It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Annee
originally posted by: Sookiechacha
Thanks to this ruling, no "tard-ass" court ever see such a case. Even Congress wouldn't have access to the testimony of any conversations/order between the Executive Branch and his cabinet officers and their staff.
I smell Putin.
You should go actually read the opinion before regurgitating talking points.
originally posted by: UKTruth
originally posted by: Sookiechacha
originally posted by: Annee
originally posted by: Sookiechacha
Thanks to this ruling, no "tard-ass" court ever see such a case. Even Congress wouldn't have access to the testimony of any conversations/order between the Executive Branch and his cabinet officers and their staff.
I smell Putin.
Smells like dirty, dark money to me.
Leftists when Trump is convicted for a crime no one even understands, even the jury - 'you have to trust the courts and it's anti-democratic to question them'
Also Leftists, after a decision they don't like - 'It's Putin and dark money corruption'.
originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: JinMI
You should go actually read the opinion before regurgitating talking points.
Well, I'm speaking for myself. You, however, haven't posted anything except regurgitated talking points, specifically crafted to distract from the fact that SCOTUS made up some rules that promote their redistribution of power agenda.
originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: Threadbarer
Cool, so what are the elements of fraud again?
originally posted by: Threadbarer
a reply to: JinMI
Every state has their own fraud statutes. What state are we talking about?
originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: Sookiechacha
While I accept your allegation of regurgitated talking points, mine came directly from the opinion while yours come from sources that make their baskets of money keeping folks like you kept, complacent and ignorant.
originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: Sookiechacha
If it upset precedent it wouldn't be littered with precedent.
Your framing is too stupid to be stupid.
46 Presidents have had this immunity.
168.933a Forgery; definition.
Sec. 933a.
Except as otherwise provided in this act, a person who does either of the following for any purpose under this act is guilty of forgery:
(a) Knowingly makes, files, or otherwise publishes a false document with the intent to defraud.
(b) Knowingly makes, files, or otherwise publishes a document that contains false signatures with the intent to defraud.
originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Vermilion
46 Presidents have had this immunity.
Under this opinion, would Nixon have been required to hand over those tapes? They certainly couldn't be used against him, under this opinion.