Posted on 04/15/2024 6:24:50 PM PDT by Macho MAGA Man
In Addition to being prohibited from attending my son Barron’s High School Graduation, I have just learned that the highly biased Judge in the Soros “appointed” D.A. Alvin Bragg’s Witch Hunt Case, will not allow me to attend the historic PRESIDENTIAL IMMUNITY argument in front of The United States Supreme Court, on Thursday, April 25th (next week!).
(Excerpt) Read more at truthsocial.com ...
You’ve been here since 2001? How did a simpleton moron like you last so long?
Yes. They are. Blanket immunity for all actions, even if you are a soon to be, current, or former president is not constitutional.
Amendment 6.
lol.
Sleep well.
Rivers of vodka.
Aren’t you late for a Biden rally or something?
Oh, and you shouldn’t be posting and drinking. Bad for your diseased liver, ya’ know?
So you are trying to get him to fail and for Biden to win.
Communist turd.
Oh good grief, grow up, potty mouth.
You may have already overstayed your welcome. So, no continuing anything for you.
Also gop state prosecutors can make up charges against the judge and prosecutor in NY is they ever stepped foot in their state or called someone in that state.
GOP needs to step up.
Sorry, it slipped.
6th Amendment. There is absolutely no “rule” or case law that the person filing the case can be excluded from proceedings.
No Biden rally today, but Soros still paid me and I got to hug a tranny! Oh what a glorious day.
My diseased liver is just fine. Got it to twice its original size.
Why does it seem that only one side takes these scorched earth approaches using "novel" ideas while the other side is fighting by Marquess of Queensberry rules?
Remember the quote by John Adams:
Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.We can debate the morality of people in office, but I will remind you that Clinton was in office when he sexually abused Lewinsky, while the charges against Trump occurred before he was in office.
The immunities case involves actions Trump took while in office, but it is debatable whether the actions were immoral or un-presidential.
What isn't debatable (to me), is the immorality of people like Letitia James, Alvin Bragg, and Fani Willis, who campaigned on "getting Trump" as retaliation for winning the 206 election against Hillary Clinton and then abused the power of their offices once they got power.
Adams' quote wasn't about the character of people before they took office, it was about the morality of their actions while in office. In my book, it's the morality of James, Bragg, Willis, Engoron, and now perhaps Merchan that's on display here, because they are in office now.
-PJ
Re: 143 - I do not agree. The Sixth Amendment confers no right of Appellants to attend Supreme Court oral arguments. If that was the case, incarcerated Appellants would arguably have a right to attend oral arguments.
And assuming for the sake of argument that it did, I believe the obligation to attend a criminal trial is superior.
Will do some more reading on this tomorrow.
+1
I don’t look at it that way.
Our choices are a turd sandwich or a giant douche.
Not going to cheerlead for either.
Exactly!
Why don’t you just pack up all your Trump hatred and run along? There’s other sites that would welcome your sage vitriol.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.