BREAKING: TRUMP WINS! Supreme Court Rules 6-3 on Presidential Immunity

originally posted by: mechtech87
You are forgetting that now Biden can just say Trump didn't win. It's not illegal, he's the president and says so, so it's legal.

You see the problem, don't you?


a reply to: putnam6

They already know Trump will win. They cant just imprison him, so they are going to impeach him on his first day in office, and then do another impeachment each month. That will get him!

a reply to: grey580

Is that why election fraud cases are still happening to this day?

originally posted by: frogs453
a reply to: IndieA

The President as a candidate is allowed on the call to ask for the specific number of votes to win the state?

Maybe that will happen this year. I'm sure you'll be fine with that, right? I wouldn't be.

Are the votes in question fraudulent or likely fraudulent?

I don't think you've seen all of the evidence to come out of Georgia, especially Fulton county.

originally posted by: grey580
a reply to: namehere

What are you babbling about?

Who is they?

who is they? the justices, who else would i be talking about?

it's like folks aren't smart enough to grasp the rules already in place. President does something bad, impeach him. If it's really a bad thing, there won't be a problem removing him. But if it's partisan douchebaggery, then things will likely remain as they were.

OR the SCOTUS just made Trump and only Trump a dictator. All depends on your level of DERP.

a reply to: IndieA

Will it matter? If the President declares they are likely fraudulent. I mean the last guy had 2 independent audits done we didn't even hear of until he was out of office which also found like the numerous other audits and state audits that there was no substantial fraud.

originally posted by: frogs453
a reply to: IndieA

The President as a candidate is allowed on the call to ask for the specific number of votes to win the state?

Maybe that will happen this year. I'm sure you'll be fine with that, right? I wouldn't be.

why don't you quote it, so we all know the words used. We don't want an Adam Schiff redux.

a reply to: JinMI

The question is. Have any of those fraud trials proven that there was actually fraud?
Even republican investigations in certain states ended finding nothing.

a reply to: namehere

So exactly how have they betrayed America?

They ruled that anything that is within the scope of presidential duties is immune. And anything not within the scope is not immune.

That's how things should be.

originally posted by: Vermilion
a reply to: Boomer1947

The Fani case is nuked.
Fani will end up paying for her corrupt garbage office though.
Brags case will be kicked on appeal.
Jack Smith was unlawfully appointed so that case will be done as well.
Now what?

More on Jack Smith being unlawfully appointed:

The Supreme Court ruled in Trump’s favor which means Jack Smith’s January 6 case in DC is effectively delayed.

Clarence Thomas went off on Jack Smith in his concurring opinion and questioned his authority as a special counsel.

President Trump is separately arguing that Jack Smith’s appointment was unlawful in the classified documents case playing out in a Florida court.

“I write separately to highlight another way in which this prosecution may violate our constitutional structure. In this case, the Attorney General purported to appoint a private citizen as Special Counsel to prosecute a former President on behalf of the United States. But, I am not sure that any office for the Special Counsel has been “established by Law,” as the Constitution requires. Art. II, §2, cl. 2. By requiring that Congress create federal offices “by Law,” the Constitution imposes an important check against the President — he cannot create offices at his pleasure. If there is no law establishing the office that the Special Counsel occupies, then he cannot proceed with this prosecution. A private citizen cannot criminally prosecute anyone, let alone a former President,” Clarence Thomas said.

“A Private Citizen Cannot Criminally Prosecute Anyone, Let Alone a Former President” – Clarence Thomas Questions Jack Smith’s Authority in Blistering Opinion on Immunity Ruling

All that is important is after 3 times of trying to derail Trump's election campaign, they have instead energized it. Because regardless of the actual legalities, enough of the GP can ascertain it was a little bit of a witch hunt, the Russian dossier shows this plainly

originally posted by: network dude
it's like folks aren't smart enough to grasp the rules already in place. President does something bad, impeach him. If it's really a bad thing, there won't be a problem removing him. But if it's partisan douchebaggery, then things will likely remain as they were.

OR the SCOTUS just made Trump and only Trump a dictator. All depends on your level of DERP.

that might be true if the courts weren't so dead seat on tossing out all precedent and turning the laws on their head, trying to create an opening for trump to make himself dictator by ignoring the law, covering their hypocrisy and corrupt morals with flowery words about justice and rule of law and twisting them into a mockery of both.

originally posted by: grey580
a reply to: JinMI

The question is. Have any of those fraud trials proven that there was actually fraud?
Even republican investigations in certain states ended finding nothing.

Yes. States violated their own constitutions. Changed election rules without Congressional approval. Used unauditable 3rd parties. To name a few

originally posted by: grey580
a reply to: namehere

So exactly how have they betrayed America?

They ruled that anything that is within the scope of presidential duties is immune. And anything not within the scope is not immune.

That's how things should be.

no it isn't, if you can't see how then i really fear for our future, if that's how all of you trump supporters see things.

originally posted by: grey580
a reply to: JinMI

The question is. Have any of those fraud trials proven that there was actually fraud?
Even republican investigations in certain states ended finding nothing.

Almost all of the fraud cases, never looked at any evidence due to what they claimed was a lack of standing.

Investigations, recounts, and audits turned up an abundance of evidence that was mostly swept under a rug, but this fact goes against the official narrative that was pushed on the public.

Georgia's recounts were claimed to have not turned up any evidence of fraud, however evidence of fraud found during those recounts has been tried up in other court cases, and mostly kept from the public.

Here's just some of the evidence to come out of Georgia:

WHAT WE FOUND IN GEORGIA

Six sworn affidavits of Fulton counterfeit ballots; (10s of thousands est.)

17,724 more votes than in person recount ballot images required to tabulate votes in Fulton

Drop box video surveillance representing 181,507 ballots destroyed in 102 counties

Improper Chain of Custody forms for 107,000 ballots statewide

Estimated Chain of Custody forms missing for 355,000 ballots statewide (Georgia Star)

86,860 voters in 2020 have false registration date prior to 2017 but were not on 2017 history file

Over 1.7 million original ballot images are lost or destroyed in 70 counties despite state, federal law

VoterGA.org

Here's the official Maricopa County election audit results presentation, which is also full of evidence that was later swept under a rug:

Maricopa County election audit results released

And here's the kinematic artifact detection presentation:

LIVE: The Truth Behind Arizona’s Paper Ballots; Jovan Pulitzer’s BOMBSHELL Paper Analysis Report 6/27/22

Sometimes what we are told, and what is the truth, are two total different things.

a reply to: IndieA

I remember me, and others here pointing this out right after he was appointed.

originally posted by: namehere

originally posted by: network dude
it's like folks aren't smart enough to grasp the rules already in place. President does something bad, impeach him. If it's really a bad thing, there won't be a problem removing him. But if it's partisan douchebaggery, then things will likely remain as they were.

OR the SCOTUS just made Trump and only Trump a dictator. All depends on your level of DERP.

that might be true if the courts weren't so dead seat on tossing out all precedent and turning the laws on their head, trying to create an opening for trump to make himself dictator by ignoring the law, covering their hypocrisy and corrupt morals with flowery words about justice and rule of law and twisting them into a mockery of both.

Respectfully, all it did was send it back to the DC courts to decide what is or isn't an official act.

After the election. NO MORE NO LESS

www.washingtonpost.com...

The high court left it up to the D.C. trial judge, U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, to determine which parts of Trump’s alleged conduct were unofficial acts by the then-president — a formula that seems likely to further narrow the scope of Smith’s case against Trump and add significant time and further appeals to the case.


But because Roberts did not send the case back to lower courts “forthwith,” as the special counsel had asked, Chutkan will have to wait until early August to begin those determinations.

a reply to: IndieA

It's the same in AZ, WI, PA, and NV.

After 3+ years of FOIA requests, lawsuits, and State legislature hearings.

Fraud has been demonstrated in the key counties of those States enough to cover the margin of victory.

It's not even a question.

originally posted by: namehere

originally posted by: network dude
it's like folks aren't smart enough to grasp the rules already in place. President does something bad, impeach him. If it's really a bad thing, there won't be a problem removing him. But if it's partisan douchebaggery, then things will likely remain as they were.

OR the SCOTUS just made Trump and only Trump a dictator. All depends on your level of DERP.

that might be true if the courts weren't so dead seat on tossing out all precedent and turning the laws on their head, trying to create an opening for trump to make himself dictator by ignoring the law, covering their hypocrisy and corrupt morals with flowery words about justice and rule of law and twisting them into a mockery of both.

I have been saying I didn't want this ruling. I want to see Obama and Biden and Clinton hang from a tree. But sadly, my wishes won't be happening.

Why do you doubt the impeachment process? it's been the gold standard for a couple hundred years. What has changed? (besides a president you don't like)

originally posted by: grey580
a reply to: JinMI

The question is. Have any of those fraud trials proven that there was actually fraud?
Even republican investigations in certain states ended finding nothing.

I do hope that all those who repeat this mantra are available for communications when this is finally looked at correctly. Maybe there wasn't enough fraud to amount to anything. But based on the things that have been reported thus far, it looks like we were gaslit into agreeing that this was the most secure election in the history of man. Yet, some don't agree.