D.C. Court of Appeals made a horrible ruling against Trump

a reply to: Irishhaf

Do we really want a president being bogged down in the court system in the future, or worried about being bankrupted in the courts after he gets out.

The 3 judges addressed that:

The risks of chilling Presidential action or permitting meritless,
harassing prosecutions are unlikely, unsupported by history
and “too remote and shadowy to shape the course of justice.”

Take it for what you will.

originally posted by: Irishhaf
My uninformed opinion is that its a bad precedent if it doesnt get overturned at higher levels.

Do we really want a president being bogged down in the court system in the future, or worried about being bankrupted in the courts after he gets out.

Should have remained in the realm of impeachment, this is going to make our govt even more useless before people shock GREAT, they do a lot of stuff that helps the states that dont get press.

IF they had an actual serious crime, it wouldnt bother me, J6 has so much shady stuff around it I discount it out of hand now.

His real estate stuff... I am still waiting to hear who the victim of his claims is.

The files at MAL nothing different than any other president and VP in my lifetime (or senator joe biden at the time hint: he didnt have legal authority).

So what actual CRIME has he committed that should allow presidents to be run through the court system?

All superb points, too bad the Orange Man Bad cult will never agree with you on any of them.

a reply to: RazorV66

If the standard of law being applied to Trump was applied to ALL politicians, I'd have zero problems.

a reply to: JinMI

I was talking to a friend earlier and he brought up Trump because we had been on the topic computers.....because it makes sense that Trump would be thrown into the mix....I digress...
I told my friend to not bring up that dude unless it has to do with a pee pee tape or when he wins if he does.
He thought I was kidding about the pee pee tape. I told him I absolutely am not kidding because if that did happen then I will change my view of the dude and give him some respect.
Those two things, much more specifically the tape is what matters to me most in regards to all the conspiracy stuff going on with him.
Details matter damnit!

a reply to: Allaroundya4k

You believe the pee pee tape to be real?

Or that you find it so ludicrous that people still believe it?



Your post implies both from my perspective.

a reply to: JinMI

I don't personally believe it but a man can still dream can't he?!

And oh I found the whole story just freaking outlandish and stupid yet funny as sh1t.
Matters to me not what people do in private.

a reply to: JinMI

10 years ago I never would imagined in my worst fever dream to see the attacks that have occurred against trump.

All the rules are gone after the last couple years.

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: Irishhaf

Do we really want a president being bogged down in the court system in the future, or worried about being bankrupted in the courts after he gets out.

The 3 judges addressed that:

The risks of chilling Presidential action or permitting meritless,
harassing prosecutions are unlikely, unsupported by history
and “too remote and shadowy to shape the course of justice.”

Take it for what you will.

They specifically used the word ‘vexatious’ in there as well.
They know what this clown show is.

causing or tending to cause annoyance, frustration, or worry.
denoting an action or the bringer of an action that is brought without sufficient grounds for winning, purely to cause annoyance to the defendant. "a frivolous or vexatious litigant"

originally posted by: Irishhaf
a reply to: JinMI

10 years ago I never would imagined in my worst fever dream to see the attacks that have occurred against trump.

All the rules are gone after the last couple years.

You have been here for 10 years according to your profile. While I came later I must assume that you thought stuff was pretty shady back then as I did.


Why do we keep being surprised by the corruption that has come manifest that we could see happening back then?

a reply to: JinMI

Well the orginal ruling was that Seven of the nine Supreme Court justices agreed that the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution’s 14th Amendment protected the right of an individual to choose to end their pregnancy prior to viability.

As we have been seeing when the states have a vote on abortion the right is upheld, that people want this right.

Do you see it as a matter of a female's human rights? Would you be fine if the state decided all males should have a vasectomy until they are married? Or they criminalize masturbation due to the loss of "potential" life?

I mean states that ban it are literally forcing a female as young as 12 to continue with something that may kill them, by law. In Florida they are telling teens in court that they are not mature enough to get an abortion but they are mature enough to raise another human being.

I think it's a human rights issue, not a state issue. Again, it was settled, until the religious right and Paul Weymouth found a topic that they could use to influence religious voters towards their candidates as they were angry at being told they could no longer segregate their private schools, and they knew that topic would not fly in the late 70s into the 80s. I've linked to this before. It's never been about states rights, it's about the religious right.

We're very off topic though.

a reply to: frogs453


I'm assuming you disagree with the SCOTUS but you're trying to tell me it's (D)ifferent.




Thanks for proving my point of not adhering to judges rulings and trusting them implicitly and appealing to their authority....sometimes.

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: frogs453
Thanks for proving my point of not adhering to judges rulings and trusting them implicitly and appealing to their authority....sometimes.

🤣🤣🤣🤣

I am just here to laugh at their hypocrisy anymore.
They fell right into the trap you set up.

a reply to: JinMI

Hmm...disagree with,nothing wrong with that. However if that's how they ruled, Iam not happy about it, but accept it. It was settled, now it's not. I believe it's a human rights issue.

I did not as you do claim that they are wrong because I know better than them. Which you did.

I disagree with states criminalizing it and forcing females to nearly bleed to death at work, lose their fertility and force 11 year olds to carry a baby which is highly dangerous.

a reply to: RazorV66

It certainly adds a little extra flavor to the already delicious popcorn!

a reply to: frogs453

Hmm...disagree with,nothing wrong with that. However if that's how they ruled, Iam not happy about it, but accept it.

"Accepting it" is merely a cop out for saying that you couldn't do anything about it even if you wanted to. Which I am also in the same boat of. Problem is, you made it part of your argument that the judges are somehow above reproach and infallible.

I did not as you do claim that they are wrong because I know better than them. Which you did.

Yet you just said disagreeing with their opinion is fine, that there's "nothing wrong with that."

Now you're falling all over yourself and I can not stop smiling.

a reply to: JinMI

You don't just disagree. You claim that they are "flawed" and you know better. Don't back away from that now.

As I said, better go give Trump’s attorneys your expert legal knowledge because they are failing badly.

a reply to: frogs453

Would I disagree because of some other reason? LOL!!


Why would I need to back away from any claim I've made on this subject? They are my opinions, and there's "nothing wrong with that?"

originally posted by: frogs453
a reply to: JinMI

Hmm...disagree with,nothing wrong with that. However if that's how they ruled, Iam not happy about it, but accept it. It was settled, now it's not. I believe it's a human rights issue.

I did not as you do claim that they are wrong because I know better than them. Which you did.

I disagree with states criminalizing it and forcing females to nearly bleed to death at work, lose their fertility and force 11 year olds to carry a baby which is highly dangerous.

It really wasn’t settled.
Roe was truly flawed.
Even your hero RGB knew it was a states rights issue.
There’s a couple of other flawed rulings which will be reversed this year as well.

a reply to: Vermilion

And unlike JinMI I will not claim to know the law better than judges.

originally posted by: frogs453
a reply to: Vermilion

And unlike JinMI I will not claim to know the law better than SCOTUS.

So now I know the law better than SCOTUS?

My, my how your goalpost moved to not only is the 3 judge appeal right and JinMI is wrong, but now JinMI knows better than not only the appeals judges..but SCOUTUS!


Do Frogs also flounder like fish?