Trump claims absolute immunity in attempt to toss January 6 suits

  

Category:  News & Politics

Via:  sister-mary-agnes-ample-bottom  •  2 weeks ago  •  198 comments

By:   Melissa Quinn

Trump claims absolute immunity in attempt to toss January 6 suits
"The only people who committed overt, illegal acts are the actual individuals who went to the Capitol,"

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T



Washington — Lawyers for former President Donald Trump argued Monday that he is entitled to broad immunity from civil lawsuits attempting to hold him accountable for his role in the January 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol, as they sought to convince a federal judge to toss out a trio of lawsuits filed against him in the wake of last year's violent assault. 

U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta heard oral arguments spanning roughly five hours to consider whether to grant the request from the former president to dismiss the civil cases or allow them to move forward. 

Democratic Congressman Eric Swalwell of California, two members of the Capitol Police and a group of House Democrats, led by Congressman Bennie Thompson of Mississippi, have each accused the former president of inciting the insurrection at the Capitol on January 6.

The suit filed by Swalwell also named Rudy Giuliani, Trump's personal lawyer, Donald Trump Jr., and GOP Congressman Mo Brooks of Alabama. The suit from the 11 House Democrats alleges Trump, Giuliani and two far-right extremist groups, the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers, conspired to incite a crowd of his supporters to breach the Capitol to stop Congress from counting states' electoral votes and reaffirming President Biden's win in the 2020 presidential election.

Trump, however, argues he has "absolute immunity" from liability in the three civil suits filed against him and claims his remarks outside the White House before the mob descended on the Capitol were political speech protected by the First Amendment. During that speech, Trump urged attendees of the "Save America" rally at the Ellipse to "fight like hell" and march to the Capitol building "to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."

"We're not on the outer perimeters here. We are dead center on immunity, because a president always has the authority to speak about whether or not any of the other branches frankly can or should take action," Jesse Binnall, Trump's attorney, told Mehta on Monday, adding that the president in his remarks was discussing congressional action — the tallying of Electoral College votes — which is "dead center" on the official duties of the president.

"Look at the type of act that was being conducted," Binnall argued, "Speak[ing] to the American people ... giving a speech is something that presidents do," noting the words themselves are not at issue here, but the forum in which they were delivered.

Mehta pressed Binnall on how far the boundaries of presidential immunity extend and where to draw the line, asking whether there was "anything a president could say or do in his capacity as a candidate that would not receive immunity?"

Binnall said he could not think of an example and instead argued the appropriate remedy for Trump's actions surrounding January 6 was impeachment, which was pursued by the House and ended with his acquittal by the Senate.

"They don't get another bite at the apple with these questions," he said, adding that executive immunity "must be broad."

But Joseph Sellers, who argued on behalf of the Democratic lawmakers and Capitol Police officers, told Mehta that Trump was engaged in "purely private actions" on January 6 and therefore cannot be shielded from the civil lawsuits.

"There is no legitimate role absolutely for fomenting an insurrection directed at Congress," Sellers said of the part presidential immunity plays in legal protection.

Mehta, though, noted that during his remarks outside the White House, Trump was addressing the integrity of the election, a "matter of public concern." It is within a president's capacity, he said, to speak to the public about such matters.

"Why isn't that something that is squarely something for which he enjoys immunity?" Mehta asked, later pointing to a Nixon-era Supreme Court ruling that prohibits courts from examining a president's motives. 

Sellers explained that those suing the president were not focused on his motives, but rather the words he spoke on January 6.

The former president's attorneys flatly argued their client did nothing illegal. 

"The only people who committed overt, illegal acts are the actual individuals who went to the Capitol," they said. 

Still, the judge later highlighted that some of Trump's last words were "'go to the Capitol'" and questioned why that language would not be tied to the Capitol attack that followed. 

"We're not talking here about any ordinary protest," Mehta said.

Trump's lawyers reiterated that he was "very, very clear" that he wanted everyone to act "peacefully and patriotically."

But Mehta raised the former president's silence while the mob of his supporters breached the Capitol, which led to the evacuation of lawmakers and a pause in proceedings, and questioned whether that was enough to "plausibly infer that the president agreed with the conduct" of the rioters.

"What do I do about the fact that the president didn't denounce the conduct immediately?" he asked. 

In arguing Trump's remarks were protected under the First Amendment, Binnall said the president's words do not "rise to any level of violence."

"Here you have political dialogue using very calm words in political dialogue and then you have the reaction … afterwards by third parties," he said. "That is not something that ever becomes actionable based on the words at play here, which are not calls to violence."

Sellers, though, argued Trump's comments cannot be isolated only to the rally on January 6, as he "beat the drum of fraud, fraud, fraud" in the weeks leading up to the insurrection.

"You have to look at the broader context," he said.

In his lawsuit against Trump, Swalwell accuses the former president, Giuliani, Trump Jr. and Brooks of violating federal civil rights laws and D.C. law by spreading false allegations of voter fraud and other conduct that led to the violence at the Capitol on January 6. 

Brooks, like Trump, is also seeking immunity from Swalwell's suit, arguing he was acting within the scope of his employment as a House member when he spoke outside the White House before the Capitol attack. The Justice Department has already declined a request from Brooks to represent him in the case, saying his appearance at the rally on January 6 was "campaign activity" and inciting an insurrection is outside the scope of his employment.

The group of House Democrats, meanwhile, claims Trump and Giuliani violated the Ku Klux Klan Act, a Reconstruction-era law that prohibits two or more people from conspiring to "prevent, by force, intimidate or threat" any office-holder from performing their official duties. The lawmakers argue Trump and Giuliani, together with the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers, instigated the mob as part of a "carefully coordinated campaign" to interfere with the process to confirm the tally of Electoral College votes cast.

Jon Mosely, who represents the Oath Keepers in the lawsuit, told CBS News in a statement that reads in part "Judge Mehta is very scholarly and academic. I don't believe one can tell how he is going to rule from the hearing because he asks both sides tough questions."

In the third suit filed by Capitol Police officers James Blassingame and Sidney Hemby, Trump is accused of spurring the January 6 assault with his repeated baseless claims of election fraud. The two officers say they suffered physical and emotional injuries from the riot and are seeking compensatory damages of $75,000 each, as well as punitive damages of an unspecified amount. 

Trump's conduct in the run-up to and on January 6 led the House to impeach him for incitement of insurrection in the wake of the assault, making him the only president to be impeached twice. The Senate, however, acquitted Trump of the impeachment charge.

A House select committee is conducting its own investigation into the events surrounding the Capitol assault and has sought records from Trump's White House, sparking a legal battle brought by the former president. Trump asked the Supreme Court last month to intervene to block the National Archives from releasing the documents to House investigators, but the justices have not yet acted on his request.

Monday's hearing also comes less than a week after other law enforcement officers who responded to the January 6 attack filed additional lawsuits against Trump. Two Metropolitan Police Department officers and two Capitol Police officers allege in their suits that "Trump's words and conduct leading up to and on January 6, 2021 … demonstrated a willful and wanton disregard for and a reckless indifference to" the safety of the officers. 


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
Professor Expert
1  seeder  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom    2 weeks ago

Monday's hearing also comes less than a week after other law enforcement officers who responded to the January 6 attack filed additional lawsuits against Trump. Two Metropolitan Police Department officers and two Capitol Police officers allege in their suits that "Trump's words and conduct leading up to and on January 6, 2021 … demonstrated a willful and wanton disregard for and a reckless indifference to" the safety of the officers.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.1  devangelical  replied to  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom @1    2 weeks ago

I truly feel sympathy for the secret service team assigned to protect that traitorous pile of shit.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.1.1  Tessylo  replied to  devangelical @1.1    2 weeks ago

Do you think any one of them would take a bullet for that steaming pile of shit?

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.1.2  devangelical  replied to  Tessylo @1.1.1    2 weeks ago

I wouldn't...

 
 
 
Eat The Press Do Not Read It
Junior Expert
1.1.3  Eat The Press Do Not Read It  replied to  Tessylo @1.1.1    2 weeks ago

I did! That is why I have been "MIA," so long! Send money - cash, no checks!

 
 
 
Duck Hawk
Freshman Silent
1.1.4  Duck Hawk  replied to  Eat The Press Do Not Read It @1.1.3    2 weeks ago

good to see you back!

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
2  Trout Giggles    2 weeks ago

And I say bullshit. I hope the judge does not grant him immunity. He incited those people that day

 
 
 
Eat The Press Do Not Read It
Junior Expert
2.1  Eat The Press Do Not Read It  replied to  Trout Giggles @2    2 weeks ago

And, me too, Trout Giggles. I am still excited. Do you want to hold hands. Thanks to COVID I washed them?

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
2.1.1  Trout Giggles  replied to  Eat The Press Do Not Read It @2.1    2 weeks ago

Only if you used hand sanitizer, too

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
3  CB     2 weeks ago

Trump throws his "supporters/enablers" under the bus and steamrolls them flat and yet they bend the knee to their monster who they created. This is not how exceptionalism behaves. This nation is politically stuck in all out political war. Call it what it is!

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
3.1  devangelical  replied to  CB @3    2 weeks ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
3.1.1  CB   replied to  devangelical @3.1    2 weeks ago

In the meantime, some conservatives are running around unchecked, twisting the constitution into a pretzel, selectively granting themselves privileges and abusing others with privileges they know that document did not mean to grant anybody. (We are in a political war.)

 
 
 
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
Professor Expert
3.2  seeder  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom  replied to  CB @3    2 weeks ago

He's going to end up throwing everyone but Ivanka under his political bus.  He is saving her as a last resort to get out of his Trump Organization culpabilities.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
3.2.1  devangelical  replied to  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom @3.2    2 weeks ago

he expects all of his defective spawn to take the fall for him...

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
3.2.2  CB   replied to  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom @3.2    2 weeks ago

HA!

 
 
 
Eat The Press Do Not Read It
Junior Expert
3.2.3  Eat The Press Do Not Read It  replied to  CB @3.2.2    2 weeks ago

Hey, Bro, missed you. I took a bullet for "Diaper Don" and been out of commission for nearly a year due to "too many Reality checks."

 
 
 
Eat The Press Do Not Read It
Junior Expert
3.2.4  Eat The Press Do Not Read It  replied to  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom @3.2    2 weeks ago

"Diaper Don" will throw his children under the bus, if it benefits him.  If you noticed, DD is a "shaty man," not a loyal one.

Thank God for loyalist Re-Puritans who willing serve as the "Clean Up Crew."

 
 
 
Eat The Press Do Not Read It
Junior Expert
3.2.5  Eat The Press Do Not Read It  replied to  Eat The Press Do Not Read It @3.2.4    2 weeks ago

I am trying to run up the comments because I am so "needy."
Send MONEY, Honey, if you be too depressed to post a "comment!"

I was for nearly a year. Locked in the basement of the Dick Cheney Nursing Home For Wayward Republicans, until his daughter released me.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
3.2.6  Trout Giggles  replied to  Eat The Press Do Not Read It @3.2.5    2 weeks ago

Glad you were released

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
3.2.7  CB   replied to  Eat The Press Do Not Read It @3.2.3    2 weeks ago

Well, I had placed you (tentatively) on: The Sick, Lame, and Lazy List.  Some were sketching you as a line item on The Great Nursing Dorm in the Sky roster!

Welcome. Welcome. Welcome.

Now get back down there and get to work! 'Nail' that evil rascal that has clutched America by its. . "ahem." (Giggles.)

 
 
 
Eat The Press Do Not Read It
Junior Expert
3.2.8  Eat The Press Do Not Read It  replied to  CB @3.2.7    2 weeks ago

What a relief. I see that you to aficionados have kissed and made up. Well, maybe, not kissed. That is very difficult to do on the inter-nut. 

But, I do it all the time.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
3.2.9  CB   replied to  Eat The Press Do Not Read It @3.2.8    2 weeks ago

Tee-hee.  Me smooching??! With whom may I ask? Because I may have lost control of where my mustache hangs out (in the wee-hours)!

 
 
 
Eat The Press Do Not Read It
Junior Expert
3.3  Eat The Press Do Not Read It  replied to  CB @3    2 weeks ago

I call it "Coma Diaper Dumping," in honor of "Diaper Don," who has the worst case of "oral runs," in recorded history of "the runs."



320

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
3.3.1  CB   replied to  Eat The Press Do Not Read It @3.3    2 weeks ago

ETP! (You gave me a scare!) Don't do that AGAIN! I thought the Great Nursing Dorm in the Sky had called. Welcome back long time no see!

Your desk is back up: Now get back to work! (Happy New Year, ETP!!!)

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Guide
4  Greg Jones    2 weeks ago

 "'that speech, Trump urged attendees of the "Save America" rally at the Ellipse to "fight like hell" and march to the Capitol building "to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."

That  is all he said or did. No evidence of a conspiracy.

"Binnell said he could not think of an example and instead argued the appropriate remedy for Trump's actions surrounding January 6 was impeachment, which was pursued by the House and ended with his acquittal by the Senate. They don't get another bite at the apple with these questions," he said, adding that executive immunity "must be broad."

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
4.1  devangelical  replied to  Greg Jones @4    2 weeks ago
That  is all he said or did. No evidence of a conspiracy.

bullshit. so what's with all of his legal stalling then?

 
 
 
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
Professor Expert
4.1.1  seeder  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom  replied to  devangelical @4.1    2 weeks ago
bullshit. so what's with all of his legal stalling then?

Why is this such a difficult concept for Trump supporters to understand?  An innocent person would never, ever demand immunity for any reason.  Nor would they defy a subpoena.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
4.1.2  CB   replied to  devangelical @4.1    2 weeks ago

See? Donald J.Trump sets the stage for an insurrection, stands at the podium, tells his followers -

bb3c2e761915f626d5264903eb142233  

As chaos ripped through Washington, D.C., on Wednesday afternoon, President Trump quietly slipped into his motorcade to be whisked back to the White House , despite having told his supporters that he was going to walk with them to the Capitol Building.

And still these people side with the lying 'wonderkin.' Why? Trump is a DISASTER! His followers evidentially are too!

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
4.1.3  CB   replied to  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom @4.1.1    2 weeks ago

Because some conservatives are frauds and 'virulent.' They condemn liberals for telling the truth, but permit Donald Trump license to pass with a freighter-loaded shipment of lies, misinformation, and disgusting dishonesties. Why? These conservatives are not ignorant. They are fellow collaborators (even the ones on NT talking this trash) with Donald J. Trump. This is all-out political war!

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Expert
4.1.4  Tacos!  replied to  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom @4.1.1    2 weeks ago
An innocent person would never, ever demand immunity for any reason.  Nor would they defy a subpoena.

Of course they would! If i have done nothing wrong, why should I have to pay lawyers, take time out of my days to go to court, or just generally stress over the outcome when suing me at all is wrong?

Our system is not supposed to stomp on innocent people and then justify the abuse with the claim that an innocent person would always cooperate. There are reasons we have rules about these things, and one of those reasons is to prevent abuse. Another is to seek some kind of fairness in the system. You can’t just bully people into court.

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Principal
4.1.5  MrFrost  replied to  Tacos! @4.1.4    2 weeks ago
why should I have to pay lawyers

If you are 100% innocent, you don't need a lawyer. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
4.1.6  Sean Treacy  replied to  MrFrost @4.1.5    2 weeks ago
f you are 100% innocent, you don't need a lawyer.

That's insane. Don't ever give that advice to anyone you care about. 

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Senior Principal
4.1.7  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.1.6    2 weeks ago

No Shit!!  SMH just wow.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Guide
4.1.8  Greg Jones  replied to  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom @4.1.1    2 weeks ago

See comment  4.1.4  You too Frosty.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Expert
4.1.9  Tacos!  replied to  MrFrost @4.1.5    2 weeks ago
If you are 100% innocent, you don't need a lawyer. 

That’s the dumbest thing I’ve read in a long, long time. Please no one listen to this crap.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
4.1.10  devangelical  replied to  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom @4.1.1    2 weeks ago

the concept of an imperial presidency is the keystone of right wing fascism...

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Principal
4.1.11  MrFrost  replied to  Tacos! @4.1.9    2 weeks ago

That’s the dumbest thing I’ve read in a long, long time. Please no one listen to this crap.

I was sued once a long time ago. I didn't get a lawyer, represented myself and I won. Why? Because the claim was 100% false. You can't win a court case based on lies. 

 
 
 
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
Professor Expert
4.1.12  seeder  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom  replied to  Tacos! @4.1.4    2 weeks ago

1.  Trump doesn't bother paying his lawyers, so that's not a concern in this case.  Also, general stress over the outcome is a laugh, especially when we know that Trump stresses the most when he does not have a reason to talk about his woeisme victimhood all day long.     

2.  The man is claiming immunity.  Either that means he is demanding immunity for crimes he didn't commit, or he thinks he deserves a free ride regarding his crimes because he was President when he committed them.  Demanding immunity for crimes one doesn't commit would be stupid on many levels, and no lawyer, no even a non-paid one, would ever permit such a stupid move.  Now, as far as his real reason for demanding immunity, do you think he deserves immunity because he was President when he committed his crimes?  

3.  Who cares what #3 would be.  The first two are sufficient and successful rebuttals to your comment without even considering a #3.  But if I did feel strongly about including a #3, it would be that defying a subpoena is against the law.  

 
 
 
Snuffy
Junior Participates
4.1.13  Snuffy  replied to  Tacos! @4.1.4    2 weeks ago

Oh come now...   ve are da police...  if you have nothing to hide, let us search your car....

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
4.1.14  Sean Treacy  replied to  MrFrost @4.1.11    2 weeks ago
was sued once a long time ago. I didn't get a lawyer, represented myself and I won. W

Your basis for recommending asinine behavior is it worked once?  My dad smoked two packs a day for 60 years and never developed lung problems. I don't tell people cigarettes are safe because of it.

People who think their anecdotal experience, not even experiences, somehow translate to every other situation are dangers to others. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
4.1.15  Sean Treacy  replied to  devangelical @4.1.10    2 weeks ago
concept of an imperial presidency is the keystone of right wing fascism...

Barack Obama is a right wing fascist now? Whatever. 

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
4.1.16  devangelical  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.1.15    2 weeks ago

I'm sure it seemed that way to complete morons.

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Principal
4.1.17  MrFrost  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.1.14    2 weeks ago

People who think their anecdotal experience, not even experiences, somehow translate to every other situation are dangers to others. 

I didn't say it was, did I? Nope. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Expert
4.1.18  Tacos!  replied to  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom @4.1.12    2 weeks ago

I think he’s immune because Congress has already declared that if he incited the crowd, he did so as president. Thus, they sought to impeach him for it. You can’t impeach a private citizen.

They shouldn’t get to have it both ways now and say he acted as a private citizen so we can sue him in civil court.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
4.1.19  Trout Giggles  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.1.14    2 weeks ago

You don't have a lawyer in small claims court. You aren't allowed to have one

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
4.1.20  Tessylo  replied to  Tacos! @4.1.18    2 weeks ago

jrSmiley_80_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Expert
4.1.21  Tacos!  replied to  Tessylo @4.1.20    2 weeks ago

I don’t make the rules. I’m just reporting the news.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
4.1.22  CB   replied to  Tacos! @4.1.4    2 weeks ago

To be clear and with all due respect: WHY do you suggest Donald J. Trump deserves to be treated as an innocent being subjected to abuse?

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
4.1.23  CB   replied to  Tacos! @4.1.18    2 weeks ago

Congress is not suing Donald J. Trump in court. Congress persons are suing Donald J. Trump on behalf of themselves as individuals. Additionally, citizens are suing Trump individually in the only way they can: he is a civilian.  One without the 'covering' of his former office. That is, he has clear exposure now where he did not before.  Of course, that greedy shameless loser wants privileges not reckon to him for life!

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Junior Quiet
4.1.24  Jack_TX  replied to  MrFrost @4.1.11    2 weeks ago
I was sued once a long time ago. I didn't get a lawyer, represented myself and I won. Why? Because the claim was 100% false. You can't win a court case based on lies. 

Oh... 

Well in THAT case.....

*facepalm*

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Junior Quiet
4.1.25  Jack_TX  replied to  Tacos! @4.1.18    2 weeks ago
I think he’s immune because Congress has already declared that if he incited the crowd, he did so as president. Thus, they sought to impeach him for it. You can’t impeach a private citizen. They shouldn’t get to have it both ways now and say he acted as a private citizen so we can sue him in civil court.

I'm not sure if that makes him immune or not.  I can certainly see how it might.

I'm just thankful to see a comment made using actual brain cells.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Expert
4.1.26  Tacos!  replied to  Jack_TX @4.1.25    2 weeks ago

Yeah I'm not positive either. But just see if you can get anyone to admit that they're fishing for any way they can to get at Trump, and they don't really care whether or not the method they use is legal or just.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Expert
4.1.27  Tacos!  replied to  CB @4.1.23    2 weeks ago
Congress persons are suing Donald J. Trump on behalf of themselves as individuals.

Same problem. You're going to let civilians sue a president after he left office for things he said as president?

And anyway, even if these people are suing on behalf of themselves, what is their cause of action? What tort was done to them? What are their damages? Eric Swalwell made it through the day unharmed.

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
4.1.28  Ender  replied to  Tacos! @4.1.26    2 weeks ago

Do I think some people do that?

Of course, just like there is people going after Biden, Fauci, etc..

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
4.1.29  CB   replied to  Tacos! @4.1.27    2 weeks ago
Washington (CNN)Former House impeachment manager Eric Swalwell has sued former President Donald Trump, his son Donald Trump Jr., Rudy Giuliani and Republican Rep. Mo Brooks in a second major lawsuit seeking to hold Trump and his allies accountable for inciting the insurrection at the US Capitol on January 6.
The new lawsuit filed on Friday by Swalwell, a California Democrat who helped to lead impeachment arguments against Trump for inciting insurrection, follows a similar suit filed last month by Rep. Bennie Thompson against Trump, Giuliani and the extremist groups the Oath Keepers and Proud Boys. Swalwell's case makes some of the same claims as Thompson's -- citing a civil rights law meant to counter the Ku Klux Klan's intimidation of elected officials.
But it also alleges Trump, Trump Jr., Giuliani and Brooks broke Washington, DC, laws, including an anti-terrorism act, by inciting the riot, and that they aided and abetted violent rioters and inflicted emotional distress on the members of Congress.

The courts will determine if the suit has merit-not Donald J. Trump, the fool who just does and invoke 'stupid shit' to and against people for them to 'merit' out later.

And let's not pretend that Trump's words do not carry consequences. We have all watch people put forward extraordinary 'action' based on the man who sits back and suggests. Including 'countless' ruined careers.

Surely you are not arguing that this is acceptable behavior for a vital nation to follow after, as it will demoralize an entire country!

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
4.1.30  CB   replied to  Tacos! @4.1.26    2 weeks ago

You're right. There is plenty to go after Donald Trump over, because he is revealing every indecency in our system of governance. Places where other leaders have dared not tread, because the shame of history would be unbearable pain on their legacy for their descendants to bear.

Enter one fool who demands we make rules in law about EVERY nuance condition in life if we do not wish to see him cross over into it and 'corrupt' it. And sadly, hypocritically Trump is supported and enabled by the GOP. The political party that used to take pride in small "r" republicanism until Donald appeared to show them how to dismantle the whole of government into a shameless, painless, mass/blob.

The problem for republicans is power such as they are harness, will turn on them soon enough from the most unexpected of 'forces'—their children. The children will be appalled at what lies were told, held up as truth, and the people who were 'taken out' just so their parents could lavish expediency and indulgences upon themselves. Never considering that what is done will be written into stone and like a bad set of economic factors be passed on to their grandchildren.

 
 
 
Eat The Press Do Not Read It
Junior Expert
4.1.31  Eat The Press Do Not Read It  replied to  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom @4.1.1    2 weeks ago

One must remember who "Diaper Don's" supporters are.

They willingly jumped into "the Rabbit Hole," and got tangled up in "Alice's" unmentionables. They may be lost forever, I fear.

 
 
 
Eat The Press Do Not Read It
Junior Expert
4.1.32  Eat The Press Do Not Read It  replied to  CB @4.1.2    2 weeks ago

Perhaps, there is a biological defect with his supporters' "Cognizant Decency" button. (Inserted in the wrong place.) 

Diaper Don is an "Upside Down Man!"

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
4.1.33  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @4.1.4    2 weeks ago
Of course they would! If i have done nothing wrong, why should I have to pay lawyers, take time out of my days to go to court, or just generally stress over the outcome when suing me at all is wrong?

Um, defying a subpoena and demanding immunity is done through a lawyer, who is the one who goes to court.

Oh, and it isn't like Trump or Rudy have a full dance card. 

Our system is not supposed to stomp on innocent people and then justify the abuse with the claim that an innocent person would always cooperate. There are reasons we have rules about these things, and one of those reasons is to prevent abuse. Another is to seek some kind of fairness in the system. You can’t just bully people into court.

"The mob takes the Fifth. If you're innocent, why are you taking the Fifth Amendment?"

Donald Trump, 2016

 
 
 
Duck Hawk
Freshman Silent
4.1.34  Duck Hawk  replied to  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom @4.1.1    2 weeks ago

What is it the right says, "only a guilty man would plead the fifth." jrSmiley_26_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
4.1.35  CB   replied to  Dulay @4.1.33    2 weeks ago

Apparently, laws and rules are for the "little people" in this citizenry. Donald Trump has made a COMPLETE MOCKERY out of congress, courts, and the constitution. He has flipped over every decency like a bear flips over large boulders looking for a nougat.

AND STILL THERE IS NO PROPER OUTRAGE! 

AMERICA CAN YOU GET OVER YOUR NOVEL SHOCK AND AWE OF DONALD TRUMP NOW? Can we together get over our collective "DTs" and began healing ourselves? Put a bandage on Trump's 'big head' and tape across his mouth and move into 2022 a better grade of American already!!

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.1.36  Texan1211  replied to  CB @4.1.35    2 weeks ago
AND STILL THERE IS NO PROPER OUTRAGE! 

So all the outrage coming from the progressive liberals and others who can't help from obsessing about Trump isn't proper now?

Weird stuff.

 
 
 
evilgenius
Professor Guide
4.1.37  evilgenius  replied to  Tacos! @4.1.18    2 weeks ago
I think he’s immune because Congress has already declared that if he incited the crowd, he did so as president. Thus, they sought to impeach him for it. You can’t impeach a private citizen.

These are civil suites in which the bar is much lower. Much like being implicated in a death might not rise to a criminal charge, but can be charged under a civil wrongful death case. That said I don't think the plaintiffs here will succeed even if it goes to trial - though were I their lawyer I'd use the statements made from the various insurrectionists charged where they claimed to be following Trump's orders. Even then I'm not sure it's a winning case.

 
 
 
Gsquared
Junior Principal
4.1.38  Gsquared  replied to  MrFrost @4.1.5    2 weeks ago
If you are 100% innocent, you don't need a lawyer. 

No.  Are you aware of how many innocent people go to prison and even end up on death row?

Check these links:   

Even for civil law suits, it is totally inadvisable not to have a lawyer.

 
 
 
Gsquared
Junior Principal
4.1.39  Gsquared  replied to  Trout Giggles @4.1.19    2 weeks ago

In California, a losing defendant in small claims can file an appeal, which is then heard in Superior Court and lawyers are permitted.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
4.1.40  Trout Giggles  replied to  Gsquared @4.1.39    2 weeks ago

Thank-you. I think I know so much about the law because I watch Law and Order and Judge Judy

 
 
 
Eat The Press Do Not Read It
Junior Expert
4.1.41  Eat The Press Do Not Read It  replied to  MrFrost @4.1.5    2 weeks ago

Attorneys need MONEY, too. 

The comment should read:

"If you are INNOCENT, there is no reason not to show up if subpoenaed!"

However, depending on the circumstance of the reason, an attorney is advisable. Or, not!

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Principal
4.1.42  MrFrost  replied to  Gsquared @4.1.38    2 weeks ago
No.  Are you aware of how many innocent people go to prison and even end up on death row?

And they had lawyers.... 

 
 
 
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
Professor Expert
4.2  seeder  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom  replied to  Greg Jones @4    2 weeks ago

The most important thing Trump said during that rally was, "And I'll be marching right there beside you."  After the 'trial by combat' and other incendiary remarks made by assorted fluffers, Trump supporters thought Trump was going to be storming the Capitol with them.  That emboldened their conspiratorial efforts, just as Trump knew it would.  Of course why any of them thought that Cadet Bone Spurs would have put himself anywhere near an anticipated situation like that is beyond me. 

 
 
 
Eat The Press Do Not Read It
Junior Expert
4.2.1  Eat The Press Do Not Read It  replied to  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom @4.2    2 weeks ago

Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom are you still selling apples on the corner of 5th & Vine?

If so, I want to avoid that corner. Mama told me all about you.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
4.3  Ozzwald  replied to  Greg Jones @4    2 weeks ago
That  is all he said or did. No evidence of a conspiracy.

That's all he said/did publicly.  What did he do outside the public eye?  Testimony from many people is starting to show how much he did do/know.

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
Professor Expert
5  Hal A. Lujah    2 weeks ago

“I am the chosen one.”

- Donald Trump, Aug. 2019

 
 
 
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
Professor Expert
5.1  seeder  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @5    2 weeks ago

Now if we could find someone with the balls to flush his chosen ass, this country can get on with the business of healing.

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
Professor Expert
5.1.1  Hal A. Lujah  replied to  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom @5.1    2 weeks ago

But … but … only he can fix it!

 
 
 
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
Professor Expert
5.1.2  seeder  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @5.1.1    2 weeks ago
But … but … only he can fix it!

Shit...I forgot about that one. 

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
Professor Guide
6  Paula Bartholomew    2 weeks ago

I can claim that I am 6' tall and 120 lbs.  That doesn't mean I am.

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
7  JBB    2 weeks ago

Presidents are not above the law, including Trump!

 
 
 
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
Professor Expert
7.1  seeder  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom  replied to  JBB @7    2 weeks ago
Presidents are not above the law, including Trump!

That's what makes it so embarrassing that he hasn't been held accountable for all his presidential thuggery.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Guide
7.1.1  Greg Jones  replied to  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom @7.1    2 weeks ago
"for all his presidential thuggery."

Setting aside his stupidity after the election, what are you talking about?

 
 
 
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
Professor Expert
7.1.2  seeder  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom  replied to  Greg Jones @7.1.1    2 weeks ago

I'm talking about his massive stupidity in the years before the election.   

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
8  Kavika     2 weeks ago

''I claim absolute immunity'' and I claim bullshit on that claim.

 
 
 
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
Professor Expert
8.1  seeder  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom  replied to  Kavika @8    2 weeks ago
and I claim bullshit on that claim.

I second the claim claiming bullshit on that claim!

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Principal
9  MrFrost    2 weeks ago

Trump couldn't walk up the steps of the capitol much less throw a punch in his high heels and girdle....might smear his makeup. 

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
9.1  Trout Giggles  replied to  MrFrost @9    2 weeks ago

and muss up his hair

 
 
 
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
Professor Expert
9.1.1  seeder  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom  replied to  Trout Giggles @9.1    2 weeks ago

Double snort!

 
 
 
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
Professor Expert
9.2  seeder  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom  replied to  MrFrost @9    2 weeks ago

Snort!

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Masters Participates
9.3  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  MrFrost @9    2 weeks ago

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
9.3.1  devangelical  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @9.3    2 weeks ago

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
9.3.2  devangelical  replied to  devangelical @9.3.1    2 weeks ago

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
9.3.3  devangelical  replied to  devangelical @9.3.2    2 weeks ago

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
9.3.4  Trout Giggles  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @9.3    2 weeks ago

You've never tripped going up the stairs? You must be very, very coordinated

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
9.3.5  Trout Giggles  replied to  devangelical @9.3.3    2 weeks ago

jrSmiley_28_smiley_image.gif

Good work! For every one of the rw memes, you come up with 3 to counter

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Masters Participates
9.3.6  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Trout Giggles @9.3.4    2 weeks ago

You've never slipped on anything?  

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
9.3.7  Trout Giggles  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @9.3.6    2 weeks ago

I slip on stuff all the time. But answer my question since I answered yours.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
9.3.8  devangelical  replied to  Trout Giggles @9.3.7    2 weeks ago

maybe later today, after the fascist central committee meeting on appropriate talking point responses ends...

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
Professor Guide
9.3.9  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Trout Giggles @9.3.4    2 weeks ago

I once tripped going up my front steps.  I ended up face planting against the broken toilet I had set out earlier after replacing it and ended up with my 7th broken nose.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
9.3.10  Trout Giggles  replied to  devangelical @9.3.8    2 weeks ago

The nerve of some people. Makes fun of Biden tripping up stairs and then asks me if I've ever slipped on something...just trying to deflect away from trmp's own inadequacies.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
9.3.11  Trout Giggles  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @9.3.9    2 weeks ago

ouch

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
9.3.12  devangelical  replied to  Trout Giggles @9.3.10    2 weeks ago

it's all they have before their white supremacist hero and his minions start facing the music.

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
Professor Guide
9.3.13  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Trout Giggles @9.3.10    2 weeks ago

I remember Trump almost falling as he went up the steps to a stage.

 
 
 
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
Professor Expert
9.3.14  seeder  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom  replied to  devangelical @9.3.1    2 weeks ago

Hahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  That was just as funny as the first time I saw it.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
9.3.15  devangelical  replied to  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom @9.3.14    2 weeks ago

the internet is stocked with video rebuttals on anything the trump cult has to offer.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
9.3.16  CB   replied to  Paula Bartholomew @9.3.9    2 weeks ago

Can you say arthritis (nose)? Sorry. I didn't mean it. I won't do it again this whole year! (Smile.)

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
Professor Guide
9.3.17  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  CB @9.3.16    2 weeks ago

When I rode rodeo, an old cowboy taught me how to reset my nose the first time I broke it.  If I had not learned how to do that, I would have a nose like WC Fields by now.  It came in handy in the field when two of my soldiers broke theirs.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
9.3.18  CB   replied to  Paula Bartholomew @9.3.17    2 weeks ago

A woman, a horse, and several soldiers. Yee-haw! And, a jrSmiley_124_smiley_image.gif of RESPECT!

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
Professor Guide
9.3.19  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  CB @9.3.18    2 weeks ago

jrSmiley_15_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Expert
10  Tacos!    2 weeks ago

Trump might be right on this one.

Think of the precedent we set if we allow this to go forward. Imagine a thousand lawsuits filed tomorrow on Barack Obama for something he said as president. If we’re going to sue presidents for something they said while they were president, but do it after their term, the lawsuits will never end.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
10.1  Trout Giggles  replied to  Tacos! @10    2 weeks ago

Aren't there statutes of limitations even when it comes to civil suits?

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Expert
10.1.1  Tacos!  replied to  Trout Giggles @10.1    2 weeks ago

There are, but it depends on the issue and the jurisdiction. A year or two is common, but sometimes it’s many years, and in some cases, there is no limitation statute.

Also, a lot of times, it’s not based on when the wrongful act occurred, but rather when the victim realizes they have been wronged. That’s how adults sue for abuse inflicted on them as children. They don’t understand what happened to them until they grow up.

 
 
 
Gsquared
Junior Principal
10.1.2  Gsquared  replied to  Trout Giggles @10.1    2 weeks ago
Aren't there statutes of limitations even when it comes to civil suits?

Yes.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
10.2  Tessylo  replied to  Tacos! @10    2 weeks ago

So then I guess whatshisname should never be held accountable for anything then.  

jrSmiley_80_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Expert
10.2.1  Tacos!  replied to  Tessylo @10.2    2 weeks ago

You can guess whatever you like, but I didn’t say that.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
10.2.2  Tessylo  replied to  Tacos! @10.2.1    2 weeks ago
"Think of the precedent we set if we allow this to go forward"

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Expert
10.2.3  Tacos!  replied to  Tessylo @10.2.2    2 weeks ago

I still didn’t say he should be never held accountable for anything.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
10.2.4  Tessylo  replied to  Tacos! @10.2.3    2 weeks ago

See 10.4.3

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
10.2.5  Tessylo  replied to  Tacos! @10.2.3    2 weeks ago

Yeah, you did.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
10.3  CB   replied to  Tacos! @10    2 weeks ago

The issue is this: Presidents, like every other citizen, have a responsibility to stay within reasonability. The question is this: Did Donald Trump act irresponsibly in holding a 'stop the steal' rally on the grounds of D.C. centers of power when as sitting president he knew he had no EVIDENCE or other proper resources to back up his (private) claim?

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Expert
10.3.1  Tacos!  replied to  CB @10.3    2 weeks ago

We can agree that a thing is wrong, but that doesn’t mean all remedies are appropriate.

I think the whole “stop the steal” movement is insane. But the remedy for that is not criminal prosecution. People are allowed to say insane, misguided crap that makes no sense. That’s the First Amendment. The remedy for that is supposed to be better, more persuasive speech.

If we thought Trump had started a riot or insurrection as president, the remedy for that was impeachment. Congress actually tried that, but it didn’t result in a conviction. Wrongdoers get prosecuted or sued every day and it doesn’t always result in a conviction. That’s how it goes. You don’t win them all.

The next remedy is to not vote for Trump, and try to dissuade others from voting for him. That’s how Democracy works. Again, though, you don’t always win.

But suing ex-presidents for shit they said - even shit they said that arguably led to a bad result? I still want government health insurance to pay for my doctor, who I like very much, but they won’t pay. Should I sue Obama who promised I could keep my doctor? Or maybe if he sees someone killed by police in Missouri, expresses his outrage, and then a riot develops. A year after he leaves office, we sue him? That is a road we do not want to go down.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
10.3.2  CB   replied to  Tacos! @10.3.1    2 weeks ago
I think the whole “stop the steal” movement is insane. But the remedy for that is not criminal prosecution. People are allowed to say insane, misguided crap that makes no sense. That’s the First Amendment. The remedy for that is supposed to be better, more persuasive speech.

This is not an issue of free speech. A president shall not willing misinform the public into a 'stampede,' for example, when it is reasonable to expect the outcome to be injury and death.

I will state it again: Presidents have a 'bully pulpit' consequently what he or she says is intended to be weighty (and as such received by many), as a result a president must take cautious steps with words and delivery. (And so, they have speechwriters and lawyers (that last if need be) to review their public addresses ahead of time.

Trump is no exception; or is he?

Lastly, it is not proper to allow this 'man' - term used loosely, to weasel out of accountability for his indirect and direct activities before, during, and after 1-6-21!

 
 
 
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
Professor Expert
10.3.3  seeder  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom  replied to  CB @10.3.2    2 weeks ago
Lastly, it is not proper to allow this 'man' - term used loosely, to weasel out of accountability for his indirect and direct activities before, during, and after 1-6-21!

In a nutshell!

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
10.3.4  CB   replied to  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom @10.3.3    2 weeks ago

In a nutshell. Emphatically. You better know it, Sister!

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
Professor Participates
10.4  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Tacos! @10    2 weeks ago
Think of the precedent we set...

...if we allow "absolute immunity" to stand as a defense. Was the ideology of our forefathers that no man would be above the law in our constitutional Republic just false rhetoric? If we simply refuse to ever hold a President accountable other than with a vote then what is stopping any sitting President from acting like a King? What would prove Nixon's statement, that "if a President does it that means it's legal" wrong? Do we really want to have a leader akin to Putin? Some murdering authoritarian who can do whatever he wants as long as he wins the next rigged election?

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
10.4.1  Tessylo  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @10.4    2 weeks ago

Yeah and we should go forward with grace but don't worry about the 'right'

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Expert
10.4.2  Tacos!  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @10.4    2 weeks ago
...if we allow "absolute immunity" to stand as a defense.

But he’s not “absolutely immune” in spite of what he says. He was impeached for it. They just couldn’t convict.

Also, don’t vote for him or anyone who supported him. That’s how we hold politicians accountable. It might feel lame, but that’s our system.

If you were accused of some wrongful act, there would be a limit to how many ways you could be held accountable for it. Similarly, there are limits on how many ways you can go after an elected official, and that is especially true for the president.

The main way you get to a president after his term would be to establish that what he did was totally outside his role as president (like if he raped an intern or something), or if he had actually led the mob in a physical assault on the Capitol.

But giving speeches about elections and urging people to demonstrate to members of Congress (he even explicitly said to do it peacefully)? Every president does that.

then what is stopping any sitting President from acting like a King?

Impeachment. If he commits high crimes or misdemeanors, Congress removes him from office. But it needs to be so clear and compelling that 2/3 of the Senate agrees on it. We can blame Republicans for not voting to convict, but Democrats bear a responsibility for making the process more partisan than ever. It’s hard to get even a regular conviction on an ordinary person if the jury thinks the prosecutor is biased.

Here, though, Trump is probably immune because Congress already impeached him as president. I would argue that it has already been legally established that Trump was not acting as a private citizen because you can’t impeach a private citizen.

This suit comes from  Swalwell who led the effort to punish Trump for January 6 already as president. Why should Swalwell now be allowed to claim that Trump’s words were spoked as a private citizen after prosecuting him for it as president? It makes no sense.

But even if we stipulate that his speech was only as “Candidate Trump” and not “President Trump,” it’s a hard case. We have pretty good definitions for incitement, and it’s just hard to make the argument that what Trump said satisfies those legal definitions. As I have said in other places, I think Trump is morally responsible for January 6, but I can’t say he is legally responsible. That’s just how it goes.

Some murdering authoritarian

Murdering would be an actual act (as opposed to protected speech) and it’s not an act Trump committed. Being an authoritarian may be a character flaw, but it’s not illegal.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
10.4.3  Tessylo  replied to  Tacos! @10.4.2    2 weeks ago

There's a huge difference between 'saying something' and inciting mobs of domestic terrorists.  

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
Professor Participates
10.4.4  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Tacos! @10.4.2    2 weeks ago
I think Trump is morally responsible for January 6, but I can’t say he is legally responsible.

And that's what allowing this case to proceed instead of simply dismissing it would prove. If he's not legally responsible then that's what the outcome would be. Simply saying someone can't even attempt to prove their case/claim that a President is liable for their damages sets the precedent that the President is above the law.

If on that January 6th, 2021 instead of encouraging his followers to go down to the Capital and "fight like hell", Trump had encouraged people drink some cool-aide laced with Ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine sulfate to "kill the Covid" and some who did as he recommended died, would anyone be allowed to sue? Would that have been protected speech of a President? Could he claim "absolute immunity"?

He recommended to Ashli Babbitt there in the crowd to go "fight like hell" and she did and ended up dying because she followed Trumps commands instead of the Capital police officer telling her to retreat, could her family sue Trump if they felt he was responsible or can he just dismiss their suit with a wave of his "absolute immunity" card?

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
10.4.5  CB   replied to  Dismayed Patriot @10.4.4    2 weeks ago

My understanding is Trump is being sued civilly, not criminally, is that correct? It is an effort to make that weasel-word 'talker' pay figurative 'blood' out of his. . .whatever. Using a stature from the early days of breaking hate groups who hid from the law through excessive and abusive (harmful) rhetoric that damned many.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Junior Quiet
10.4.6  Jack_TX  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @10.4.4    2 weeks ago
He recommended to Ashli Babbitt there in the crowd to go "fight like hell" and she did and ended up dying because she followed Trumps commands

What he actually said.....

If you don't fight like hell you're not going to have a country anymore

Notice there is no command involved.  If we're going to try to have an episode about the use of the word "fight", we're going to be suing every politician of the last 40 years, and half of the football coaches.

Peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard

Difficult to argue with that one.

We're going to walk down to the Capitol and we're going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women, and we're probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them.

So the "commands" here are "walk down to the Capitol"....which is certainly not an illegal activity, I've done it.. and "cheer"...  also not an illegal activity as long as you stay outside.

So what we're going to do here is abandon the great liberal tradition of ignoring the morons actually responsible for shit while desperately and feebly trying to blame something we already dislike.  It is not McDonald's fault people weigh 400lbs, it is not the bank's fault people have no money, and it is not Trump's fault Ashli Babbit was an idiotic nutjob.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
10.4.7  CB   replied to  Jack_TX @10.4.6    2 weeks ago

You are making a fool's argument. At the platform event Trump 'hosted' on or near thereabout white house grounds, many "communications" were transferred by many communicators. And thus, we are speaking about incitement induced by a sitting president and cleared to be present at the event: presidential collaborators!

The Trump administration is absolutely responsible for incitement speech (by accumulation and totality of addressees) -at least enough for a court to ascertain breadth and depth of the involvement.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
10.4.8  Texan1211  replied to  CB @10.4.7    2 weeks ago

And yet--a whole YEAR later, the Biden Justice Department has not seen fit to charge Trump with anything regarding January 6, 2021.

Why is that?

Why don't you send in your conclusions so that they may know the legal reasoning they may use, according to you, to charge him?

Heck, they may just convict him on the strength of that alone, the heck with a trial, right?

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
10.4.9  CB   replied to  Texan1211 @10.4.8    2 weeks ago

What the heck are you going on about? You do not know what the DOJ is up to or not! So why go there, Trump defender ? There are many cases possible and some pending with this one man who tramples over everybody he encounters freedoms and liberties.

Case in point:

Georgia DA investigating Trump closer to decision on charges

The Georgia prosecutor weighing whether Donald Trump and others committed crimes by trying to pressure state election officials said a decision on whether to bring charges could come as early as the first half of this year.

By KATE BRUMBACK Associated Press
January 10, 2022
 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
10.4.10  Texan1211  replied to  CB @10.4.9    2 weeks ago
What the heck are you going on about?

What specifically don't you understand?

You do not know what the DOJ is up to or not!

Typical strawman argument. I never claimed to know what the DOJ is doing.

I do know that they have not indicted or charged Trump with anything.

Sowhy go there, Trumpdefender?

Don't let your personal loathing for Trump take away sanity.

As for your last little bit of unrelated fluff, do you know that there is a huge difference between a state AG and the United States Justice Department?

I was specifically referring to Biden's Justice Dept.  I honestly thought I had made that crystal clear with these words:

And yet--a whole YEAR later, the Biden Justice Department has not seen fit to charge Trump with anything regarding January 6, 2021.

Let me know what I can do to make sure you understand what it is I am talking about, as I have been as concise as possible and it still seems to escape understanding.

What is everyone waiting FOR????

According to the progressives, these are ALL SLAM-DUNK cases.

Is Biden's JD incompetently run or something--or are they dragging it out as long as possible to run against later this year?

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Junior Quiet
10.4.11  Jack_TX  replied to  CB @10.4.7    2 weeks ago
You are making a fool's argument.

Inconvenient facts sometimes look that way to emotional partisans.

The Trump administration is absolutely responsible for incitement speech (by accumulation and totality of addressees) -at least enough for a court to ascertain breadth and depth of the involvement.

I love the phrase "by accumulation".  It encapsulates the problem with most of the accusations liberals attempt to level against Trump.

It is not difficult to argue that Donald Trump is a despicable, wretched shithead that no $20,000 suit can disguise.  He is a reprehensible cretin who makes a poor excuse for a human being in any culture at any time.  On a morality scale, I rank him just above serial killers who eat their victims, but I reserve the option to re-evaluate murderous cannibals more favorably at some potential future date.

I live in a part of the country where I am surrounded by fervent Trump supporters, and none of them have ever tried to defend him as a person. 

He is Uncle Screwtape's patient, a case study in how completely a human can be corrupted.

The problem this creates for liberals is that it jams their radar.  They are so overwhelmed and their sensibilities so offended by the tidal wave of despicable behavior, they cannot isolate and separate actions into the discrete packets necessary to formulate cogent accusations. 

They accuse him by feeling, based on the accumulation of dastardly verbiage that flows from his mouth like muddy water from the Mississippi.  In their minds, he's such a terrible person, he MUST be guilty of anything of which he's accused.

Unfortunately, the facts involved in any single accusation rarely work out.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
10.4.12  CB   replied to  Texan1211 @10.4.10    2 weeks ago

A gross waste of your time (again) talking out of your ignorance. The DOJ nor the State AG is working with your counternarrative in mind. Which is good for you, so as to leave space for you to 'trivialize' in the offing. My advice (which you will not take as a trump defender) is concentrate more on truth, decency, honesty, and transparency and less of defending a loser who uses other people's energy and essences to hold and keep his own private alternative reality from flying apart.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
10.4.13  CB   replied to  Jack_TX @10.4.11    2 weeks ago
I love the phrase "by accumulation".  It encapsulates the problem with most of the accusations liberals attempt to level against Trump.

Accumulation.  It means that if the authorities peer deep enough they just might see Donald Trump and his collaborators huddled together in a secret location plotting the takeover over a fair and free election.

Not then other "Texan" called Jack, if you are all for the facts go with the evidence and not with your emotions. Because it is clear as day that you want Donald to succeed, even when he is wrong as two-left feet!

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
10.4.14  CB   replied to  Jack_TX @10.4.11    2 weeks ago
Inconvenient facts sometimes look that way to emotional partisans

"Emotional partisan" is that what you think I am? Well that's interesting coming from an individual who clearly supports the emotional meltdown of Donald J. Trump, the shameless man, who disregards shame because it can cause pain and pain is a feeling Trump and his collaborators try to hide in shamelessness.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
10.4.15  CB   replied to  Jack_TX @10.4.11    2 weeks ago
They accuse him by feeling, based on the accumulation of dastardly verbiage that flows from his mouth like muddy water from the Mississippi.  In their minds, he's such a terrible person, he MUST be guilty of anything of which he's accused.

Untrue. Critical thinking folks have torn Donald Trump a new ass-hole times a dozen. But, critical thinking, has not swayed republicans and conservatives from turning "shithead" (your word @10.4.11) into a God among men. A religion. A cult puppeteer.

People don't defend with their last breath, their undying devotion, a so-called "leader" whom they regard as a personal shithead. They defend someone they agreed with and hope to show as their model to others. Yes, other Texan name Jack, Trump is genuinely liked by his supporters, who find comfort in his words and deeds (against others they passionately dislike). That is, Trump is other Texan name Jack and vice-versa for the group of y'all.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
10.4.16  Texan1211  replied to  CB @10.4.12    2 weeks ago

You are far too emotional to continue with.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Junior Quiet
10.4.17  Jack_TX  replied to  CB @10.4.13    2 weeks ago
Accumulation.  It means that if the authorities peer deep enough they just might see Donald Trump and his collaborators huddled together in a secret location plotting the takeover over a fair and free election.

Riiiiiiight.  I'm sure that's exactly how it worked.

Because it is clear as day that you want Donald to succeed, even when he is wrong as two-left feet!

Which is why I voted for Biden.  It was part of my cunning plan to keep Trump in office.  *eyeroll*

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
10.4.18  Tessylo  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @10.4.4    2 weeks ago

His inaction after his incitement should be enough to prove something goddamn it.  

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
10.4.19  CB   replied to  Texan1211 @10.4.16    2 weeks ago

jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
10.4.20  Texan1211  replied to  CB @10.4.19    2 weeks ago

Um, I clearly stated "emotional"----not "hysterical".

Do I need to amend my comment to be more accurate now?

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
10.4.21  CB   replied to  Jack_TX @10.4.17    2 weeks ago

Well good, you voted for Biden. So what is your problem with me? Donald Trump does not need but will manipulate and get 'mileage' from your support. The issue is this: We all have experiences. And along with some of those experiences come INSIGHT to know manipulation when it occurs. Donald Trump is a (smooth) manipulator. What does that mean? It means he plays people who let him like a maestro strumming a violin. Now, you can stand in the 'gate' and let him pass by and go on through with his antics, pretenses, nods and winks, and outlandish actions (that damages and ruins careers of otherwise good people) or you can look that man in the proverbial eye and say: "Donald, I see you-you're no damn good!"

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
10.4.22  Texan1211  replied to  CB @10.4.21    2 weeks ago
Donald Trump does not need but will manipulate and get 'mileage' from your support.

How on earth do you think he supports Trump after clearly telling you he voted for Biden?

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Junior Quiet
10.4.23  Jack_TX  replied to  CB @10.4.21    2 weeks ago

My last post obviously went over your head, and the literary reference was entirely lost, so I'll be more direct.

  • I just compared the man unfavorably with serial killers.  Why would you think I have difficulty condemning him? Are you even trying to pay attention?
  • Of course Trump's a manipulator.  Everybody knows that.  Try to keep up. 
  • Being "no damn good" is not an actual crime.  Crimes are specific actions and require specific evidence to prove.  They cannot be prosecuted on the idea that "he's no damn good, so he must have done it." 
  • Read The Screwtape Letters .   It's one of those books all educated people should know.

Here is a new one for you....  The downfall of Donald Trump would be VERY good for Republicans.  

So what is your problem with me?

You declare any factual evidence that doesn't confirm your existing bias as "a fool's argument", apparently failing to recognize the irony in that assertion.  

You regularly accuse people who simply correct your factual inaccuracies of holding some view you clearly see as indicative of a deep character flaw...again failing to see the irony.

Frequently, you lash out angrily at those who refuse to validate your emotional views, refusing to even consider the idea that they might not actually disagree with you.

You are as of yet either utterly incapable or unwilling of considering that perspectives other than your own may have validity.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
10.4.24  CB   replied to  Jack_TX @10.4.23    2 weeks ago
Being "no damn good" is not an actual crime.  Crimes are specific actions and require specific evidence to prove.  They cannot be prosecuted on the idea that "he's no damn good, so he must have done it." 

How many "no damn gooders" are you currently talking up and 'drafting' into your life? Trump being a given. Please proceed. . . .

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Junior Quiet
10.4.25  Jack_TX  replied to  CB @10.4.24    2 weeks ago
How many "no damn gooders" are you currently talking up and 'drafting' into your life? Trump being a given. Please proceed. . . .

Counting you..... one.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
10.4.26  CB   replied to  Jack_TX @10.4.23    2 weeks ago
Read The Screwtape Letters .   It's one of those books all educated people should know.

Read it. Years ago. It was one of those things my 'colleagues' on the atheists side discussed way back in old 2014-7 thereabouts on NewsVine and NT both over religion!

So, I'm "educated" already and 'experienced' too!  /s

I chose to ignore the reference because it added nothing to the problem of a Biden 'supporter' straddling the fence for an indefensible 'creature' who loves getting  "modest" support from innocent 'bystanders.'

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
10.4.27  CB   replied to  Jack_TX @10.4.25    2 weeks ago

I am not in your life (and clearly you don't wish me to be) and if you count me "in" anyway-well using addition you get: Two.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
10.4.28  CB   replied to  Jack_TX @10.4.23    2 weeks ago
You are as of yet either utterly incapable or unwilling of considering that perspectives other than your own may have validity

Here is my conclusion about Donald J. Trump. He is full of shit. He is a walking disaster. He is not fit to be supported by right-thinking people. Lastly, some conservatives who want to speak up for this man are easily, okay-greatly manipulated, because Donald Trump is a shameless 'boob' who can only SCREW this (mighty) nation with the aid of willing collaborators who buy into his shtick about alternate truths. Which ultimately, amounts to some conservatives believing the shit coming out of Donald's mind because it serves their purposes. Now, how about that?

And, the clearest perspective I need 'validated' from some conservatives is a perspective that they will honor God and tell the truth and nothing but the truth so help them God! Playing 'catch me if you can as I leap, skip, and jump through 'lawyered' hoops and pretend to be 'tough' and "I got my guns and you know what that means" - is not a proper perspective for a "righteous" man, woman, boy, or girl!

 
 
 
Eat The Press Do Not Read It
Junior Expert
10.4.29  Eat The Press Do Not Read It  replied to  CB @10.4.27    2 weeks ago

But, CB, you be in mine. Even though I have been in FB Prison for a year. I am back now, front, too. 

You may know me as my Non-De Plum, Jonathan Livingston Pigeon-Poo, "Doctored."

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
10.4.30  CB   replied to  Eat The Press Do Not Read It @10.4.29    2 weeks ago

HOWDY!

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
Professor Guide
10.4.31  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @10.4.4    2 weeks ago

What is going to hang him is the fact that he let 3 hours go by without calling off his traitors.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
10.5  CB   replied to  Tacos! @10    2 weeks ago

This is not about tit for tat. Presidents are not 'immune' to acting in bad faith. Presidents are not free to run amok and be 'rampaging.' No president is granted liberties to tarnish his or her office by 'ducking and covering' his or her own ass while abusing himself or herself on the public! It goes to decency and why we must DEMAND honor and integrity from those who will lead us. Other than that, we reap corruption and indecency. That last is not sustainable.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
10.6  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @10    2 weeks ago

Trump might be right on this one.

He's not. 

Think of the precedent we set if we allow this to go forward. Imagine a thousand lawsuits filed tomorrow on Barack Obama for something he said as president. If we’re going to sue presidents for something they said while they were president, but do it after their term, the lawsuits will never end.

Seriously, the OLC/DOJ 'ruling' that a President cannot be prosecuted or sued while in office was used ad nauseam by Trump. 
It flies in the face of the rule of law to allow ANYONE to claim absolute immunity.
The precedent that we should avoid is to allow someone to commit crimes, whether civil or criminal, with impunity.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
10.6.1  Tessylo  replied to  Dulay @10.6    2 weeks ago

So trumpturd can't be prosecuted while 'president' or once he becomes a private citizen.

Pretty neat huh?

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Principal
11  MrFrost    2 weeks ago

You are free to say whatever you want, but there are consequences for what you have to say. Example: You can tell a cop you are going to murder them, but, you will pay a hefty price for that statement. That's reality. Trump is not above the law. 

 
 
 
Steve Ott
Professor Quiet
12  Steve Ott    2 weeks ago

"Well, when the President does it, that means that it is not illegal."

Tricky Dick

Unfortunately, Tricky Dick didn't go to prison, unlike many of his comrades in arms. I am really getting tired of replaying the past.

 
 
 
bbl-1
Professor Quiet
13  bbl-1    2 weeks ago

There is real probability that there is a 'typo' in this story.  Perhaps the Trumpers meant, "Absolute insanity?"

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
13.1  Texan1211  replied to  bbl-1 @13    2 weeks ago
There is real probability that there is a 'typo' in this story.  Perhaps the Trumpers meant, "Absolute insanity?"

Wouldn't surprise me if someone was gullible enough to fall for that.

Say, when did CBS News become "Trumpers"?

Have you alerted the rest of the media of this magical transformation by a huge media company?

Heck, have you let CBS know yet?

 
 
 
bbl-1
Professor Quiet
13.1.1  bbl-1  replied to  Texan1211 @13.1    2 weeks ago

CBS and others report the story.  The story originates from others.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
13.1.2  Texan1211  replied to  bbl-1 @13.1.1    2 weeks ago

Instead of just swallowing your claim, I would love to see some proof of it.

I see no where in the article that CBS claims anyone else reported this story. And they damn sure didn't credit any other source, so I just think you made it up.

 
 
 
bbl-1
Professor Quiet
13.1.3  bbl-1  replied to  Texan1211 @13.1.2    2 weeks ago

Didn't add a s/ tag to my comment.  My bad.  ( insanity ) of all things.  

Then again why do some believe they are 'immune' from everything?  Nobody else is.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
13.1.4  Texan1211  replied to  bbl-1 @13.1.3    2 weeks ago

Those are poor choices as proof.

 
 
 
Eat The Press Do Not Read It
Junior Expert
13.1.5  Eat The Press Do Not Read It  replied to  Texan1211 @13.1.2    2 weeks ago

I do that all the time. It is easier, faster and cheaper.

 
 
 
Eat The Press Do Not Read It
Junior Expert
13.1.6  Eat The Press Do Not Read It  replied to  Texan1211 @13.1    2 weeks ago

I am certain, the poster did, indeed, meant, "Absolute Insanity." I posse that ability, too. It comes in handy, especially when shoplifting at the grocery store.

 
 
 
Eat The Press Do Not Read It
Junior Expert
13.1.7  Eat The Press Do Not Read It  replied to  bbl-1 @13.1.3    2 weeks ago

Because they are T-Rump Supporters who accidently leave their brain at home when going outside. It's a common mistake.

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
14  JBB    2 weeks ago

original

 
 
 
Eat The Press Do Not Read It
Junior Expert
15  Eat The Press Do Not Read It    2 weeks ago

Pence is the #1 "Popper Scooper!"

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
16  Kavika     2 weeks ago

Trump cut his interview with NPR short when they started asking tough questions. 

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
16.1  devangelical  replied to  Kavika @16    2 weeks ago

his bullshit only floats in the alt-news media. he's as big a wimp as the 99% majority of his supporters...

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
16.1.1  Kavika   replied to  devangelical @16.1    2 weeks ago
his bullshit only floats in the alt-news media.

And there are plently on NT that wallow in that alt right crap.

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
16.1.2  Ender  replied to  Kavika @16.1.1    2 weeks ago

Day in and day out and then they try to deny it...

Sad really.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
16.1.3  devangelical  replied to  Kavika @16.1.1    2 weeks ago

with 2 of the most prolific on NT, I can just about predict what will be published next after listening to rwnj radio, home of the washed up senior militia warriors.

 
 
 
bbl-1
Professor Quiet
16.2  bbl-1  replied to  Kavika @16    2 weeks ago

Will greatly anticipate 'the man who dwells in Mar-a-Lago's' time in front of the cameras, under oath and answering questions.  Clinton did it several times, once for 11 hours.  I'd consider it a safe bet that 'the Mar-a-Lago man' would not last one hour before a total psycho implosion on the TV with hundreds of millions world wide observing.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Junior Quiet
16.2.1  Jack_TX  replied to  bbl-1 @16.2    2 weeks ago
Will greatly anticipate 'the man who dwells in Mar-a-Lago's' time in front of the cameras, under oath and answering questions.  Clinton did it several times, once for 11 hours.  I'd consider it a safe bet that 'the Mar-a-Lago man' would not last one hour before a total psycho implosion on the TV with hundreds of millions world wide observing.

Meh.

He's more like that proverbial pigeon you shouldn't play chess with.  No matter what happens, he's going to jump up on the board, kick all the pieces over, take a shit in the middle of everything, and strut around claiming victory.

The sooner he just fucks off into oblivion, the better off we'll all be.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
16.2.2  CB   replied to  Jack_TX @16.2.1    2 weeks ago

Interesting.

 
 
 
bbl-1
Professor Quiet
16.2.3  bbl-1  replied to  Jack_TX @16.2.1    2 weeks ago

Yeah.  I'll give you that.  Personally, I'm tired of him.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
16.2.4  CB   replied to  bbl-1 @16.2.3    2 weeks ago

Donald J. Trump just told us, the country, he will never give up trying to 'punk,' 'gaslight,' 'harass' this (great) nation into giving him what he wants. That is, Donald Trump through his collaborators is holding this whole damn nation HOSTAGE AND DEMANDING TO BE PAID OFF TO GO AWAY.

AND still, this irresponsible, CLEARLY PRESENT AND DANGEROUS, man has people enablers across the country. UNBELIEVABLE.

These same people would not accept more than a 'coupla' of lies from you, me, or anybody else, but with Donald Trump-they SWALLOW the whole man! Thousands upon thousands of lies! Donald Trump and his collaborators are a disaster!

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Junior Quiet
16.2.5  Jack_TX  replied to  CB @16.2.4    2 weeks ago
Donald J. Trump just told us

Who gives a shit?

When is the last time anything he said actually came true?

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
16.2.6  Tessylo  replied to  Jack_TX @16.2.5    2 weeks ago

Apparently lots of folks give a shit about what trumpturd 'told them', I mean look at his mobs of domestic terrorists who attempted a coup on his say so.  

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
16.2.7  Trout Giggles  replied to  Jack_TX @16.2.1    2 weeks ago
The sooner he just fucks off into oblivion, the better off we'll all be.

If I were a praying person....

 
 
 
Eat The Press Do Not Read It
Junior Expert
16.2.8  Eat The Press Do Not Read It  replied to  Tessylo @16.2.6    2 weeks ago

But that wasn't a mob of terrorists. That was a peace group of Evangelical Christians expressing their love of GOD & HATE of the government.

Which, I understand, is their "Constipational Rites." - Diaper Don

 
 
 
Eat The Press Do Not Read It
Junior Expert
16.2.9  Eat The Press Do Not Read It  replied to  Trout Giggles @16.2.7    2 weeks ago

Jailed would be good, too.

 
 
 
Eat The Press Do Not Read It
Junior Expert
16.2.10  Eat The Press Do Not Read It  replied to  CB @16.2.4    2 weeks ago

Oh, that is so harsh. Diaper Don was just wiping his Poota on the walls of the Whitehouse to mark his terrorist, er, I mean, "territory." (Like any other animal)

 
 
 
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
Professor Expert
16.2.11  seeder  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom  replied to  Jack_TX @16.2.1    2 weeks ago
The sooner he just fucks off into oblivion, the better off we'll all be.

Now that I can agree with...as long as some major suffering went along on the trip.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
16.2.12  CB   replied to  Jack_TX @16.2.5    2 weeks ago

Well Jack, I am 'glad' to read you don't SWALLOW the whole man (figuratively speaking of course). Going forward when Donald J. Trump lies (his lips are moving) I do not expect to read comments from you that try to 'square-away' his far-fetched narrative? Eh?

Because that would be, "Giving a shit"!

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
16.2.13  CB   replied to  Eat The Press Do Not Read It @16.2.10    2 weeks ago

We are going to have to work EXTRA hard to make sure the 2022 election does not cede or bent in the direction of trump-tryannicalism.

Even harder for me, because. . . I called my senators today and blasted them both- I mean really - after that take-down of President Joe Biden by Senator Kristin Sinema (D- Arizona).  I told Senators Feinstein and Padilla that I am strongly considering not voting in the mid-terms - after years upon years of support because this Sinema and Manchin are demoralizing me and by extension the public! Thus, I am exhausted at seeing Manchin (and Sinema) as I am McConnell and Trump!

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Junior Quiet
16.2.14  Jack_TX  replied to  CB @16.2.12    2 weeks ago
I do not expect to read comments from you that try to 'square-away' his far-fetched narrative? Eh?

You should definitely expect those comments.

They won't actually be defending Trump, just like they never have been.   [deleted]

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
16.2.15  CB   replied to  Jack_TX @16.2.14    2 weeks ago

Well, we're just have to see won't we, eh? The funny thing about being neutral is its so much easier to carry out when its not one's little red wagon that select policies are being put in or lifted out! I don't have the 'luxury' you do to ignore or do an end run around figures like Donald Trump and his accomplices, obviously.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
17  TᵢG    2 weeks ago

I have the best immunity;  nobody has ever claimed as much immunity as I have.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
17.1  CB   replied to  TᵢG @17    2 weeks ago

HA!

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
17.2  devangelical  replied to  TᵢG @17    2 weeks ago

immunity like no one has ever claimed before...

 
 
 
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
Professor Expert
17.3  seeder  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom  replied to  TᵢG @17    2 weeks ago
I have the best immunity;  nobody has ever claimed as much immunity as I have.

And once again, nothin' but net!!!!!!

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
17.3.1  CB   replied to  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom @17.3    2 weeks ago

Swoosh!

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
18  Kavika     2 weeks ago

I have covfefe immunity. 

 
 
 
Eat The Press Do Not Read It
Junior Expert
18.1  Eat The Press Do Not Read It  replied to  Kavika @18    2 weeks ago

That is the "Best Kind of Immunity," according to my attorney, Ghoulianni!

 
 
 
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
Professor Expert
18.2  seeder  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom  replied to  Kavika @18    2 weeks ago
I have covfefe immunity.

I stepped in some of that this morning.  Sasha crapped in the house.

On a personal note, I will miss that word once Trump falls into complete irrelevance.  It was my favorite Trump tweet of all time.  

 
 

Who is online

Gsquared
Nowhere Man
XXJefferson51


45 visitors