l legal, and all justified if the President feels he is serving in his official capacity.I think his feelings would be inconsequential to how a court would ruleThe highest court already ruled, they authorized everything I said.
The highest court already ruled, they authorized everything I said.I think the ruling was it had to be an official duty not that it had to feel like an official duty
The Supreme Court just made a military dictatorship perfectly legal in the US, explicitly in support of a man who has declared that is what he will be on day one. The one who's running a campaign of retribution and vengeance.
The Supreme Court just made a military dictatorship perfectly legal in the US, explicitly in support of a man who has declared that is what he will be on day one. The one who's running a campaign of retribution and vengeance.This is why I can't take you seriously. He did not say day one. He only said on the first day and only the first day.
The other lie is that you know this was taking a swipe at Biden for all his executive orders on day one (executive orders are dictatorial by definition)
The Supreme Court made it legal every day, after the first day what, we've all seen how Trump responds to transfer of power, I'm sure Trump would never break his word and decide to stay Dictator for life. Whew, good thing we can trust his LOL....you guys crack me up.
This just in, some democrats have said limited immunity means full immunity and have misinterpreted an easy to answer supreme court decision.
falsely claiming this could open up the ability to assassinate rivals.
You don't think that a political assassination could be argued to be part of a president’s role as commander in chief?Not a domestic one.Stephen Wermiel, a law professor specialising in the supreme court, said that such an action could be.
A US president using the power of the state to kill political rivals and maintain his grip on power would be an unprecedented – and hugely unlikely – development.
Stephen Wermiel, a law professor specialising in the Supreme Court, said the notion was “preposterous”, but said proponents could argue it was covered by the president’s role as commander in chief.
I read the article he said it was ludicrous and highly unlikely but mentioned a possibility. My impression is he thinks the possibility is infitesimally small
How the court would rule" is completely inconsequential, the President has full immunity, and he has the military.Sure, the judiciary has those cool hammers, but I still think the military can take them
The evidence for this is a call with the Georgia official and he was recorded saying to find all the votes so that everyone's vote is counted.
Nope, nearly every speech where he says he wants to close the border he also mentions increasing legal immigration.
Not really true, and proven in case after case where there is false claims of this are exposed for what they are.
Bullshit. He has said why can’t we get more immigrants from “non shithole countries”
Plus if they really cared they would increase funding for better training and to recruit higher quality candidates but instead they promote defending the police. And giving their funding to social service workers or something.
Not true, my platform actually deviates from those sources
Stay on topic. You and I aren't talking about what is going to or likely to happen, we are talking about what the ruling does or does not allow. Do you disagree with this guy in the article you cited that the ruling allows this?
A US president using the power of the state to kill political rivals and maintain his grip on power would be an unprecedented – and hugely unlikely – development. Stephen Wermiel, a law professor specialising in the Supreme Court, said the notion was “preposterous”,
Yep there is the programming. Even the phrase "big lie" which Hitler used to describe Jewish tactics. I guess Maga and Trump are the new jews so these false convictions are fine as are laws banning free speech etc.
What exactly is your platform or source of information? Tim Pool?
Do you think Hitler was a victim of free speech bans? Wrong. Trump is the new Hitler. MAGA MORONS are the idiots who followed Hitler into a fiery path of total destruction
