Do Bill Barr and Mike Pence go on the list of Deep State Covert Embedded Operatives? Was Mitch McConnell Deep State temporarily right after Jan 6?
Pence was a sleeper agent. Incredible mission. He was silent for years, then KABOOM! He breaks cover and rises up, with the entire world watching, at the worst possible time for Trump, and drives a silver stake through Trump's heart.
I've never see anything like it. Trump and his fans have never recovered from Pence. They are just shells of their former selves. Look at their posts. Paranoid hysterics, all ragged, defeated. Sad.
Lol, that’s some stretch. recovered from Pence? Pence is only beating me by 1-point in the polls. not really a concern. I’m guessing neither of us will be invited to the debate, so maybe he and I could set something up on the side like DeSantis vs Newsom?
Pence was a sleeper agent. Incredible mission. He was silent for years, then KABOOM! He breaks cover and rises up, with the entire world watching, at the worst possible time for Trump, and drives a silver stake through Trump's heart.
I've never see anything like it. Trump and his fans have never recovered from Pence. They are just shells of their former selves. Look at their posts. Paranoid hysterics, all ragged, defeated. Sad.
Lol, that’s some stretch. recovered from Pence? Pence is only beating me by 1-point in the polls. not really a concern. I’m guessing neither of us will be invited to the debate, so maybe he and I could set something up on the side like DeSantis vs Newsom?
We need to compile this list of Deep State plants in the Trump administration.
A jury of citizens will decide verdict. Rule of law.
All true. Then the Appeals Court, and then the Supreme Court. There’s a lot of strategy being played out, will ultimately be a great lesson for you in how our Judicial Branch works.
A genuine question--again, criminal litigation is not my specialty--and not an argument: Which case(s) do you see going to SCOTUS? The Supremes typically deal with Constitutional questions and not evidentiary issues; what Constitutional question(s) could you see them adjudicating?
I find this stuff fascinating but am the first to admit I don't follow SCOTUS regularly. (ConLaw was one of my better grades in law school, but that's about as far as it goes, and law school was a while back!) What's your thinking on this?
Aside from the fact that parts of your post are authentic, frontier gibberish, you would have to be insane to think that these people, who didn't come from the Deep State environment and were recommended by people loyal to Trump who didn't come from the Deep State, were Deep State plants. Some people simply have the moral compass to say "enough" when the see enough of a bad actor.
All true. Then the Appeals Court, and then the Supreme Court. There’s a lot of strategy being played out, will ultimately be a great lesson for you in how our Judicial Branch works.
A genuine question--again, criminal litigation is not my specialty--and not an argument: Which case(s) do you see going to SCOTUS? The Supremes typically deal with Constitutional questions and not evidentiary issues; what Constitutional question(s) could you see them adjudicating?
I find this stuff fascinating but am the first to admit I don't follow SCOTUS regularly. (ConLaw was one of my better grades in law school, but that's about as far as it goes, and law school was a while back!) What's your thinking on this?
My ConLaw was decades ago, but I think it is more accurate to say that the Supreme Court decides issues of law, not facts, rather than to say that they just decided Constitutional question. In the documents case there could be questions regarding the scope of the Presidential Records Act and the method for declassification, and potentially the reach of the espionage act under the unique circumstances of this case. Unfortunately for Trump, the law regarding obstruction is fairly well settled.
In the new DC case, there could be questions regarding the scope of the Civil Rights statutes as applied to these facts, as well as the clarity of procedures regarding electoral disputes. Quite honestly, the SCOTUS would rather not take a case regarding the latter. It is the sort of question they would rather have seen come up in several situations and dealt with by several circuit courts to have a better basis for understanding the effects of a ruling.
A genuine question--again, criminal litigation is not my specialty--and not an argument: Which case(s) do you see going to SCOTUS? The Supremes typically deal with Constitutional questions and not evidentiary issues; what Constitutional question(s) could you see them adjudicating?
I find this stuff fascinating but am the first to admit I don't follow SCOTUS regularly. (ConLaw was one of my better grades in law school, but that's about as far as it goes, and law school was a while back!) What's your thinking on this?
My ConLaw was decades ago, but I think it is more accurate to say that the Supreme Court decides issues of law, not facts, rather than to say that they just decided Constitutional question. In the documents case there could be questions regarding the scope of the Presidential Records Act and the method for declassification, and potentially the reach of the espionage act under the unique circumstances of this case. Unfortunately for Trump, the law regarding obstruction is fairly well settled.
In the new DC case, there could be questions regarding the scope of the Civil Rights statutes as applied to these facts, as well as the clarity of procedures regarding electoral disputes. Quite honestly, the SCOTUS would rather not take a case regarding the latter. It is the sort of question they would rather have seen come up in several situations and dealt with by several circuit courts to have a better basis for understanding the effects of a ruling.
All true. Then the Appeals Court, and then the Supreme Court. There’s a lot of strategy being played out, will ultimately be a great lesson for you in how our Judicial Branch works.
A genuine question--again, criminal litigation is not my specialty--and not an argument: Which case(s) do you see going to SCOTUS? The Supremes typically deal with Constitutional questions and not evidentiary issues; what Constitutional question(s) could you see them adjudicating?
I find this stuff fascinating but am the first to admit I don't follow SCOTUS regularly. (ConLaw was one of my better grades in law school, but that's about as far as it goes, and law school was a while back!) What's your thinking on this?
He's got no thinking on this. He'll wait for a tip from FOX, but right now they are busy talking about Trump's freedom of speech.
Do Bill Barr and Mike Pence go on the list of Deep State Covert Embedded Operatives? Was Mitch McConnell Deep State temporarily right after Jan 6?
Pence was a sleeper agent. Incredible mission. He was silent for years, then KABOOM! He breaks cover and rises up, with the entire world watching, at the worst possible time for Trump, and drives a silver stake through Trump's heart.
I've never see anything like it. Trump and his fans have never recovered from Pence. They are just shells of their former selves. Look at their posts. Paranoid hysterics, all ragged, defeated. Sad.
Philosophy my thing, not law. you give 10 constitutional lawyers a question and you will get 10 different answers. Its like politics, and why philosophy rules the day. it would take quite the suspension of reality to think that a Supreme Court in this Country would not take up a case of this magnitude because, after all, its a group of lawyers elevated to judge. they are going to listen and debate like lawyers love to do. everyone has an ego, especially at that level. you think Thomas is just gonna let them throw away the key on Trump in some low level court full of lunatics. Never. that defies logic and, therefore, defies the path to truth. this thing, if the looneys win, will be moving to the next phase. the appellate court. see what happens and go from there. the prosecutor left out the most important words in his edit of the speech, that seems a simple start.
It would seem that, finally, the institutional immune system of the US is mobilized to destroy and expel the pathogen Trump.
Any liberal democracy-- let alone the world's oldest one, and the one that preserved its institutions in the face of the fascist example in the 1930s-- that could not muster such a defense would deserve everything it got.
To paraphrase a certain former president, you don't have a country (worth having) if you can't neutralize and excrete a figure like Trump from your body politic.
The US is a waning empire with many, many problems, but at least it remains a functioning liberal democracy... for now.
Not so sure about that. This is the first time it has been tested with a relentless 4-year attack from the POTUS no less. To pass the test, the full judicial weight must be thrown at him, so that everyone understands there are real consequences. If he doesn't find out, there are many who will want to fk around just like him.
Philosophy my thing, not law. you give 10 constitutional lawyers a question and you will get 10 different answers. Its like politics, and why philosophy rules the day. it would take quite the suspension of reality to think that a Supreme Court in this Country would not take up a case of this magnitude because, after all, its a group of lawyers elevated to judge. they are going to listen and debate like lawyers love to do. everyone has an ego, especially at that level. you think Thomas is just gonna let them throw away the key on Trump in some low level court full of lunatics. Never. that defies logic and, therefore, defies the path to truth. this thing, if the looneys win, will be moving to the next phase. the appellate court. see what happens and go from there. the prosecutor left out the most important words in his edit of the speech, that seems a simple start.
Philosophy my thing, not law. you give 10 constitutional lawyers a question and you will get 10 different answers. Its like politics, and why philosophy rules the day. it would take quite the suspension of reality to think that a Supreme Court in this Country would not take up a case of this magnitude because, after all, its a group of lawyers elevated to judge. they are going to listen and debate like lawyers love to do. everyone has an ego, especially at that level. you think Thomas is just gonna let them throw away the key on Trump in some low level court full of lunatics. Never. that defies logic and, therefore, defies the path to truth. this thing, if the looneys win, will be moving to the next phase. the appellate court. see what happens and go from there. the prosecutor left out the most important words in his edit of the speech, that seems a simple start.
Philosophy my thing, not law. you give 10 constitutional lawyers a question and you will get 10 different answers. Its like politics, and why philosophy rules the day. it would take quite the suspension of reality to think that a Supreme Court in this Country would not take up a case of this magnitude because, after all, its a group of lawyers elevated to judge. they are going to listen and debate like lawyers love to do. everyone has an ego, especially at that level. you think Thomas is just gonna let them throw away the key on Trump in some low level court full of lunatics. Never. that defies logic and, therefore, defies the path to truth. this thing, if the looneys win, will be moving to the next phase. the appellate court. see what happens and go from there. the prosecutor left out the most important words in his edit of the speech, that seems a simple start.
Being a moron is your thing.
i guess that would only ring true if i am wrong. but i wont be wrong. that leaves moron to you.
Trump brought back one of this campaign trail favorites, a poem called "The Snake." The poem tells the story of a woman who takes in a snake, who ends up bit...
i guess that would only ring true if i am wrong. but i wont be wrong. that leaves moron to you.
The evidence of Giuliani's intoxication on Election night is multi-corroborated and uncontroverted. There are at least 7 witnesses who will testifying that Giuliani was bombed off his balls that night. It will be admitted.
You may have better luck excluding the evidence of Trump throwing the plate of spaghetti at the wall. That is irrelevant and prejudicial.
It was a “sacred landslide victory,” and every true Patriot would demand Justice. Any day now, Sidney Powell is going to release the Kraken, Mike Lindell is going to connect all the dots, Jenna Ellis is going to have the stain on her record expunged, further actions during the discovery phase will show that Giuliani didn’t actually wrong two election workers in the exact way he’s admitted to, and Dominion and Smartmatic will be taken to court and have to pay the piper for conspiring with the Venezuelans.
You Libs can lie all you want on message boards and in your beloved Lamestream Media, and you’d probably be fine in any proceedings that have your buddies and bootlicks deciding the outcome, but if you actually had to go into a court of law, be subject to sworn testimony, and have to provide evidence, I bet you’d wind up like 0-63 or something. I need to give Steve Bannon money so he can help DJT build a Beautiful Wall to keep other morans like you out.
You Libs can lie all you want on message boards and in your beloved Lamestream Media, and you’d probably be fine in any proceedings that have your buddies and bootlicks deciding the outcome, but if you actually had to go into a court of law, be subject to sworn testimony, and have to provide evidence, I bet you’d wind up like 0-63 or something. I need to give Steve Bannon money so he can help DJT build a Beautiful Wall to keep other morans like you out.
A good effort here, but not up to the standard that El Runkin has established. Sorry, the bar is higher now.
Can someone explain the protective order that Jack Smith sent out?
“Prosecutors said Trump’s use of evidence obtained in discovery “could have a harmful chilling effect on witnesses or adversely affect the fair administration of justice in this case."
isn’t that Trump’s whole strategy? He wants to adversely affect the administration of justice. That way he doesn’t go to jail.
Why would a lawyer say, “you better not tell anyone about the case, or else we can find you guilty of a crime.”