T master Posted December 8, 2023 Posted December 8, 2023 3 minutes ago, BillStime said: Cut off his nuts & put them in a jar in a glass case so he can look at them every day in his jail cell !! 3
Tiberius Posted December 16, 2023 Posted December 16, 2023 50 minutes ago, BillStime said: Maybe they were looking for WMD there? 1
Doc Posted December 17, 2023 Posted December 17, 2023 23 hours ago, Tiberius said: Maybe they were looking for WMD there? ...and?
BillStime Posted December 17, 2023 Author Posted December 17, 2023 2 hours ago, Tommy Callahan said: Now do Melania
John from Riverside Posted December 30, 2023 Posted December 30, 2023 On 12/5/2023 at 2:07 PM, BillStime said: You do have to laugh at somebody, turning into a snowflake, whenever she self followed, a student home, lamenting that the boy was taking away her guns We’re standing outside of another congresswoman office, whenever she was not a congresswoman at the time banging on her door Or 16 minutes ago, BillStime said: Is this the same Republican who talked about how he had a friend that was married to an underage girl and they were making it work just fine Pig 1
BillStime Posted January 8 Author Posted January 8 Cancel all groomers, right @Unforgiven Oh, wait. Look at those Community Notes:
The Frankish Reich Posted January 22 Posted January 22 7 minutes ago, BillStime said: Sick Well, I think that characterization - comparing himself to Church sex abusers - isn't fair. But ... listen to it. It's incoherent. He seems to be mixing up two uses of "immunity." The talk of police has to do with "qualified immunity" -- a much-criticized legal doctrine that a cop accused of violating someone's constitutional rights will be immune UNLESS the Court has previously found that this type of conduct is, in fact, a constitutional violation. The idea of Presidential immunity would be a whole different thing. No one is arguing that unless a prior President was found to have broken the law by, say, fomenting an insurrection, a current ex-President is immune from prosecution. The second part of this clip makes sense - it is a policy argument. The first part, however, is a total mess, and actually implies that a President is free to do all sorts of unconstitutional things so long as a prior Supreme Court decision didn't find them unconstitutional.
Recommended Posts