Rolling Stone: Trump’s White House passed around a presentation on how to end American democracy

a reply to: Oldcarpy2


My magic 8 ball says yes.

nationalinterest.org...


Supremes usually do make the final decision every time democrats attempt to make an and around exec priviledge claims.

Democrats will keep pushing until then, for the propaganda wins.

It isn't like we haven't seen democrats do exactly the same thing many times before.

originally posted by: Ghostsdogood
a reply to: Oldcarpy2


My magic 8 ball says yes.

nationalinterest.org...


Supremes usually do make the final decision every time democrats attempt to make an and around exec priviledge claims.

Democrats will keep pushing until then, for the propaganda wins.

It isn't like we haven't seen democrats do exactly the same thing many times before.

Good luck with your "magic 8 ball".

My (admittedly limited) understanding of your laws, which nevertheless seem quite clear on the point, is that claims to Executive Privilege rest with an incumbent President, and are not available to a former President. Which seems to be the simple basis upon which the Court threw out his claims. I'm sure that there are others on here who are more well versed on the applicable law over there who might like to comment.

Is there any Appeal, then?

I have to say, his previous legal claims didn't turn out too well for him, but never mind.

I dare say that you will not accept any decision by your Courts that you don't like because:...."Evil Dems"!

But hope springs eternal.

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

That is the claim being made by current democrats, and they found one friendly (corrupt) judge to agree with them.

There has never been any such claim before, and this priviledge has in fact been enforced by MANY former presidents, including obama.

Dems are just trying to make up a new rule specifically for trump.

It won't work, but sure does rile up the already brainwashed here.

Supremes will have the final say on the matter.

originally posted by: Ghostsdogood
a reply to: Oldcarpy2

That is the claim being made by current democrats, and they found one friendly (corrupt) judge to agree with them.

There has never been any such claim before, and this priviledge has in fact been enforced by MANY former presidents, including obama.

Dems are just trying to make up a new rule specifically for trump.

It won't work, but sure does rile up the already brainwashed here.

Supremes will have the final say on the matter.

If it gets that far. How many Trump appointees are in the nine Supreme Court Judges?

Three, I believe.

Of course, they will be fair and not at all "corrupt".

originally posted by: Ghostsdogood
a reply to: Oldcarpy2

That is the claim being made by current democrats, and they found one friendly (corrupt) judge to agree with them.

There has never been any such claim before, and this priviledge has in fact been enforced by MANY former presidents, including obama.

Dems are just trying to make up a new rule specifically for trump.

It won't work, but sure does rile up the already brainwashed here.

Supremes will have the final say on the matter.

Of course, it didn't work for Nixon over Watergate, did it?


www.usatoday.com...

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

Have any evidence that those 3 have been anything other than by the book justices, or just making things up again?

Not a real question, we already KNOW the answer.

MANY dem judges have a long and well deserved reputation of ignoring law and precedent for political gain, including the 3 who agreed with the democrat's imaginary new rule on exec priv.

NO Republican judges do.

Supremes will eventually rule on this, and dems are 100% aware that they will lose.

So spinning out as much propaganda as possible while they can.

With YOUR eager assistance.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2

originally posted by: Ghostsdogood
a reply to: Oldcarpy2

That is the claim being made by current democrats, and they found one friendly (corrupt) judge to agree with them.

There has never been any such claim before, and this priviledge has in fact been enforced by MANY former presidents, including obama.

Dems are just trying to make up a new rule specifically for trump.

It won't work, but sure does rile up the already brainwashed here.

Supremes will have the final say on the matter.

Of course, it didn't work for Nixon over Watergate, did it?


www.usatoday.com...

Apples to cement trucks.

Was nixon a former president at the time?

There were different issues in front of scotus at the time.

Not this newly fabricated dem rule.

originally posted by: Ghostsdogood
a reply to: Oldcarpy2

Have any evidence that those 3 have been anything other than by the book justices, or just making things up again?

Not a real question, we already KNOW the answer.

MANY dem judges have a long and well deserved reputation of ignoring law and precedent for political gain, including the 3 who agreed with the democrat's imaginary new rule on exec priv.

NO Republican judges do.

Supremes will eventually rule on this, and dems are 100% aware that they will lose.

So spinning out as much propaganda as possible while they can.

With YOUR eager assistance.

Do you have any evidence for your claim that the Judge who threw this out was "corrupt"?

I have tried to have a reasoned debate with you, or "we" - as you put it - but I tire of your anger (and do stop shouting at me in capitals - it just makes you look angry and unpleasant) and your failure to engage in any discussion of the actual issues as you seem to prefer to attack me personally at any given opportunity.

Let's see if this ever gets as far as the Supreme Court, or not. Eh?

Come back to me then.

originally posted by: Ghostsdogood

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2

originally posted by: Ghostsdogood
a reply to: Oldcarpy2

That is the claim being made by current democrats, and they found one friendly (corrupt) judge to agree with them.

There has never been any such claim before, and this priviledge has in fact been enforced by MANY former presidents, including obama.

Dems are just trying to make up a new rule specifically for trump.

It won't work, but sure does rile up the already brainwashed here.

Supremes will have the final say on the matter.

Of course, it didn't work for Nixon over Watergate, did it?


www.usatoday.com...

Apples to cement trucks.

Was nixon a former president at the time?

There were different issues in front of scotus at the time.

Not this newly fabricated dem rule.

Newly fabricated? No.

Nixon was POTUS at the time.

It didn't work for him then, far less will it work for an ex one. No?

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2

originally posted by: Ghostsdogood

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2

originally posted by: Ghostsdogood
a reply to: Oldcarpy2

That is the claim being made by current democrats, and they found one friendly (corrupt) judge to agree with them.

There has never been any such claim before, and this priviledge has in fact been enforced by MANY former presidents, including obama.

Dems are just trying to make up a new rule specifically for trump.

It won't work, but sure does rile up the already brainwashed here.

Supremes will have the final say on the matter.

Of course, it didn't work for Nixon over Watergate, did it?


www.usatoday.com...

Apples to cement trucks.

Was nixon a former president at the time?

There were different issues in front of scotus at the time.

Not this newly fabricated dem rule.

Newly fabricated? No.

Nixon was POTUS at the time.

It didn't work for him then, far less will it work for an ex one. No?

Yes newly fabricated.

In that the 'former president exclusion' never existed before democrats just made it up out of whole cloth this year.

Fabrication.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2

originally posted by: Ghostsdogood
a reply to: Oldcarpy2

Have any evidence that those 3 have been anything other than by the book justices, or just making things up again?

Not a real question, we already KNOW the answer.

MANY dem judges have a long and well deserved reputation of ignoring law and precedent for political gain, including the 3 who agreed with the democrat's imaginary new rule on exec priv.

NO Republican judges do.

Supremes will eventually rule on this, and dems are 100% aware that they will lose.

So spinning out as much propaganda as possible while they can.

With YOUR eager assistance.

Do you have any evidence for your claim that the Judge who threw this out was "corrupt"?

I have tried to have a reasoned debate with you, or "we" - as you put it - but I tire of your anger (and do stop shouting at me in capitals - it just makes you look angry and unpleasant) and your failure to engage in any discussion of the actual issues as you seem to prefer to attack me personally at any given opportunity.

Let's see if this ever gets as far as the Supreme Court, or not. Eh?

Come back to me then.

Besides the corrupt ruling that wasn't based on either law or precedent?

Why would anyone need any more evidence than that?

These cases ALWAYS end up in front of supremes if corrupt democrats don't back down first.

ALWAYS.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2

originally posted by: Ghostsdogood
a reply to: Oldcarpy2

Have any evidence that those 3 have been anything other than by the book justices, or just making things up again?

Not a real question, we already KNOW the answer.

MANY dem judges have a long and well deserved reputation of ignoring law and precedent for political gain, including the 3 who agreed with the democrat's imaginary new rule on exec priv.

NO Republican judges do.

Supremes will eventually rule on this, and dems are 100% aware that they will lose.

So spinning out as much propaganda as possible while they can.

With YOUR eager assistance.

Do you have any evidence for your claim that the Judge who threw this out was "corrupt"?

I have tried to have a reasoned debate with you, or "we" - as you put it - but I tire of your anger (and do stop shouting at me in capitals - it just makes you look angry and unpleasant) and your failure to engage in any discussion of the actual issues as you seem to prefer to attack me personally at any given opportunity.

Let's see if this ever gets as far as the Supreme Court, or not. Eh?

Come back to me then.

Way to keep your eye on the ball.

Now complaining about caps for single words?

Are you now THAT desperate?

Sure sounds like it.

a reply to: Ghostsdogood

Or, it's your actual laws? As they actually are?

Read the Judgment, and weep.

Then when you are done with that, get back to me.

Did you actually read the Judgment? No?

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: Ghostsdogood

Or, it's your actual laws? As they actually are?

Read the Judgment, and weep.

Then when you are done with that, get back to me.

Did you actually read the Judgment? No?

Why?

I ALREADY KNOW there is no such restriction in exev priv for former presidents.

Never has been.

Until democrats just invented it.

Obama is STILL using the same exec priv to keep most of the docs in his library secret.

This newly fabricated 'rule' apparantly ONLY applies to the single former president who followed Obama.

AKA - Newly. Fabricated.

originally posted by: Ghostsdogood

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2

originally posted by: Ghostsdogood
a reply to: Oldcarpy2

Have any evidence that those 3 have been anything other than by the book justices, or just making things up again?

Not a real question, we already KNOW the answer.

MANY dem judges have a long and well deserved reputation of ignoring law and precedent for political gain, including the 3 who agreed with the democrat's imaginary new rule on exec priv.

NO Republican judges do.

Supremes will eventually rule on this, and dems are 100% aware that they will lose.

So spinning out as much propaganda as possible while they can.

With YOUR eager assistance.

Do you have any evidence for your claim that the Judge who threw this out was "corrupt"?

I have tried to have a reasoned debate with you, or "we" - as you put it - but I tire of your anger (and do stop shouting at me in capitals - it just makes you look angry and unpleasant) and your failure to engage in any discussion of the actual issues as you seem to prefer to attack me personally at any given opportunity.

Let's see if this ever gets as far as the Supreme Court, or not. Eh?

Come back to me then.

Way to keep your eye on the ball.

Now complaining about caps for single words?

Are you now THAT desperate?

Sure sounds like it.

OK.

I tried reasoned debate with you.


Good day to you.

Come back to me if, and when, this ever goes to the Supreme Court.

We can discuss it then.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2

originally posted by: Ghostsdogood

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2

originally posted by: Ghostsdogood
a reply to: Oldcarpy2

Have any evidence that those 3 have been anything other than by the book justices, or just making things up again?

Not a real question, we already KNOW the answer.

MANY dem judges have a long and well deserved reputation of ignoring law and precedent for political gain, including the 3 who agreed with the democrat's imaginary new rule on exec priv.

NO Republican judges do.

Supremes will eventually rule on this, and dems are 100% aware that they will lose.

So spinning out as much propaganda as possible while they can.

With YOUR eager assistance.

Do you have any evidence for your claim that the Judge who threw this out was "corrupt"?

I have tried to have a reasoned debate with you, or "we" - as you put it - but I tire of your anger (and do stop shouting at me in capitals - it just makes you look angry and unpleasant) and your failure to engage in any discussion of the actual issues as you seem to prefer to attack me personally at any given opportunity.

Let's see if this ever gets as far as the Supreme Court, or not. Eh?

Come back to me then.

Way to keep your eye on the ball.

Now complaining about caps for single words?

Are you now THAT desperate?

Sure sounds like it.

OK.

I tried reasoned debate with you.


Good day to you.

Come back to me if, and when, this ever goes to the Supreme Court.

We can discuss it then.

You tried NO SUCH THING.

EVER.

You desperately attempted to lie about democrat propaganda, while flinging a few less irrational insults this time.

And failed.

It is an improvement, but still a LONG way from reasoned debate.

Pro tip - saying that exec priv ends with end of presidency is no different than trying to convince everyone that water isn't wet.

Quit whenever you want.

I'll be here for at least a few months.

originally posted by: Ghostsdogood

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2

originally posted by: Ghostsdogood

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2

originally posted by: Ghostsdogood
a reply to: Oldcarpy2

Have any evidence that those 3 have been anything other than by the book justices, or just making things up again?

Not a real question, we already KNOW the answer.

MANY dem judges have a long and well deserved reputation of ignoring law and precedent for political gain, including the 3 who agreed with the democrat's imaginary new rule on exec priv.

NO Republican judges do.

Supremes will eventually rule on this, and dems are 100% aware that they will lose.

So spinning out as much propaganda as possible while they can.

With YOUR eager assistance.

Do you have any evidence for your claim that the Judge who threw this out was "corrupt"?

I have tried to have a reasoned debate with you, or "we" - as you put it - but I tire of your anger (and do stop shouting at me in capitals - it just makes you look angry and unpleasant) and your failure to engage in any discussion of the actual issues as you seem to prefer to attack me personally at any given opportunity.

Let's see if this ever gets as far as the Supreme Court, or not. Eh?

Come back to me then.

Way to keep your eye on the ball.

Now complaining about caps for single words?

Are you now THAT desperate?

Sure sounds like it.

OK.

I tried reasoned debate with you.


Good day to you.

Come back to me if, and when, this ever goes to the Supreme Court.

We can discuss it then.

You tried NO SUCH THING.

EVER.

You desperately attempted to lie about democrat propaganda.

And failed.

Quit whenever you want.

I'll be here for at least a few months.

And a Merry Christmas to you and yours.

Peace and love.

Out. Bless your heart.

Touche my old chap. Touche
LMAO!!!a reply to: Oldcarpy2

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2

Unfortunately, your Courts thought otherwise, and rejected any claim to Executive Privilege.

Your analogies are....deceptive.

Not an insult, really, just a description that seems to be accurate and apposite here:


www.collinsdictionary.com...

You mean democrat/liberal/far left/anti-Trump courts...

It has been already established by the FBI, which is biased against President Trump and his former officials, that there was no coordination or planning for what happened on January 6th...

This "January 6th committee" is "the Russian hoax" all over again...

Even when President Trump clearly said "let's march PEACEFULLY and PATRIOTICALLY to have our voices heard" the left and even people like you want to keep on claiming President Trump incited violence?...

The ones that have been inciting violence are the large majority of democrat leaders, including who now has the job as Vice President of the United States. Harris called to bail out the most violent Antifa, BLM and other far left rioters. Meanwhile the horn guy who didn't attack anyone, and even asked Capitol police if he could sit and thanked the Capitol police is going to spend 4 years in prison meanwhile far leftists whom did attack Federal buildings, and have violently attacked police officers, business owners, Trump supporters and whom looted and burned entire sections of U.S. cities are free in the streets continuing to cause chaos throughout the U.S.

The sham that is the "January 6th committee" doesn't want the people to know the truth. They just want to keep using LIES to stop Trump from becoming POTUS again meanwhile they continue destroying the U.S.

How blind can you be that you can't see what is actually happening?...

Reply to MDDoxs:
"Well, he was the greatest president after all. I can understand everyone’s fascination in him, regardless of political affiliation."

BEST BEST COMMENT!!
The great President Trump always said it like it was, from Day One. And he put AMERICANS first, as it should be!
He was busy trying to get that wall built to keep our country safe, was against paying illegals to have kids and stay home, he was the best.
Get out and Vote Republican across the board, get this mess out, they are destroying our country!