SmaptyWolf said:

---

BBW12OG said:

---

And they rewrote laws in order to charge him.

This is nothing but political theatre and everyone with a functioning IQ knows it and also knows the appeals court will eventually dismiss with prejudice.

They want to tie him up in a long court battle to keep him off the campaign trail.

The left wants single party rule and you and your comrades know that.

You just don't have the moral fortitude to admit it.

---

OOOOOR... and here me out... your guy is just a huge crook who can't seem to stop criming.

"You can't indict me, I'm the President!"
"You can't indict me, I'm the former President!"
"You can't indict me, I'm running for President again!"

Ok, when should he have been indicted?

---

Oh, IDK, how about when he's actually broken a law. You and I both know this is nothing more than lawfare to keep him out of the White House. It's election interference. That's why all these DAs and Smith waited until now to pursue their case. To hamstring him from campaigning.

Now let me rattle my zipper so my personal stalker can weigh in with their foolishness.

BBW12OG said:

---

And they rewrote laws in order to charge him.

This is nothing but political theatre and everyone with a functioning IQ knows it and also knows the appeals court will eventually dismiss with prejudice.

They want to tie him up in a long court battle to keep him off the campaign trail.

The left wants single party rule and you and your comrades know that.

You just don't have the moral fortitude to admit it.

---

Does it appear his "court battle" is keeping him off the campaign trail?

Y'all have got to stop taking one of the most law-breaking first world nation leaders in history and using him as the example of why "lawcraft" is now going to become a thing.

Here's an idea: use as an example instead a Republican president that appears to be law-abiding (hint: that's almost all of them) and use THEM as an example of what's the normal or new normal instead.

This premise that Trump is getting pursued legally not because he crimes, but in actuality just because he's Republican, is laughable.

I mean, yeah maybe we should all be worried if you plan to keep plugging in sex and democracy-assaulting Republican presidents that try to overturn elections and obstruct lawful attempts to return nuclear secrets but unless you are I don't think we'll have a long-term lawfare problem.

The effects of Bidenomics
The rate of retail closures is up 30 percent over 2022, with total closures at 5,463

Eleven out of the last 13 jobs reports have been "revised downward," meaning the high number of jobs created was quietly reduced later when the real numbers became known.

11 out of the last 13 jobs reports have been revised down from the original headline-generating numbers.

The regime is cooking the books. pic.twitter.com/et1hbGRTkT

— End Wokeness (@EndWokeness) March 8, 2024

According to the Associated Press, evictions are fifty percent higher in some cities and overall, the rise is a disheartening 78.6 percent since 2021. The wire service added that there have been 970,000 evictions filed in the last year alone.

Also reported by the Associated Press, evictions have skyrocketed by 50 percent just since January.

The rate of personal bankruptcies is also jumping, up 13 percent since September of last year, according to federal data. Business bankruptcies are even worse, soaring almost 30 percent in the last six months, up from 13,125 to 17,051, the numbers show.

According to CBS News, homelessness has reached record numbers and is up sharply 12 percent over last year. Officials say that more than 650,000 people were homeless in January, the highest number ever seen since the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development has been tracking the issue.

Seems the answer to are you better off now than 4 years ago is indisputable

ncsupack1 said:

---

Civilized said:

---

ncsupack1 said:

---

Civilized said:

---

ncsupack1 said:

---

Oldsouljer said:

---

Civilized said:

---

caryking said:

---

Wufskins said:

---

caryking said:

---

Wufskins said:

---

caryking said:

---

SmaptyWolf said:

---

ncsupack1 said:

---

Gulfstream4 said:

---

Wufskins said:

---

SmaptyWolf said:

---

Wufskins said:

---

Maybe he shouldn't have done his criminal acts in Manhattan. Poor fella just can't catch a break.

---

Man, what has this country come to? It's getting so you can't even sleep with a porn star while your wife is home pregnant, and then pay the porn star off to keep quiet during an election.

I do bet Trump in retrospect regrets paying her off... turns out his evangelical base is really into that kinda thing.

---

Can't even grab em by the P or else you have to pay. Maybe he can buy another beauty pageant so he can stare at teenagers getting undressed.

---

You voted for Bill Clinton, correct?

---

You know what's coming, " it / that was different, nobody or anything is as bad as Trump ".

---

So Clinton getting a consensual blow job is exactly the same in your mind as Trump sexually assaulting women and bragging about it? Got it!

---

Assaulting? Wow! Everyone knows Trump has been a playboy in NYC, for a long time. But, sexually assaulting? Some of the comments about grabbing girls by the…. Thats probably is consensual as well. At least, that the way I interpreted that comment.

When I was younger, my mouth would say things I'm not proud of; however, that doesn't define the person I am.

John 8:7

When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, "Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her."

In other words, be careful what you say and condemn…. None of us are perfect!

---

Trump was found liable for sexual assault in a civil suit. He's having to pay a bunch of money for his itchy little fingers.

---

And… so was OJ.

---

I'm not sure being compared to oj is the gotcha you thought

---

No gotcha at all. Just pointing a fact. BTW, Trump was never convicted in a criminal case on this.

---

Neither was OJ, yet the civil jury and the rest of us all know he did it.

---

And yet, Stephen A. Smith of all people, points out rightly that Trump has no business being in court on these charges, and that these partisan prosecutors have dragged Trump into court for the sole purpose of dragging him into court.
https://redstate.com/bobhoge/2024/04/16/sportscaster-stephen-a-smith-brings-some-hard-truth-to-demstrump-trial-is-only-because-theyre-scared-n2172885

---

I'm no Trump fan but at this point it's pretty obvious that people want to see Trump in a courtroom. Political at this point.

---

Isn't there a very cogent argument to be made that Trump deserves to be in a courtroom?

The hush money case is the case with perhaps the weakest argument for being tried criminally but an adequate case was made before the Grand Jury.

But looking at the document obstruction case and the Georgia election case, it seems abundantly clear there are sound legal cases to be made that he broke the law.

Not trying a past president because he's a past president, or may become a future one, is just as political a decision as trying him purely to see him suffer political consequences.

Is your argument to not get him in a courtroom because you think he's innocent of these charges?

Because if your argument is, he's maybe or probably guilty but we should look the other way because of who he is, that's not a sound argument.

---

What I don't want is parties / DAs going after former presidents to gain political points. We've already seen and heard that this is going to happen because of what Trumps supporters want if or when they have the power. That's not what we do in this country. Like it or not my fear is that this will become the norm. To think otherwise is naive. Let's be honest, almost all of these politicians have done something shady or illegal in their past, so digging up something won't be hard. I don't want this to become the norm.

---

There are checks and balances and disincentives for this type of behavior though.

It's the same reason I don't freak out about the generational shift to the right in the Supreme Court, or the prospect of another Trump presidency, especially one that may well be dominated by seeking revenge. None of the actors involved in these actions are unbound by the constraints of precedent, law, other governmental branches, etc.

There are checks and natural consequences for DA's pursuing truly trivial cases. Judges and DA's prefer to avoid the embarrassment of getting cases tossed, or having verdicts overturned in appellate court. But if they don't heed their reputational harm avoidance instinct, there are guardrails in place that will limit their ability to act outside the law.

And frankly I think politicians knowing that they can't get away with illegal bull**** behavior benefits the public and our country more than the prospect of rogue DA's or judges or juries somehow being able to consistently get away with pursuing frivolous charges against future politicians.

Do you really think if Nikki Haley was president, we'd see DA's in blue cities and states charging her with BS crimes? They'd look like complete idiots without there being underlying evidence supporting such cases.

---

So you are saying that this is a one off? I'm talking about BOTH sides will more than likely continue this. The Trump folks have already said that given the opportunity they will, then guess what Dems will have to have their pound of flesh. Sorry but I don't see this stopping with Trump, this is a mistake that the Dems are over looking.

---

Yep, that's exactly what I'm saying.

It makes no sense to worry about lawfare on both sides, no matter who's in office, when the ONE president that's been "treated this way" is also the ONE president that's been accused of sex assault 27 times and been found civilly liable of the same; obstructed lawful attempts to return top secret docs; that encouraged January 6; that concocted a huge lie about fake election fraud because he couldn't stand to lose; and that then legitimately tried to overturn a Presidential election.

Shouldn't we see just one politician that doesn't misbehave in such otherworldly ways be pursued legally for apparently frivolous charges before we start worrying that EVERY politician will be pursued in such ways?

Agree to disagree

ncsupack1 said:

---

Civilized said:

---

ncsupack1 said:

---

Civilized said:

---

ncsupack1 said:

---

Oldsouljer said:

---

Civilized said:

---

caryking said:

---

Wufskins said:

---

caryking said:

---

Wufskins said:

---

caryking said:

---

SmaptyWolf said:

---

ncsupack1 said:

---

Gulfstream4 said:

---

Wufskins said:

---

SmaptyWolf said:

---

Wufskins said:

---

Maybe he shouldn't have done his criminal acts in Manhattan. Poor fella just can't catch a break.

---

Man, what has this country come to? It's getting so you can't even sleep with a porn star while your wife is home pregnant, and then pay the porn star off to keep quiet during an election.

I do bet Trump in retrospect regrets paying her off... turns out his evangelical base is really into that kinda thing.

---

Can't even grab em by the P or else you have to pay. Maybe he can buy another beauty pageant so he can stare at teenagers getting undressed.

---

You voted for Bill Clinton, correct?

---

You know what's coming, " it / that was different, nobody or anything is as bad as Trump ".

---

So Clinton getting a consensual blow job is exactly the same in your mind as Trump sexually assaulting women and bragging about it? Got it!

---

Assaulting? Wow! Everyone knows Trump has been a playboy in NYC, for a long time. But, sexually assaulting? Some of the comments about grabbing girls by the…. Thats probably is consensual as well. At least, that the way I interpreted that comment.

When I was younger, my mouth would say things I'm not proud of; however, that doesn't define the person I am.

John 8:7

When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, "Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her."

In other words, be careful what you say and condemn…. None of us are perfect!

---

Trump was found liable for sexual assault in a civil suit. He's having to pay a bunch of money for his itchy little fingers.

---

And… so was OJ.

---

I'm not sure being compared to oj is the gotcha you thought

---

No gotcha at all. Just pointing a fact. BTW, Trump was never convicted in a criminal case on this.

---

Neither was OJ, yet the civil jury and the rest of us all know he did it.

---

And yet, Stephen A. Smith of all people, points out rightly that Trump has no business being in court on these charges, and that these partisan prosecutors have dragged Trump into court for the sole purpose of dragging him into court.
https://redstate.com/bobhoge/2024/04/16/sportscaster-stephen-a-smith-brings-some-hard-truth-to-demstrump-trial-is-only-because-theyre-scared-n2172885

---

I'm no Trump fan but at this point it's pretty obvious that people want to see Trump in a courtroom. Political at this point.

---

Isn't there a very cogent argument to be made that Trump deserves to be in a courtroom?

The hush money case is the case with perhaps the weakest argument for being tried criminally but an adequate case was made before the Grand Jury.

But looking at the document obstruction case and the Georgia election case, it seems abundantly clear there are sound legal cases to be made that he broke the law.

Not trying a past president because he's a past president, or may become a future one, is just as political a decision as trying him purely to see him suffer political consequences.

Is your argument to not get him in a courtroom because you think he's innocent of these charges?

Because if your argument is, he's maybe or probably guilty but we should look the other way because of who he is, that's not a sound argument.

---

What I don't want is parties / DAs going after former presidents to gain political points. We've already seen and heard that this is going to happen because of what Trumps supporters want if or when they have the power. That's not what we do in this country. Like it or not my fear is that this will become the norm. To think otherwise is naive. Let's be honest, almost all of these politicians have done something shady or illegal in their past, so digging up something won't be hard. I don't want this to become the norm.

---

There are checks and balances and disincentives for this type of behavior though.

It's the same reason I don't freak out about the generational shift to the right in the Supreme Court, or the prospect of another Trump presidency, especially one that may well be dominated by seeking revenge. None of the actors involved in these actions are unbound by the constraints of precedent, law, other governmental branches, etc.

There are checks and natural consequences for DA's pursuing truly trivial cases. Judges and DA's prefer to avoid the embarrassment of getting cases tossed, or having verdicts overturned in appellate court. But if they don't heed their reputational harm avoidance instinct, there are guardrails in place that will limit their ability to act outside the law.

And frankly I think politicians knowing that they can't get away with illegal bull**** behavior benefits the public and our country more than the prospect of rogue DA's or judges or juries somehow being able to consistently get away with pursuing frivolous charges against future politicians.

Do you really think if Nikki Haley was president, we'd see DA's in blue cities and states charging her with BS crimes? They'd look like complete idiots without there being underlying evidence supporting such cases.

---

So you are saying that this is a one off? I'm talking about BOTH sides will more than likely continue this. The Trump folks have already said that given the opportunity they will, then guess what Dems will have to have their pound of flesh. Sorry but I don't see this stopping with Trump, this is a mistake that the Dems are over looking.

---

Wait until Crying Chuck dismisses the impeachment articles without a trial..... and then the GOP does the same when the libbies impeach someone....

Remember Harry Reid doing away with the 60 vote threshold for judges?

What happened when the GOP did the same?

I believe that is why foreskins, civ and the dipsheet want to "expand" the SCOTUS because it is "illegitimate."

They have nothing but lies and hypocrisy. Says a lot about the character of those who support them.

Oldsouljer said:

---

Civilized said:

---

ncsupack1 said:

---

Civilized said:

---

ncsupack1 said:

---

Civilized said:

---

ncsupack1 said:

---

Oldsouljer said:

---

Civilized said:

---

caryking said:

---

Wufskins said:

---

caryking said:

---

Wufskins said:

---

caryking said:

---

SmaptyWolf said:

---

ncsupack1 said:

---

Gulfstream4 said:

---

Wufskins said:

---

SmaptyWolf said:

---

Wufskins said:

---

Maybe he shouldn't have done his criminal acts in Manhattan. Poor fella just can't catch a break.

---

Man, what has this country come to? It's getting so you can't even sleep with a porn star while your wife is home pregnant, and then pay the porn star off to keep quiet during an election.

I do bet Trump in retrospect regrets paying her off... turns out his evangelical base is really into that kinda thing.

---

Can't even grab em by the P or else you have to pay. Maybe he can buy another beauty pageant so he can stare at teenagers getting undressed.

---

You voted for Bill Clinton, correct?

---

You know what's coming, " it / that was different, nobody or anything is as bad as Trump ".

---

So Clinton getting a consensual blow job is exactly the same in your mind as Trump sexually assaulting women and bragging about it? Got it!

---

Assaulting? Wow! Everyone knows Trump has been a playboy in NYC, for a long time. But, sexually assaulting? Some of the comments about grabbing girls by the…. Thats probably is consensual as well. At least, that the way I interpreted that comment.

When I was younger, my mouth would say things I'm not proud of; however, that doesn't define the person I am.

John 8:7

When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, "Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her."

In other words, be careful what you say and condemn…. None of us are perfect!

---

Trump was found liable for sexual assault in a civil suit. He's having to pay a bunch of money for his itchy little fingers.

---

And… so was OJ.

---

I'm not sure being compared to oj is the gotcha you thought

---

No gotcha at all. Just pointing a fact. BTW, Trump was never convicted in a criminal case on this.

---

Neither was OJ, yet the civil jury and the rest of us all know he did it.

---

And yet, Stephen A. Smith of all people, points out rightly that Trump has no business being in court on these charges, and that these partisan prosecutors have dragged Trump into court for the sole purpose of dragging him into court.
https://redstate.com/bobhoge/2024/04/16/sportscaster-stephen-a-smith-brings-some-hard-truth-to-demstrump-trial-is-only-because-theyre-scared-n2172885

---

I'm no Trump fan but at this point it's pretty obvious that people want to see Trump in a courtroom. Political at this point.

---

Isn't there a very cogent argument to be made that Trump deserves to be in a courtroom?

The hush money case is the case with perhaps the weakest argument for being tried criminally but an adequate case was made before the Grand Jury.

But looking at the document obstruction case and the Georgia election case, it seems abundantly clear there are sound legal cases to be made that he broke the law.

Not trying a past president because he's a past president, or may become a future one, is just as political a decision as trying him purely to see him suffer political consequences.

Is your argument to not get him in a courtroom because you think he's innocent of these charges?

Because if your argument is, he's maybe or probably guilty but we should look the other way because of who he is, that's not a sound argument.

---

What I don't want is parties / DAs going after former presidents to gain political points. We've already seen and heard that this is going to happen because of what Trumps supporters want if or when they have the power. That's not what we do in this country. Like it or not my fear is that this will become the norm. To think otherwise is naive. Let's be honest, almost all of these politicians have done something shady or illegal in their past, so digging up something won't be hard. I don't want this to become the norm.

---

There are checks and balances and disincentives for this type of behavior though.

It's the same reason I don't freak out about the generational shift to the right in the Supreme Court, or the prospect of another Trump presidency, especially one that may well be dominated by seeking revenge. None of the actors involved in these actions are unbound by the constraints of precedent, law, other governmental branches, etc.

There are checks and natural consequences for DA's pursuing truly trivial cases. Judges and DA's prefer to avoid the embarrassment of getting cases tossed, or having verdicts overturned in appellate court. But if they don't heed their reputational harm avoidance instinct, there are guardrails in place that will limit their ability to act outside the law.

And frankly I think politicians knowing that they can't get away with illegal bull**** behavior benefits the public and our country more than the prospect of rogue DA's or judges or juries somehow being able to consistently get away with pursuing frivolous charges against future politicians.

Do you really think if Nikki Haley was president, we'd see DA's in blue cities and states charging her with BS crimes? They'd look like complete idiots without there being underlying evidence supporting such cases.

---

So you are saying that this is a one off? I'm talking about BOTH sides will more than likely continue this. The Trump folks have already said that given the opportunity they will, then guess what Dems will have to have their pound of flesh. Sorry but I don't see this stopping with Trump, this is a mistake that the Dems are over looking.

---

Yep, that's exactly what I'm saying.

It makes no sense to worry about lawfare on both sides, no matter who's in office, when the ONE president that's been "treated this way" is also the ONE president that's been accused of sex assault 27 times and been found civilly liable of the same; obstructed lawful attempts to return top secret docs; that encouraged January 6; that concocted a huge lie about fake election fraud because he couldn't stand to lose; and that then legitimately tried to overturn a Presidential election.

Shouldn't we see just one politician that doesn't misbehave in such otherworldly ways be pursued legally for apparently frivolous charges before we start worrying that EVERY politician will be pursued in such ways?

---

Ok, but Clinton is at the head of the line, Trump should have to wait.

---

How much did Clinton pay? To just one of 7? $900k?

Guess that was "OK..."

Civilized said:

---

ncsupack1 said:

---

Civilized said:

---

ncsupack1 said:

---

Oldsouljer said:

---

Civilized said:

---

caryking said:

---

Wufskins said:

---

caryking said:

---

Wufskins said:

---

caryking said:

---

SmaptyWolf said:

---

ncsupack1 said:

---

Gulfstream4 said:

---

Wufskins said:

---

SmaptyWolf said:

---

Wufskins said:

---

Maybe he shouldn't have done his criminal acts in Manhattan. Poor fella just can't catch a break.

---

Man, what has this country come to? It's getting so you can't even sleep with a porn star while your wife is home pregnant, and then pay the porn star off to keep quiet during an election.

I do bet Trump in retrospect regrets paying her off... turns out his evangelical base is really into that kinda thing.

---

Can't even grab em by the P or else you have to pay. Maybe he can buy another beauty pageant so he can stare at teenagers getting undressed.

---

You voted for Bill Clinton, correct?

---

You know what's coming, " it / that was different, nobody or anything is as bad as Trump ".

---

So Clinton getting a consensual blow job is exactly the same in your mind as Trump sexually assaulting women and bragging about it? Got it!

---

Assaulting? Wow! Everyone knows Trump has been a playboy in NYC, for a long time. But, sexually assaulting? Some of the comments about grabbing girls by the…. Thats probably is consensual as well. At least, that the way I interpreted that comment.

When I was younger, my mouth would say things I'm not proud of; however, that doesn't define the person I am.

John 8:7

When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, "Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her."

In other words, be careful what you say and condemn…. None of us are perfect!

---

Trump was found liable for sexual assault in a civil suit. He's having to pay a bunch of money for his itchy little fingers.

---

And… so was OJ.

---

I'm not sure being compared to oj is the gotcha you thought

---

No gotcha at all. Just pointing a fact. BTW, Trump was never convicted in a criminal case on this.

---

Neither was OJ, yet the civil jury and the rest of us all know he did it.

---

And yet, Stephen A. Smith of all people, points out rightly that Trump has no business being in court on these charges, and that these partisan prosecutors have dragged Trump into court for the sole purpose of dragging him into court.
https://redstate.com/bobhoge/2024/04/16/sportscaster-stephen-a-smith-brings-some-hard-truth-to-demstrump-trial-is-only-because-theyre-scared-n2172885

---

I'm no Trump fan but at this point it's pretty obvious that people want to see Trump in a courtroom. Political at this point.

---

Isn't there a very cogent argument to be made that Trump deserves to be in a courtroom?

The hush money case is the case with perhaps the weakest argument for being tried criminally but an adequate case was made before the Grand Jury.

But looking at the document obstruction case and the Georgia election case, it seems abundantly clear there are sound legal cases to be made that he broke the law.

Not trying a past president because he's a past president, or may become a future one, is just as political a decision as trying him purely to see him suffer political consequences.

Is your argument to not get him in a courtroom because you think he's innocent of these charges?

Because if your argument is, he's maybe or probably guilty but we should look the other way because of who he is, that's not a sound argument.

---

What I don't want is parties / DAs going after former presidents to gain political points. We've already seen and heard that this is going to happen because of what Trumps supporters want if or when they have the power. That's not what we do in this country. Like it or not my fear is that this will become the norm. To think otherwise is naive. Let's be honest, almost all of these politicians have done something shady or illegal in their past, so digging up something won't be hard. I don't want this to become the norm.

---

There are checks and balances and disincentives for this type of behavior though.

It's the same reason I don't freak out about the generational shift to the right in the Supreme Court, or the prospect of another Trump presidency, especially one that may well be dominated by seeking revenge. None of the actors involved in these actions are unbound by the constraints of precedent, law, other governmental branches, etc.

There are checks and natural consequences for DA's pursuing truly trivial cases. Judges and DA's prefer to avoid the embarrassment of getting cases tossed, or having verdicts overturned in appellate court. But if they don't heed their reputational harm avoidance instinct, there are guardrails in place that will limit their ability to act outside the law.

And frankly I think politicians knowing that they can't get away with illegal bull**** behavior benefits the public and our country more than the prospect of rogue DA's or judges or juries somehow being able to consistently get away with pursuing frivolous charges against future politicians.

Do you really think if Nikki Haley was president, we'd see DA's in blue cities and states charging her with BS crimes? They'd look like complete idiots without there being underlying evidence supporting such cases.

---

and yet... the Solicator General was arguing, yesterday, that a law states something it doesn't without any precidence...

BBW12OG said:

---

Oldsouljer said:

---

Civilized said:

---

ncsupack1 said:

---

Civilized said:

---

ncsupack1 said:

---

Civilized said:

---

ncsupack1 said:

---

Oldsouljer said:

---

Civilized said:

---

caryking said:

---

Wufskins said:

---

caryking said:

---

Wufskins said:

---

caryking said:

---

SmaptyWolf said:

---

ncsupack1 said:

---

Gulfstream4 said:

---

Wufskins said:

---

SmaptyWolf said:

---

Wufskins said:

---

Maybe he shouldn't have done his criminal acts in Manhattan. Poor fella just can't catch a break.

---

Man, what has this country come to? It's getting so you can't even sleep with a porn star while your wife is home pregnant, and then pay the porn star off to keep quiet during an election.

I do bet Trump in retrospect regrets paying her off... turns out his evangelical base is really into that kinda thing.

---

Can't even grab em by the P or else you have to pay. Maybe he can buy another beauty pageant so he can stare at teenagers getting undressed.

---

You voted for Bill Clinton, correct?

---

You know what's coming, " it / that was different, nobody or anything is as bad as Trump ".

---

So Clinton getting a consensual blow job is exactly the same in your mind as Trump sexually assaulting women and bragging about it? Got it!

---

Assaulting? Wow! Everyone knows Trump has been a playboy in NYC, for a long time. But, sexually assaulting? Some of the comments about grabbing girls by the…. Thats probably is consensual as well. At least, that the way I interpreted that comment.

When I was younger, my mouth would say things I'm not proud of; however, that doesn't define the person I am.

John 8:7

When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, "Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her."

In other words, be careful what you say and condemn…. None of us are perfect!

---

Trump was found liable for sexual assault in a civil suit. He's having to pay a bunch of money for his itchy little fingers.

---

And… so was OJ.

---

I'm not sure being compared to oj is the gotcha you thought

---

No gotcha at all. Just pointing a fact. BTW, Trump was never convicted in a criminal case on this.

---

Neither was OJ, yet the civil jury and the rest of us all know he did it.

---

And yet, Stephen A. Smith of all people, points out rightly that Trump has no business being in court on these charges, and that these partisan prosecutors have dragged Trump into court for the sole purpose of dragging him into court.
https://redstate.com/bobhoge/2024/04/16/sportscaster-stephen-a-smith-brings-some-hard-truth-to-demstrump-trial-is-only-because-theyre-scared-n2172885

---

I'm no Trump fan but at this point it's pretty obvious that people want to see Trump in a courtroom. Political at this point.

---

Isn't there a very cogent argument to be made that Trump deserves to be in a courtroom?

The hush money case is the case with perhaps the weakest argument for being tried criminally but an adequate case was made before the Grand Jury.

But looking at the document obstruction case and the Georgia election case, it seems abundantly clear there are sound legal cases to be made that he broke the law.

Not trying a past president because he's a past president, or may become a future one, is just as political a decision as trying him purely to see him suffer political consequences.

Is your argument to not get him in a courtroom because you think he's innocent of these charges?

Because if your argument is, he's maybe or probably guilty but we should look the other way because of who he is, that's not a sound argument.

---

What I don't want is parties / DAs going after former presidents to gain political points. We've already seen and heard that this is going to happen because of what Trumps supporters want if or when they have the power. That's not what we do in this country. Like it or not my fear is that this will become the norm. To think otherwise is naive. Let's be honest, almost all of these politicians have done something shady or illegal in their past, so digging up something won't be hard. I don't want this to become the norm.

---

There are checks and balances and disincentives for this type of behavior though.

It's the same reason I don't freak out about the generational shift to the right in the Supreme Court, or the prospect of another Trump presidency, especially one that may well be dominated by seeking revenge. None of the actors involved in these actions are unbound by the constraints of precedent, law, other governmental branches, etc.

There are checks and natural consequences for DA's pursuing truly trivial cases. Judges and DA's prefer to avoid the embarrassment of getting cases tossed, or having verdicts overturned in appellate court. But if they don't heed their reputational harm avoidance instinct, there are guardrails in place that will limit their ability to act outside the law.

And frankly I think politicians knowing that they can't get away with illegal bull**** behavior benefits the public and our country more than the prospect of rogue DA's or judges or juries somehow being able to consistently get away with pursuing frivolous charges against future politicians.

Do you really think if Nikki Haley was president, we'd see DA's in blue cities and states charging her with BS crimes? They'd look like complete idiots without there being underlying evidence supporting such cases.

---

So you are saying that this is a one off? I'm talking about BOTH sides will more than likely continue this. The Trump folks have already said that given the opportunity they will, then guess what Dems will have to have their pound of flesh. Sorry but I don't see this stopping with Trump, this is a mistake that the Dems are over looking.

---

Yep, that's exactly what I'm saying.

It makes no sense to worry about lawfare on both sides, no matter who's in office, when the ONE president that's been "treated this way" is also the ONE president that's been accused of sex assault 27 times and been found civilly liable of the same; obstructed lawful attempts to return top secret docs; that encouraged January 6; that concocted a huge lie about fake election fraud because he couldn't stand to lose; and that then legitimately tried to overturn a Presidential election.

Shouldn't we see just one politician that doesn't misbehave in such otherworldly ways be pursued legally for apparently frivolous charges before we start worrying that EVERY politician will be pursued in such ways?

---

Ok, but Clinton is at the head of the line, Trump should have to wait.

---

How much did Clinton pay? To just one of 7? $900k?

Guess that was "OK..."

---

I don't know about his individual payouts. He was fined $25,000 in Arkansas and had his law license suspended for five years and was disbarred from any practice before the Supreme Court.

caryking said:

---

Civilized said:

---

ncsupack1 said:

---

Civilized said:

---

ncsupack1 said:

---

Oldsouljer said:

---

Civilized said:

---

caryking said:

---

Wufskins said:

---

caryking said:

---

Wufskins said:

---

caryking said:

---

SmaptyWolf said:

---

ncsupack1 said:

---

Gulfstream4 said:

---

Wufskins said:

---

SmaptyWolf said:

---

Wufskins said:

---

Maybe he shouldn't have done his criminal acts in Manhattan. Poor fella just can't catch a break.

---

Man, what has this country come to? It's getting so you can't even sleep with a porn star while your wife is home pregnant, and then pay the porn star off to keep quiet during an election.

I do bet Trump in retrospect regrets paying her off... turns out his evangelical base is really into that kinda thing.

---

Can't even grab em by the P or else you have to pay. Maybe he can buy another beauty pageant so he can stare at teenagers getting undressed.

---

You voted for Bill Clinton, correct?

---

You know what's coming, " it / that was different, nobody or anything is as bad as Trump ".

---

So Clinton getting a consensual blow job is exactly the same in your mind as Trump sexually assaulting women and bragging about it? Got it!

---

Assaulting? Wow! Everyone knows Trump has been a playboy in NYC, for a long time. But, sexually assaulting? Some of the comments about grabbing girls by the…. Thats probably is consensual as well. At least, that the way I interpreted that comment.

When I was younger, my mouth would say things I'm not proud of; however, that doesn't define the person I am.

John 8:7

When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, "Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her."

In other words, be careful what you say and condemn…. None of us are perfect!

---

Trump was found liable for sexual assault in a civil suit. He's having to pay a bunch of money for his itchy little fingers.

---

And… so was OJ.

---

I'm not sure being compared to oj is the gotcha you thought

---

No gotcha at all. Just pointing a fact. BTW, Trump was never convicted in a criminal case on this.

---

Neither was OJ, yet the civil jury and the rest of us all know he did it.

---

And yet, Stephen A. Smith of all people, points out rightly that Trump has no business being in court on these charges, and that these partisan prosecutors have dragged Trump into court for the sole purpose of dragging him into court.
https://redstate.com/bobhoge/2024/04/16/sportscaster-stephen-a-smith-brings-some-hard-truth-to-demstrump-trial-is-only-because-theyre-scared-n2172885

---

I'm no Trump fan but at this point it's pretty obvious that people want to see Trump in a courtroom. Political at this point.

---

Isn't there a very cogent argument to be made that Trump deserves to be in a courtroom?

The hush money case is the case with perhaps the weakest argument for being tried criminally but an adequate case was made before the Grand Jury.

But looking at the document obstruction case and the Georgia election case, it seems abundantly clear there are sound legal cases to be made that he broke the law.

Not trying a past president because he's a past president, or may become a future one, is just as political a decision as trying him purely to see him suffer political consequences.

Is your argument to not get him in a courtroom because you think he's innocent of these charges?

Because if your argument is, he's maybe or probably guilty but we should look the other way because of who he is, that's not a sound argument.

---

What I don't want is parties / DAs going after former presidents to gain political points. We've already seen and heard that this is going to happen because of what Trumps supporters want if or when they have the power. That's not what we do in this country. Like it or not my fear is that this will become the norm. To think otherwise is naive. Let's be honest, almost all of these politicians have done something shady or illegal in their past, so digging up something won't be hard. I don't want this to become the norm.

---

There are checks and balances and disincentives for this type of behavior though.

It's the same reason I don't freak out about the generational shift to the right in the Supreme Court, or the prospect of another Trump presidency, especially one that may well be dominated by seeking revenge. None of the actors involved in these actions are unbound by the constraints of precedent, law, other governmental branches, etc.

There are checks and natural consequences for DA's pursuing truly trivial cases. Judges and DA's prefer to avoid the embarrassment of getting cases tossed, or having verdicts overturned in appellate court. But if they don't heed their reputational harm avoidance instinct, there are guardrails in place that will limit their ability to act outside the law.

And frankly I think politicians knowing that they can't get away with illegal bull**** behavior benefits the public and our country more than the prospect of rogue DA's or judges or juries somehow being able to consistently get away with pursuing frivolous charges against future politicians.

Do you really think if Nikki Haley was president, we'd see DA's in blue cities and states charging her with BS crimes? They'd look like complete idiots without there being underlying evidence supporting such cases.

---

and yet... the Solicator General was arguing, yesterday, that a law states something it doesn't without any precidence...

---

And if that argument has no legal merit, it will get checked by a judge's motion/the trial verdict/the verdict appeal.

Oldsouljer said:

---

BBW12OG said:

---

Oldsouljer said:

---

Civilized said:

---

ncsupack1 said:

---

Civilized said:

---

ncsupack1 said:

---

Civilized said:

---

ncsupack1 said:

---

Oldsouljer said:

---

Civilized said:

---

caryking said:

---

Wufskins said:

---

caryking said:

---

Wufskins said:

---

caryking said:

---

SmaptyWolf said:

---

ncsupack1 said:

---

Gulfstream4 said:

---

Wufskins said:

---

SmaptyWolf said:

---

Wufskins said:

---

Maybe he shouldn't have done his criminal acts in Manhattan. Poor fella just can't catch a break.

---

Man, what has this country come to? It's getting so you can't even sleep with a porn star while your wife is home pregnant, and then pay the porn star off to keep quiet during an election.

I do bet Trump in retrospect regrets paying her off... turns out his evangelical base is really into that kinda thing.

---

Can't even grab em by the P or else you have to pay. Maybe he can buy another beauty pageant so he can stare at teenagers getting undressed.

---

You voted for Bill Clinton, correct?

---

You know what's coming, " it / that was different, nobody or anything is as bad as Trump ".

---

So Clinton getting a consensual blow job is exactly the same in your mind as Trump sexually assaulting women and bragging about it? Got it!

---

Assaulting? Wow! Everyone knows Trump has been a playboy in NYC, for a long time. But, sexually assaulting? Some of the comments about grabbing girls by the…. Thats probably is consensual as well. At least, that the way I interpreted that comment.

When I was younger, my mouth would say things I'm not proud of; however, that doesn't define the person I am.

John 8:7

When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, "Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her."

In other words, be careful what you say and condemn…. None of us are perfect!

---

Trump was found liable for sexual assault in a civil suit. He's having to pay a bunch of money for his itchy little fingers.

---

And… so was OJ.

---

I'm not sure being compared to oj is the gotcha you thought

---

No gotcha at all. Just pointing a fact. BTW, Trump was never convicted in a criminal case on this.

---

Neither was OJ, yet the civil jury and the rest of us all know he did it.

---

And yet, Stephen A. Smith of all people, points out rightly that Trump has no business being in court on these charges, and that these partisan prosecutors have dragged Trump into court for the sole purpose of dragging him into court.
https://redstate.com/bobhoge/2024/04/16/sportscaster-stephen-a-smith-brings-some-hard-truth-to-demstrump-trial-is-only-because-theyre-scared-n2172885

---

I'm no Trump fan but at this point it's pretty obvious that people want to see Trump in a courtroom. Political at this point.

---

Isn't there a very cogent argument to be made that Trump deserves to be in a courtroom?

The hush money case is the case with perhaps the weakest argument for being tried criminally but an adequate case was made before the Grand Jury.

But looking at the document obstruction case and the Georgia election case, it seems abundantly clear there are sound legal cases to be made that he broke the law.

Not trying a past president because he's a past president, or may become a future one, is just as political a decision as trying him purely to see him suffer political consequences.

Is your argument to not get him in a courtroom because you think he's innocent of these charges?

Because if your argument is, he's maybe or probably guilty but we should look the other way because of who he is, that's not a sound argument.

---

What I don't want is parties / DAs going after former presidents to gain political points. We've already seen and heard that this is going to happen because of what Trumps supporters want if or when they have the power. That's not what we do in this country. Like it or not my fear is that this will become the norm. To think otherwise is naive. Let's be honest, almost all of these politicians have done something shady or illegal in their past, so digging up something won't be hard. I don't want this to become the norm.

---

There are checks and balances and disincentives for this type of behavior though.

It's the same reason I don't freak out about the generational shift to the right in the Supreme Court, or the prospect of another Trump presidency, especially one that may well be dominated by seeking revenge. None of the actors involved in these actions are unbound by the constraints of precedent, law, other governmental branches, etc.

There are checks and natural consequences for DA's pursuing truly trivial cases. Judges and DA's prefer to avoid the embarrassment of getting cases tossed, or having verdicts overturned in appellate court. But if they don't heed their reputational harm avoidance instinct, there are guardrails in place that will limit their ability to act outside the law.

And frankly I think politicians knowing that they can't get away with illegal bull**** behavior benefits the public and our country more than the prospect of rogue DA's or judges or juries somehow being able to consistently get away with pursuing frivolous charges against future politicians.

Do you really think if Nikki Haley was president, we'd see DA's in blue cities and states charging her with BS crimes? They'd look like complete idiots without there being underlying evidence supporting such cases.

---

So you are saying that this is a one off? I'm talking about BOTH sides will more than likely continue this. The Trump folks have already said that given the opportunity they will, then guess what Dems will have to have their pound of flesh. Sorry but I don't see this stopping with Trump, this is a mistake that the Dems are over looking.

---

Yep, that's exactly what I'm saying.

It makes no sense to worry about lawfare on both sides, no matter who's in office, when the ONE president that's been "treated this way" is also the ONE president that's been accused of sex assault 27 times and been found civilly liable of the same; obstructed lawful attempts to return top secret docs; that encouraged January 6; that concocted a huge lie about fake election fraud because he couldn't stand to lose; and that then legitimately tried to overturn a Presidential election.

Shouldn't we see just one politician that doesn't misbehave in such otherworldly ways be pursued legally for apparently frivolous charges before we start worrying that EVERY politician will be pursued in such ways?

---

Ok, but Clinton is at the head of the line, Trump should have to wait.

---

How much did Clinton pay? To just one of 7? $900k?

Guess that was "OK..."

---

I don't know about his individual payouts. He was fined $25,000 in Arkansas and had his law license suspended for five years and was disbarred from any practice before the Supreme Court.

---

Probably referring to the $850k Paula Jones out of court settlement.

caryking said:

---

Civilized said:

---

caryking said:

---

Civilized said:

---

ncsupack1 said:

---

Civilized said:

---

ncsupack1 said:

---

Oldsouljer said:

---

Civilized said:

---

caryking said:

---

Wufskins said:

---

caryking said:

---

Wufskins said:

---

caryking said:

---

SmaptyWolf said:

---

ncsupack1 said:

---

Gulfstream4 said:

---

Wufskins said:

---

SmaptyWolf said:

---

Wufskins said:

---

Maybe he shouldn't have done his criminal acts in Manhattan. Poor fella just can't catch a break.

---

Man, what has this country come to? It's getting so you can't even sleep with a porn star while your wife is home pregnant, and then pay the porn star off to keep quiet during an election.

I do bet Trump in retrospect regrets paying her off... turns out his evangelical base is really into that kinda thing.

---

Can't even grab em by the P or else you have to pay. Maybe he can buy another beauty pageant so he can stare at teenagers getting undressed.

---

You voted for Bill Clinton, correct?

---

You know what's coming, " it / that was different, nobody or anything is as bad as Trump ".

---

So Clinton getting a consensual blow job is exactly the same in your mind as Trump sexually assaulting women and bragging about it? Got it!

---

Assaulting? Wow! Everyone knows Trump has been a playboy in NYC, for a long time. But, sexually assaulting? Some of the comments about grabbing girls by the…. Thats probably is consensual as well. At least, that the way I interpreted that comment.

When I was younger, my mouth would say things I'm not proud of; however, that doesn't define the person I am.

John 8:7

When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, "Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her."

In other words, be careful what you say and condemn…. None of us are perfect!

---

Trump was found liable for sexual assault in a civil suit. He's having to pay a bunch of money for his itchy little fingers.

---

And… so was OJ.

---

I'm not sure being compared to oj is the gotcha you thought

---

No gotcha at all. Just pointing a fact. BTW, Trump was never convicted in a criminal case on this.

---

Neither was OJ, yet the civil jury and the rest of us all know he did it.

---

And yet, Stephen A. Smith of all people, points out rightly that Trump has no business being in court on these charges, and that these partisan prosecutors have dragged Trump into court for the sole purpose of dragging him into court.
https://redstate.com/bobhoge/2024/04/16/sportscaster-stephen-a-smith-brings-some-hard-truth-to-demstrump-trial-is-only-because-theyre-scared-n2172885

---

I'm no Trump fan but at this point it's pretty obvious that people want to see Trump in a courtroom. Political at this point.

---

Isn't there a very cogent argument to be made that Trump deserves to be in a courtroom?

The hush money case is the case with perhaps the weakest argument for being tried criminally but an adequate case was made before the Grand Jury.

But looking at the document obstruction case and the Georgia election case, it seems abundantly clear there are sound legal cases to be made that he broke the law.

Not trying a past president because he's a past president, or may become a future one, is just as political a decision as trying him purely to see him suffer political consequences.

Is your argument to not get him in a courtroom because you think he's innocent of these charges?

Because if your argument is, he's maybe or probably guilty but we should look the other way because of who he is, that's not a sound argument.

---

What I don't want is parties / DAs going after former presidents to gain political points. We've already seen and heard that this is going to happen because of what Trumps supporters want if or when they have the power. That's not what we do in this country. Like it or not my fear is that this will become the norm. To think otherwise is naive. Let's be honest, almost all of these politicians have done something shady or illegal in their past, so digging up something won't be hard. I don't want this to become the norm.

---

There are checks and balances and disincentives for this type of behavior though.

It's the same reason I don't freak out about the generational shift to the right in the Supreme Court, or the prospect of another Trump presidency, especially one that may well be dominated by seeking revenge. None of the actors involved in these actions are unbound by the constraints of precedent, law, other governmental branches, etc.

There are checks and natural consequences for DA's pursuing truly trivial cases. Judges and DA's prefer to avoid the embarrassment of getting cases tossed, or having verdicts overturned in appellate court. But if they don't heed their reputational harm avoidance instinct, there are guardrails in place that will limit their ability to act outside the law.

And frankly I think politicians knowing that they can't get away with illegal bull**** behavior benefits the public and our country more than the prospect of rogue DA's or judges or juries somehow being able to consistently get away with pursuing frivolous charges against future politicians.

Do you really think if Nikki Haley was president, we'd see DA's in blue cities and states charging her with BS crimes? They'd look like complete idiots without there being underlying evidence supporting such cases.

---

and yet... the Solicator General was arguing, yesterday, that a law states something it doesn't without any precidence...

---

And if that argument has no legal merit, it will get checked by a judge's motion/the trial verdict/the verdict appeal.

---

Only because the SC is made up with more strict constructionist as opposed to the three liberals. Unfortunately, the lower courts, in NY, DC, CA are pure liberal and will judge like the three SC. As you know, only a few cases make it to the SC.

BTW, CIV, did you listen to any of the podcast I linked? Remember Megyn Kelly is "NOT" a Trump fan; rather, she believes in a strict understanding of the law.

---

Wrong. That implies that the only verdicts we can rely on are those rendered by Republican-stacked Supreme Courts, which simply isn't true.

I didn't ***** about Dobbs getting overturned by a stacked SC because it seemed like it was a sound legal determination, and I don't ***** about Republican state or federal judges taking up cases unless their verdicts seem unsound, which usually isn't the case and which often doesn't have anything to do with their party. I trust that virtually all of them can put their biases aside and properly adjudicate matters.

BBW12OG said:

---

Civilized said:

---

caryking said:

---

Civilized said:

---

caryking said:

---

Civilized said:

---

ncsupack1 said:

---

Civilized said:

---

ncsupack1 said:

---

Oldsouljer said:

---

Civilized said:

---

caryking said:

---

Wufskins said:

---

caryking said:

---

Wufskins said:

---

caryking said:

---

SmaptyWolf said:

---

ncsupack1 said:

---

Gulfstream4 said:

---

Wufskins said:

---

SmaptyWolf said:

---

Wufskins said:

---

Maybe he shouldn't have done his criminal acts in Manhattan. Poor fella just can't catch a break.

---

Man, what has this country come to? It's getting so you can't even sleep with a porn star while your wife is home pregnant, and then pay the porn star off to keep quiet during an election.

I do bet Trump in retrospect regrets paying her off... turns out his evangelical base is really into that kinda thing.

---

Can't even grab em by the P or else you have to pay. Maybe he can buy another beauty pageant so he can stare at teenagers getting undressed.

---

You voted for Bill Clinton, correct?

---

You know what's coming, " it / that was different, nobody or anything is as bad as Trump ".

---

So Clinton getting a consensual blow job is exactly the same in your mind as Trump sexually assaulting women and bragging about it? Got it!

---

Assaulting? Wow! Everyone knows Trump has been a playboy in NYC, for a long time. But, sexually assaulting? Some of the comments about grabbing girls by the…. Thats probably is consensual as well. At least, that the way I interpreted that comment.

When I was younger, my mouth would say things I'm not proud of; however, that doesn't define the person I am.

John 8:7

When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, "Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her."

In other words, be careful what you say and condemn…. None of us are perfect!

---

Trump was found liable for sexual assault in a civil suit. He's having to pay a bunch of money for his itchy little fingers.

---

And… so was OJ.

---

I'm not sure being compared to oj is the gotcha you thought

---

No gotcha at all. Just pointing a fact. BTW, Trump was never convicted in a criminal case on this.

---

Neither was OJ, yet the civil jury and the rest of us all know he did it.

---

And yet, Stephen A. Smith of all people, points out rightly that Trump has no business being in court on these charges, and that these partisan prosecutors have dragged Trump into court for the sole purpose of dragging him into court.
https://redstate.com/bobhoge/2024/04/16/sportscaster-stephen-a-smith-brings-some-hard-truth-to-demstrump-trial-is-only-because-theyre-scared-n2172885

---

I'm no Trump fan but at this point it's pretty obvious that people want to see Trump in a courtroom. Political at this point.

---

Isn't there a very cogent argument to be made that Trump deserves to be in a courtroom?

The hush money case is the case with perhaps the weakest argument for being tried criminally but an adequate case was made before the Grand Jury.

But looking at the document obstruction case and the Georgia election case, it seems abundantly clear there are sound legal cases to be made that he broke the law.

Not trying a past president because he's a past president, or may become a future one, is just as political a decision as trying him purely to see him suffer political consequences.

Is your argument to not get him in a courtroom because you think he's innocent of these charges?

Because if your argument is, he's maybe or probably guilty but we should look the other way because of who he is, that's not a sound argument.

---

What I don't want is parties / DAs going after former presidents to gain political points. We've already seen and heard that this is going to happen because of what Trumps supporters want if or when they have the power. That's not what we do in this country. Like it or not my fear is that this will become the norm. To think otherwise is naive. Let's be honest, almost all of these politicians have done something shady or illegal in their past, so digging up something won't be hard. I don't want this to become the norm.

---

There are checks and balances and disincentives for this type of behavior though.

It's the same reason I don't freak out about the generational shift to the right in the Supreme Court, or the prospect of another Trump presidency, especially one that may well be dominated by seeking revenge. None of the actors involved in these actions are unbound by the constraints of precedent, law, other governmental branches, etc.

There are checks and natural consequences for DA's pursuing truly trivial cases. Judges and DA's prefer to avoid the embarrassment of getting cases tossed, or having verdicts overturned in appellate court. But if they don't heed their reputational harm avoidance instinct, there are guardrails in place that will limit their ability to act outside the law.

And frankly I think politicians knowing that they can't get away with illegal bull**** behavior benefits the public and our country more than the prospect of rogue DA's or judges or juries somehow being able to consistently get away with pursuing frivolous charges against future politicians.

Do you really think if Nikki Haley was president, we'd see DA's in blue cities and states charging her with BS crimes? They'd look like complete idiots without there being underlying evidence supporting such cases.

---

and yet... the Solicator General was arguing, yesterday, that a law states something it doesn't without any precidence...

---

And if that argument has no legal merit, it will get checked by a judge's motion/the trial verdict/the verdict appeal.

---

Only because the SC is made up with more strict constructionist as opposed to the three liberals. Unfortunately, the lower courts, in NY, DC, CA are pure liberal and will judge like the three SC. As you know, only a few cases make it to the SC.

BTW, CIV, did you listen to any of the podcast I linked? Remember Megyn Kelly is "NOT" a Trump fan; rather, she believes in a strict understanding of the law.

---

Wrong. That implies that the only verdicts we can rely on are those rendered by Republican-stacked Supreme Courts, which simply isn't true.

I didn't ***** about Dobbs getting overturned by a stacked SC because it seemed like it was a sound legal determination, and I don't ***** about Republican state or federal judges taking up cases unless their verdicts seem unsound, which usually isn't the case and which often doesn't have anything to do with their party. I trust that virtually all of them can put their biases aside and properly adjudicate matters.

---

How is the SCOTUS stacked?

Did the GOP circumvent the United States Constitution?

Did they change the nomination procedure?

Did they violate protocall?

How exactly did they go about "stacking" the SCOTUS?

Answer those please.

---

The left sure wants to stack the court cause they aren't getting their way.

Was it protocol to withhold a vote on a scotus nominee for nearly a year? Only to do so four years later in record time?

Someone got out foxed…sucks but happens

Or, you'll like what's inside the bill once you vote for it?

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/how-mcconnell-and-the-senate-helped-trump-set-records-in-appointing-judges/

Elections have consequences….so I've heard.

Wufskins said:

---

Was it protocol to withhold a vote on a scotus nominee for nearly a year? Only to do so four years later in record time?

---

It was proto call that the Senate Majority Leader is in charge of making the decision as to bring a vote up of a nominee.

Refer to the United States Constitution.

Did they violate the rules of the United States Constitution?

What do you think about Crying Chuck dismissing impeachment charges without a trial?

Just wait.... what goes around comes around.

And please... show me where it says that the Senate MUST take up a vote of a SCOTUS nominee in the United States Constitution.

Hurt feelings doesn't mean laws were broken... 6-3 right? Told you to remember that message board boy.

Did Chuck not just put to a vote whether to proceed with a trial? Believe he did. And the Senate said no thanks.

ncsupack1 said:

---

Elections have consequences….so I've heard.

---

Especially when they're falsely believed to be rigged.

Wufskins said:

---

Did Chuck not just put to a vote whether to proceed with a trial? Believe he did. And the Senate said no thanks.

---

First time it had ever been put to a vote.

FACT.

He also voted for it.

Like I said... every time you whiny liberals do something like this you cry when it comes back to bite you in the ass.

Prove me wrong message board boy.

Wufskins said:

---

ncsupack1 said:

---

Elections have consequences….so I've heard.

---

Especially when they're falsely believed to be rigged.

---

Those words have never been spoken from my mouth. Now, what did BBW respond to you about that was false?

Wasn't that because the House just presented the articles of impeachment to the Senate this week?

ncsupack1 said:

---

Wufskins said:

---

ncsupack1 said:

---

Elections have consequences….so I've heard.

---

Especially when they're falsely believed to be rigged.

---

Those words have never been spoken from my mouth. Now, what did BBW respond to you about that was false?

---

I wasreferring to 1/6

Wufskins said:

---

ncsupack1 said:

---

Wufskins said:

---

ncsupack1 said:

---

Elections have consequences….so I've heard.

---

Especially when they're falsely believed to be rigged.

---

Those words have never been spoken from my mouth. Now, what did BBW respond to you about that was false?

---

I wasreferring to 1/6

---

Always 1-6….always

ncsupack1 said:

---

Wufskins said:

---

ncsupack1 said:

---

Wufskins said:

---

ncsupack1 said:

---

Elections have consequences….so I've heard.

---

Especially when they're falsely believed to be rigged.

---

Those words have never been spoken from my mouth. Now, what did BBW respond to you about that was false?

---

I wasreferring to 1/6

---

Always 1-6….always

---

You randomly brought up "elections have consequences"
And they do. Like the big lie of 2020 got us Jan 6.
But I'm glad to see you didn't and don't buy into the stolen election bs.

Wufskins said:

---

ncsupack1 said:

---

Wufskins said:

---

ncsupack1 said:

---

Wufskins said:

---

ncsupack1 said:

---

Elections have consequences….so I've heard.

---

Especially when they're falsely believed to be rigged.

---

Those words have never been spoken from my mouth. Now, what did BBW respond to you about that was false?

---

I wasreferring to 1/6

---

Always 1-6….always

---

You randomly brought up "elections have consequences"
And they do. Like the big lie of 2020 got us Jan 6.
But I'm glad to see you didn't and don't buy into the stolen election bs.

---

No, I don't believe in the election was stolen. And if I'm honest, Trump is probably going to lose again.

ncsupack1 said:

---

Wufskins said:

---

ncsupack1 said:

---

Wufskins said:

---

ncsupack1 said:

---

Wufskins said:

---

ncsupack1 said:

---

Elections have consequences….so I've heard.

---

Especially when they're falsely believed to be rigged.

---

Those words have never been spoken from my mouth. Now, what did BBW respond to you about that was false?

---

I wasreferring to 1/6

---

Always 1-6….always

---

You randomly brought up "elections have consequences"
And they do. Like the big lie of 2020 got us Jan 6.
But I'm glad to see you didn't and don't buy into the stolen election bs.

---

No, I don't believe in the election was stolen. And if I'm honest, Trump is probably going to lose again.

---

Maybe.

I think he does win if the election was held today. He's polling more favorably in key swing states than in 2020.

The current unknowns are whether the left's coalition can come together enough in those states over the next few months to propel Biden, and how much prospective bad outcomes in these trials hurts Trump.

Civilized said:

---

ncsupack1 said:

---

Wufskins said:

---

ncsupack1 said:

---

Wufskins said:

---

ncsupack1 said:

---

Wufskins said:

---

ncsupack1 said:

---

Elections have consequences….so I've heard.

---

Especially when they're falsely believed to be rigged.

---

Those words have never been spoken from my mouth. Now, what did BBW respond to you about that was false?

---

I wasreferring to 1/6

---

Always 1-6….always

---

You randomly brought up "elections have consequences"
And they do. Like the big lie of 2020 got us Jan 6.
But I'm glad to see you didn't and don't buy into the stolen election bs.

---

No, I don't believe in the election was stolen. And if I'm honest, Trump is probably going to lose again.

---

Maybe.

I think he does win if the election was held today. He's polling more favorably in key swing states than in 2020.

The current unknowns are whether the left's coalition can come together enough in those states over the next few months to propel Biden, and how much prospective bad outcomes in these trials hurts Trump.

---

You see the posts I made of him today?

Please keep trotting out Sleepy Joe in public..... it's comedy gold.

Looking forward to the Democrat National Convention....Can't wait to see the walls they build, the fences they put up and the "cleansing" of the area to make sure that protestors are not seen on National TV....

Better start marking ballots up in Philly, Atlanta, Phoenix, Detroit and Madison. You are gonna need them.

Sieve, you didn't quite phrase it right but you're close. Remember your phrase.....

Not trying a past president because he's a past president, or may become a future one, is just as political a decision as trying him purely to see him suffer political consequences.

Civilized said:

---

ncsupack1 said:

---

Wufskins said:

---

ncsupack1 said:

---

Wufskins said:

---

ncsupack1 said:

---

Wufskins said:

---

ncsupack1 said:

---

Elections have consequences….so I've heard.

---

Especially when they're falsely believed to be rigged.

---

Those words have never been spoken from my mouth. Now, what did BBW respond to you about that was false?

---

I wasreferring to 1/6

---

Always 1-6….always

---

You randomly brought up "elections have consequences"
And they do. Like the big lie of 2020 got us Jan 6.
But I'm glad to see you didn't and don't buy into the stolen election bs.

---

No, I don't believe in the election was stolen. And if I'm honest, Trump is probably going to lose again.

---

Maybe.

I think he does win if the election was held today. He's polling more favorably in key swing states than in 2020.

The current unknowns are whether the left's coalition can come together enough in those states over the next few months to propel Biden, and how much prospective bad outcomes in these trials hurts Trump.

---

If I were a betting person, I'd put a ton on Biden.