Posted on 07/02/2024 1:45:48 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
US President should be concerned regarding a potentially stolen election and the disenfranchised voters who were cheated during the 2020 election.
Amy “blow me” Barrett. What a waste of a supreme court appointment.🤨🤦🏻♂️
Irrelevant. His 2-term Presidency would have been an uninterrupted continuation.
Berean is correct, the question (unlike sex) is NOT binary. The answer is "both" and it is indistinguishable to split that...only a negligent President would allow fraud. But if one must choose only one, the answer is Trump was acting in his official capacity. Case closed.
How many divisions does the Pope Supreme Court have?
-PJ
Amy Roberts
They’re waiting for them to start wriggling...
He wasn’t questioning the accuracy of the vote count. He was questioning the VALIDITY of the vote count, after being presented with overwhelming evidence of fraud.
He wasn’t questioning the accuracy of the vote count. He was questioning the VALIDITY of the vote count, after being presented with overwhelming evidence of fraud.
Man I wish Trump would have chosen another Scalia type instead.
Only official mind readers (female intuition) can determine motive ...
plus, are they not barred from ‘extrapolating’ what he was thinking? (ie what angle he was coming from on this?)
Great reply.
Also, since 1937, all but a handful have moved left upon appointment.
later
She’s a female. She thinks and acts like one in making decisions. Emotions are NOT what law is supposed to be acted on.
Central to his claim was that there were election fraud, vote fraud and violations of campaign laws involved in the 2020 election that allowed Joe Biden to steal the election.
In the last 4 years, the validity all of the above have been proven beyond any shadow of a doubt.
While Trump was wrongfully blocked from having his day in court on these issues to quantify the impact of these irregularities to prove that he had won the election, it is beyond dispute that the illegal and irregular behavior occurred so Trump was acting in his official capacity as President to try to prevent a fraudulent election from stealing the Presidency.
This is confirmed by multiple conclusive formal findings of fact in courts of law in critical swing states that determined the election. At this point, Trump will never be able to prove conclusively that he won in 2020 because the evidence has been destroyed or tainted, but pretty much all of the allegations he made as to illegality and potential vote fraud are proven facts.
It is both but since he never benefited personally from the presidency (remember he donated his salary and lost money personally) it is far more likely it was the President acting
Who cares?
It’s not a crime either way.
The crime was not allowing it to be questioned.
Didn’t I also read that prosecutors attempting to bring a case nay not assume the intent of the President with immunity but must establish it in a way with a much higher bar?
Personally I don’t think you can separate the two. Which means the one function/identity that presumes innocence must have priority.
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.
