been shown once again that you're an idiot. That you got a thumbs up from the ninny girl only makes it worse because she has yet to give approval for anything which isn't fucking idiotic on its face let alone application.

You seem upset. Dumb people often express anger when caught in their hypocrisy.

BSG wasn't President when she suggested it so you just fucked your own MAGAt logic, Derpy.

As for my tiny dick, it is weighing heavy on your feeble mind right now. Why?

 

[DeluxAuto]

It's a hypothetical. I don't want President Biden to order Donald Trump to be beaten to a bloody pulp. I was just pointing out that according to you it would be perfectly legal if he did so.

It fact, according to your theories, it would be perfectly legal for President Biden to order the Department of Justice to seize Donald Trump without evidence and hold him indefinitely without a trial.

He doesn't get it. Or, he gets it but he's dug in and can't afford to admit he's 100% totally wrong.

 

[HisArpy]

It's a hypothetical. I don't want President Biden to order Donald Trump to be beaten to a bloody pulp. I was just pointing out that according to you it would be perfectly legal if he did so.

It fact, according to your theories, it would be perfectly legal for President Biden to order the Department of Justice to seize Donald Trump without evidence and hold him indefinitely without a trial.

It's a THREAT you fucking ass. It doesn't matter if you intend to carry it out, you just made a god damned threat against a former President.

And you just made it after being egged on by your own damned stupidity and the urging of the other fuckwits without brains who think that you can say/do anything on the internet with impunity.

And you just swallowed all that shit and spewed it out again because somehow you think it makes you cool. It doesn't.

 

[BrightShinyGirl]

It's a THREAT you fucking ass. It doesn't matter if you intend to carry it out, you just made a god damned threat against a former President.

And you just made it after being egged on by your own damned stupidity and the urging of the other fuckwits without brains who think that you can say/do anything on the internet with impunity.

And you just swallowed all that shit and spewed it out again because somehow you think it makes you cool. It doesn't.

I don't think you understand what legally constitutes a threat.

 

[DeluxAuto]

I don't think you understand what legally constitutes a threat.

He would do well to put you on ignore.

 

[HisArpy]

I don't think you understand what legally constitutes a threat.

I don't think you know what the fuck you're talking about.

A threat can be ANY statement of intent to harm another. ANY statement, even a purported hypothetical.

People have gone to jail and/or prison for LESS THAN what you just did so you really do need to shut the hell up.