|
Post by Fetzer Zinfandel ♀︎ on Jul 3, 2024 14:03:40 GMT
WHY?
|
|
|
Post by Rob801 on Jul 3, 2024 14:11:30 GMT
So they can bitch if Biden goes full on Dark Brandon?
|
|
|
Post by Fetzer Zinfandel ♀︎ on Jul 3, 2024 14:22:17 GMT
So they can bitch if Biden goes full on Dark Brandon? They certainly don't think immunity should apply to him, lol.
|
|
|
Post by PaulsLaugh on Jul 3, 2024 14:39:12 GMT
MAGA better hope Trump doesn’t do a Trump Turn on them once he no longer needs them. He’s not happy he has to shill for religious fanatics who probably love Jesus more than him. He can never know for sure if they are using him just to get their agenda passed and then will force him to behave like a real Christian.
|
|
|
Post by PaulsLaugh on Jul 3, 2024 14:42:36 GMT
So they can bitch if Biden goes full on Dark Brandon? They certainly don't think immunity should apply to him, lol. SCOTUS jump the gun ahead of themselves. The plan was to delay this decision until after the election in case Biden won so they could not give the President any dictatorial powers. But Biden looks like wounded prey, so they pounced.
|
|
|
Post by slowcomingwarbird on Jul 3, 2024 14:46:57 GMT
Consciousness of guilt
Republicans know they did wrong and they are bracing themselves for the consequences.
|
|
|
Post by merh on Jul 3, 2024 20:54:16 GMT
They think they are one of the group They don't think Trump will turn on them like he always does.
|
|
|
Post by jimmywynn on Jul 3, 2024 21:05:25 GMT
They think they are one of the group They don't think Trump will turn on them like he always does. An when he does turn on them, there are a couple of posters here who will say "Thank you sir, may I have another?"
|
|
|
Post by merh on Jul 3, 2024 21:23:34 GMT
They think they are one of the group They don't think Trump will turn on them like he always does. An when he does turn on them, there are a couple of posters here who will say "Thank you sir, may I have another?" Religion. You always have a group that wants to see itself as more favored than others. Special. Growing up Mormon, I was taught we were a "peculiar people" but that also meant we had to be exemplary. Anything we did wrong would reflect on the group so we had to be better than most. While often it just comes down to "I'm with the saved group, you arent" Until they get ousted. Oops.
|
|
|
Post by averagejoe2021 on Jul 3, 2024 21:28:49 GMT
Well, its unchartered territory. It was never visited prior because no one broke the precedent of prosecuting a former president based upon actions as president. This ranged from arms deals, internment camps (thanks FDR), nukes, owning slaves, starting illegal wars, assassinations, personally being bribed/enriched, etc. But all of a sudden, this group is going after Trump with reckless abandon using every tool they can muster. So now that precedent has ended necessitating SCOTUS intervention... what are the ramifications? Will it be on a case by case basis? Can all prior presidents now be brought up on charges? The Democrats opened up a big can of worms here and its difficult to determine how far the consequences will reach.
|
|
|
Post by averagejoe2021 on Jul 3, 2024 21:30:03 GMT
They think they are one of the group They don't think Trump will turn on them like he always does. An when he does turn on them, there are a couple of posters here who will say "Thank you sir, may I have another?"
|
|
|
Post by Fetzer Zinfandel ♀︎ on Jul 3, 2024 21:30:55 GMT
Well, its unchartered territory. It was never visited prior because no one broke the precedent of prosecuting a former president based upon actions as president. This ranged from arms deals, internment camps (thanks FDR), nukes, owning slaves, starting illegal wars, assassinations, personally being bribed/enriched, etc. But all of a sudden, this group is going after Trump with reckless abandon using every tool they can muster. So now that precedent has ended necessitating SCOTUS intervention... what are the ramifications? Will it be on a case by case basis? Can all prior presidents now be brought up on charges? The Democrats opened up a big can of worms here and its difficult to determine how far the consequences will reach. He barebacked a porn star then paid her hush money to fix an election. That wasn't a presidential act. He tried to steal an election. That wasn't a presidential act. And so on. You really should try to see reality.
|
|
|
Post by merh on Jul 3, 2024 21:34:04 GMT
Well, its unchartered territory. It was never visited prior because no one broke the precedent of prosecuting a former president based upon actions as president. This ranged from arms deals, internment camps (thanks FDR), nukes, owning slaves, starting illegal wars, assassinations, personally being bribed/enriched, etc. But all of a sudden, this group is going after Trump with reckless abandon using every tool they can muster. So now that precedent has ended necessitating SCOTUS intervention... what are the ramifications? Will it be on a case by case basis? Can all prior presidents now be brought up on charges? The Democrats opened up a big can of worms here and its difficult to determine how far the consequences will reach. Paying a porn star hush money to keep quiet so he could get elected was an act of president? Tardis version?
|
|
|
Post by averagejoe2021 on Jul 3, 2024 21:34:17 GMT
Well, its unchartered territory. It was never visited prior because no one broke the precedent of prosecuting a former president based upon actions as president. This ranged from arms deals, internment camps (thanks FDR), nukes, owning slaves, starting illegal wars, assassinations, personally being bribed/enriched, etc. But all of a sudden, this group is going after Trump with reckless abandon using every tool they can muster. So now that precedent has ended necessitating SCOTUS intervention... what are the ramifications? Will it be on a case by case basis? Can all prior presidents now be brought up on charges? The Democrats opened up a big can of worms here and its difficult to determine how far the consequences will reach. He barebacked a porn star then paid her hush money to fix an election. That wasn't a presidential act. He tried to steal an election. That wasn't a presidential act. And so on. "He barebacked a porn star" Not illegal and I agree that it's not a presidential act. "..then paid her hush money to fix an election." Hush money is not illegal, and no election was fixed. And correct..not a presidential act so also not part of the OP. "He tried to steal an election." Well I recall when he used a series of challenges to an election. But when did he try to steal it? Does anyone else know about it?
|
|
|
Post by averagejoe2021 on Jul 3, 2024 21:35:15 GMT
Well, its unchartered territory. It was never visited prior because no one broke the precedent of prosecuting a former president based upon actions as president. This ranged from arms deals, internment camps (thanks FDR), nukes, owning slaves, starting illegal wars, assassinations, personally being bribed/enriched, etc. But all of a sudden, this group is going after Trump with reckless abandon using every tool they can muster. So now that precedent has ended necessitating SCOTUS intervention... what are the ramifications? Will it be on a case by case basis? Can all prior presidents now be brought up on charges? The Democrats opened up a big can of worms here and its difficult to determine how far the consequences will reach. Paying a porn star hush money to keep quiet so he could get elected was an act of president? Tardis version? LOL....nope. I don't imagine it would be construed as such. But hush money isn't illegal as far as I know.
|
|