Donald is about to go through some things...

[Deleted member 365]

Lol, I don’t think we’ll see his appointment, but nice authoritarian dream….


View: https://twitter.com/ruthbenghiat/status/1732167113433911568

The more incompetent, the better! If government doesn’t work, then it can’t regulate rich billionaires, work effective foreign policy between states, protect the environment, or provide many services. However, it can be used pretty effectively at stifling political opposition and enriching one’s family and political allies. All while serving delicious culture war meat to the cult. Just imagine how many libs, like you, will be triggered by Kash Patel being in charge of important stuff. Hahaha! Maybe Trump will make Flynn his Sec of Defense. Rudy Giuliani his AG. Someone hot and incompetent, like Nancy Mace, his VP. It’ll trigger most of the majority so bad and it’ll be so delicious!

There’s a reason why democracies usually devolve into authoritarianism. And authoritarianism, once entrenched, is hard to overcome.

But sure, Biden’s age, price of eggs, or something something.

 

[Red]

Maybe Trump will make Flynn his Sec of Defense.

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs….

 

[Deleted member 365]

Talk about an administration of losers, freaks, and weirdos

 

[Red]

View: https://twitter.com/kyledcheney/status/1734267120844677549

 

[Al-O-Meter]

View: https://twitter.com/kyledcheney/status/1734267120844677549

Jack Smith and the democrats are so dirty.

The issue is supposed to go to an appeals court, then it could be elevated to the Supreme Court, but that process wouldn't happen in time to influence the election. No one will care if an appeals court rules one way or the other. It wouldn't even have enough traction to be the headline on the day it happens. Instead Jack Smith has gone straight to the Supreme Court. If the Supreme Court votes one way then it shows even the conservative Supreme Court is against Trump. If the Supreme Court votes the other way then it shows how corrupt the court is and this election will be about that. Jack Smith is skipping the appeals court who should be hearing the case to set up a campaign advertisement. This is pure weaponization for political gain.

 

[Sardines]

Jack Smith and the democrats are so dirty.

The issue is supposed to go to an appeals court, then it could be elevated to the Supreme Court, but that process wouldn't happen in time to influence the election. No one will care if an appeals court rules one way or the other. It wouldn't even have enough traction to be the headline on the day it happens. Instead Jack Smith has gone straight to the Supreme Court. If the Supreme Court votes one way then it shows even the conservative Supreme Court is against Trump. If the Supreme Court votes the other way then it shows how corrupt the court is and this election will be about that. Jack Smith is skipping the appeals court who should be hearing the case to set up a campaign advertisement. This is pure weaponization for political gain.

Dirty like a fox.

 

[One Brow]

Jack Smith and the democrats are so dirty.

The issue is supposed to go to an appeals court, then it could be elevated to the Supreme Court, but that process wouldn't happen in time to influence the election. No one will care if an appeals court rules one way or the other. It wouldn't even have enough traction to be the headline on the day it happens. Instead Jack Smith has gone straight to the Supreme Court. If the Supreme Court votes one way then it shows even the conservative Supreme Court is against Trump. If the Supreme Court votes the other way then it shows how corrupt the court is and this election will be about that. Jack Smith is skipping the appeals court who should be hearing the case to set up a campaign advertisement. This is pure weaponization for political gain.

Do you have evidence for this claim of requiring a lower-level appeals court to see it first?

If Smith is supposed to go to an appeals court, SCOTUS will deny certification (it takes four votes to be on the docket).

 

[Al-O-Meter]

Do you have evidence for this claim of requiring a lower-level appeals court to see it first?

NY Times:

"The request was unusual in two ways: Mr. Smith asked the justices to rule before an appeals court acted, and he urged them to move with exceptional speed."

Special Counsel Asks Supreme Court to Decide Whether Trump Is Immune From Prosecution

The request was unusual in two ways: Jack Smith asked the justices to rule before an appeals court acted, and he urged them to move with exceptional speed.

www.nytimes.com

CNN:

"Smith is asking the Supreme Court to take the rare step of skipping a federal appeals court and quickly decide a fundamental issue of the case against Trump."

https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/11/politics/special-counsel-trump-jack-smith/index.html

MSNBC:

"...is now pending at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. ...not content to wait on the D.C. Circuit, Smith has now also asked the U.S. Supreme Court to step in on an expedited basis"
msnbc.com/deadline-white-house/deadline-legal-blog/trump-jack-smith-supreme-court-election-rcna129003

 

[One Brow]

NY Times:


CNN:


MSNBC:

I saw "rare' and "unusual", not some version/synonym of "require". Further, I saw nothing that said SCOTUS is required to intervene.

 

[fishonjazz]

Jack Smith and the democrats are so dirty.

The issue is supposed to go to an appeals court, then it could be elevated to the Supreme Court, but that process wouldn't happen in time to influence the election. No one will care if an appeals court rules one way or the other. It wouldn't even have enough traction to be the headline on the day it happens. Instead Jack Smith has gone straight to the Supreme Court. If the Supreme Court votes one way then it shows even the conservative Supreme Court is against Trump. If the Supreme Court votes the other way then it shows how corrupt the court is and this election will be about that. Jack Smith is skipping the appeals court who should be hearing the case to set up a campaign advertisement. This is pure weaponization for political gain.

Lol.
Bat ****

Sent from my CPH2451 using Tapatalk

 

[str8line]

Jack Smith and the democrats are so dirty.

The issue is supposed to go to an appeals court, then it could be elevated to the Supreme Court, but that process wouldn't happen in time to influence the election. No one will care if an appeals court rules one way or the other. It wouldn't even have enough traction to be the headline on the day it happens. Instead Jack Smith has gone straight to the Supreme Court. If the Supreme Court votes one way then it shows even the conservative Supreme Court is against Trump. If the Supreme Court votes the other way then it shows how corrupt the court is and this election will be about that. Jack Smith is skipping the appeals court who should be hearing the case to set up a campaign advertisement. This is pure weaponization for political gain.

Not for a campaign ad, to get a dangerous criminal off the streets ASAP. Don't do the crime if you can't do the time.

 

[One Brow]

Not for a campaign ad, to get a dangerous criminal off the streets ASAP. Don't do the crime if you can't do the time.

Keep your eye on the sparrow