Read Jack Smith’s unsealed redacted motion on Trump presidential immunity

a reply to: RazorV66

No Razor. Over the years you yourself have been responded to with, in regard to Michigan, the news reports at the time, the tweets of the fake elector Maddock, video of them trying to get in the Capitol, Michigan election laws, news reports of what happened at TCF and video. Quotes and news reports about Rudy and his "no proof" but "theories". News articles and again tweets from Maddock regarding their big "meeting" with Trump and what they were doing the night before the certification, tweets by others and emails sent to Maddock because she was supposed to be "quiet" about what they were doing.

Some things did come from Smith's investigation, noted in the pdf such as the whole he wanted a "Brooks brothers" riot at TCF. That he lied to the reps in Michigan about Georgia's plan. And Smith does have emails, testimony and even Trump’s phone.

No one made this all up. And again, this is only a fraction and one state. You are more than welcome to read the pdf and provide links to refute any of this. Instead of just "he's president and can do anything he wants." A president is not free to undermine the election with his Campaign staff.

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: UKTruth

The constitution supercedes all branches of government.

The presidents main duty is to uphold the constitution as such.

It's nice to see MAGA cultists finally peeling back their skin tho.

Does the Constitution vest all power of the exectuve branch in the President?
That was the point I made.
The saliant point is not a generic one about the other branches of govt, it is that as President, Trump was perfectly entitled to investigate potential election fraud.
The idea that he was carrying out those investigations as a private citizen whilst he was still president is bogus - and I am sure Jack Smith knows this.
The latest release of charges is pure election interference.

originally posted by: frogs453
a reply to: RazorV66

No Razor. Over the years you yourself have been responded to with, in regard to Michigan, the news reports at the time, the tweets of the fake elector Maddock, video of them trying to get in the Capitol, Michigan election laws, news reports of what happened at TCF and video. Quotes and news reports about Rudy and his "no proof" but "theories". News articles and again tweets from Maddock regarding their big "meeting" with Trump and what they were doing the night before the certification, tweets by others and emails sent to Maddock because she was supposed to be "quiet" about what they were doing.

Some things did come from Smith's investigation, noted in the pdf such as the whole he wanted a "Brooks brothers" riot at TCF. That he lied to the reps in Michigan about Georgia's plan. And Smith does have emails, testimony and even Trump’s phone.

No one made this all up. And again, this is only a fraction and one state. You are more than welcome to read the pdf and provide links to refute any of this. Instead of just "he's president and can do anything he wants." A president is not free to undermine the election with his Campaign staff.

Theories and conjecture.

a reply to: RazorV66

Evidence and testimonies?

a reply to: RazorV66

Then refute the emails, the testimony, all the other available video, sources.

Provide links.

If you cannot, but just screech, it doesn't make it true.

You will need to actually read the filing first to even start to provide links that refute the information there.

a reply to: malte86

What's your derogatory point for asking me useless questions? We ALL KNOW what that's called don't we. 😴 You haven't and never will fool anybody.

originally posted by: frogs453
a reply to: RazorV66

Then refute the emails, the testimony, all the other available video, sources.

Provide links.

If you cannot, but just screech, it doesn't make it true.

None of it matters.

When Trump wins, prepare yourself for America to be Great Again.

a reply to: frogs453

The DOJ was compromised before Trump took office. We ALL KNOW this already. It's pointless to keep screaming the same trash like it's something people don't understand. 😀 You DO KNOW this right?

a reply to: frogs453

You might be inflicted with The dreaded Kamala/AOC Syndrome. You're talking just like a deflective circled wagon train. 🆘 Please consider the future consequences of your actions.

a reply to: strongfp

Hang on!!!!

So I can go just by the constitution, and not all the BS laws they have passed? Cause it supersedes it?

Sweet!

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: RazorV66

Evidence and testimonies?

2nd Hand Hearsay and total assumptive deductive illogical reasoning 😬

Smith himself in the filing says things are not protected and later says some things are protected 🤣

originally posted by: Myhandle

Without the people’s confidence, this is just a circle of jerks. Knock yourself out.

Grab ‘em by the 😽-DJT

Amazingly, 100% of liberals have never said a rude/crude humor remark in their life. Not being a liberal, I have said 100,000s, some were actually funny...lol

Trump's was a reality statement of how women are like around rich and famous people. Guys like him are just a big chunk of meat for female sharks that swim around the rich and famous looking for any opportunity. It was also a rather weak ass statement compared to what I hear daily.

But...oh the horrors of it all...

originally posted by: frogs453
a reply to: RazorV66

Then refute the emails, the testimony, all the other available video, sources.

Provide links.

If you cannot, but just screech, it doesn't make it true.

You will need to actually read the filing first to even start to provide links that refute the information there.

None of that proves Trump had intent or even knowledge of a planned riot or insurrection 😁

You were shown multiple times over the years and you still have your stubborn streaky sneaky dig dilemma.

originally posted by: UKTruth

The saliant point is not a generic one about the other branches of govt, it is that as President, Trump was perfectly entitled to investigate potential election fraud.
The idea that he was carrying out those investigations as a private citizen whilst he was still president is bogus - and I am sure Jack Smith knows this.
The latest release of charges is pure election interference.

Well, the liberals have investigated every election they lost for fraud to find missing votes. Once again, the liberals keep playing the double standard and it is very plain to see no matter how much they say this is different.

a reply to: xuenchen

2nd hand hearsay?

Don't they have Trump's phone?

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: UKTruth

The saliant point is not a generic one about the other branches of govt, it is that as President, Trump was perfectly entitled to investigate potential election fraud.
The idea that he was carrying out those investigations as a private citizen whilst he was still president is bogus - and I am sure Jack Smith knows this.
The latest release of charges is pure election interference.

Well, the liberals have investigated every election they lost for fraud to find missing votes. Once again, the liberals keep playing the double standard and it is very plain to see no matter how much they say this is different.

Obviously, they just ignore the facts that prove how wrong they are. It's the way to "win".

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Myhandle

Without the people’s confidence, this is just a circle of jerks. Knock yourself out.

Grab ‘em by the 😽-DJT

Amazingly, 100% of liberals have never said a rude/crude humor remark in their life. Not being a liberal, I have said 100,000s, some were actually funny...lol

Trump's was a reality statement of how women are like around rich and famous people. Guys like him are just a big chunk of meat for female sharks that swim around the rich and famous looking for any opportunity. It was also a rather weak ass statement compared to what I hear daily.

But...oh the horrors of it all...

If that offends them, it just goes to show how weak and fragile they are.

It's embarrassing.

a reply to: UKTruth

I'm not arguing anything about the jack Smith situation, I'm pointing out that someone said the president is the law. That's not true. The constitution is the law, and the president isn't over the constitution.

a reply to: chiefsmom

Technically?

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: UKTruth

I'm not arguing anything about the jack Smith situation, I'm pointing out that someone said the president is the law. That's not true. The constitution is the law, and the president isn't over the constitution.

You need to account for the thread topic instead of taking literally what someone writes.
When I read that statement from that poster, i read it in the context of the topic.

In this circumstance the President is the law in terms of enforcement - empowered by the Constitution