12 Comments
User's avatar
Wayne Andre Mercier's avatar

This will go on for a long time IMO past Nov elections

Hudson E Baldwin lll's avatar

Intentionally vague, UNCONSTITUTIONAL, legislation from the Bench.

The second and third, all this court does. When it’s not soliciting or accepting bribes, violating the Oath of Office, and side gig seditious BS.

Hudson E Baldwin lll's avatar

“The Court ruled that Trump is immune from criminal liability for using the Justice Department to convince State’s to use his illegitimate electors instead of their legitimate ones, based on the separation of powers and that this was an official act.”

Sincere question. You don’t agree with that, right?

Jeremy Mercier's avatar

To me, it’s a matter of what constitutes an official act. I can’t say whether I agree or not as I’m not exactly sure what official acts would fall into their constitutionally defined Executive powers.

John's avatar

"The Court ruled that Trump is immune from criminal liability for using the Justice Department to convince State’s to use his illegitimate electors instead of their legitimate ones, ..."

Creative writing? I have zero recollection of this. Please elaborate.

Jeremy Mercier's avatar

Its wording pulled right from the decision.

John's avatar

Thanks for clarifying. In the furball of the last several years, I had lost track of what the actual indictment was about.

Hudson E Baldwin lll's avatar

Do you have a copy of the official decision?

User's avatar
Comment deleted
Jul 1, 2024
Comment deleted
Hudson E Baldwin lll's avatar

WUT? Immunity from espionage, sedition, inciting, obstruction, conspiracy?

What about child rape?

Jeremy Mercier's avatar

I think this idea that anything and everything will be exempt from criminal prosecution is not even in alignment with the ruling at all.