Posted on 04/26/2024 11:00:09 AM PDT by ChicagoConservative27
Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) said the U.S. Supreme Court should be moved to the Republican National Committee (RNC) headquarters, after some conservative justices suggested being open to arguments in favor of presidential immunity from prosecution for former President Trump.
“They’re politicians who are not even subject to popular election, unlike me,” Raskin said during his Thursday appearance on MSNBC’s “The ReidOut.” “They should move the Supreme Court over to the RNC headquarters because they’re acting like a bunch of partisan operatives.”
Raskin’s assessment comes as D. John Sauer, the attorney representing Trump in Thursday’s arguments regarding the former president’s immunity, suggested his client could hypothetically could order a military to eliminate his political rival and still be covered by presidential immunity.
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
I’d like to take a bat and whirlwind his head
Okey Donkey
Goes to show you just how outta touch woke libs are!
DOJ is at DNC headquarters.
DOJ is in Biden's pocket and Garland is up his putooty.
I noticed he stopped playing the “cancer card” with that blue bandana of his …. (Or was he dressing as a crip and got called out for cultural appropriation by AOC? )
To a Democrat, anyone who believes in the rule of law is the enemy.
If Biden had another SOTU address he could let Ratskin write it.
I’m wondering if the J6 committee members could be held legally liable for misrepresenting the truth in their reports.
Reports are not supposed to be for debating; they’re supposed to be for reporting findings. Leaving out stuff like Trump authorizing 10,000 National Guardsmen for J6 is misrepresentation - IOW, lying by ommission.
Holding Nancy Pelosi off-limits in the investigation could be considered obstruction of justice.
Etc.
Where was this idiot during Ruth Bader Ginsberg’s unholy reign of terror. How soon they forget. Roe v. Wade was the biggest DNC giveaway of all time by a SCOTUS.
Ratskin can go take a long walk off a short pier.
My exact thoughts.
The DOJ is arguing that a President should have immunity if his/her AG tells him/her that an action is legal.
Alito asked why wouldn’t a POTUS just choose an AG who would allow them to do anything.
This is all a backhanded way of trying to make anything Garland says OK for Biden to do.
Heard that, the lawyer said that the Senate confirmation process would police that, yep, sure.
Come on cancer! Finish the job!
Soooo nice to hear Rat-Skin squeal.
I can’t believe that anybody would be willing to confirm somebody if they knew that person was going to have legal license to approve ANYTHING he wanted the POTUS to do.
If this is how it would be, there would never be another US Attorney General.
In order to hold the POTUS accountable they argue to have an untouchable AG. Unbelievable. And it would be an untouchable AG because that AG could have the POTUS order the Deep State to literally murder anybody who tried to prosecute the AG.
Also, the Senate that they claim can’t be trusted to do the impeachment trial necessary to hold a POTUS accountable for crimes.... is supposed to be trusted to keep a lawless AG from being confirmed? If the legislative branch is supposed to hold the executive accountable then what’s their gripe against the Constitutional means to hold a President accountable - namely through impeachment?
Would that help offset the DOJ over at the DNC?
Democrats have to win all the time or something unconstitutional has to be done to save democracy.
Justice Jackson said at the hearings on immunity:
“the Oval Office Could Turn Into a Seat of Criminality”...
Golly, who knew she was that alert.....keeping track of Biden’s activities.
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.