4th&long Posted July 1 Posted July 1 Like I’ve been saying the Supreme Court has been bought. Congrats to the right. Money can buy a lot of things in this country including the high court.
Tommy Callahan Posted July 1 Posted July 1 47 minutes ago, 4th&long said: Like I’ve been saying the Supreme Court has been bought. Congrats to the right. Money can buy a lot of things in this country including the high court. You ever actually research the amount of money to politicians? Dems kill it with the corporate cash. What are they buying with it. Massive stimulus to those companies and ngo's 1
4th&long Posted July 1 Posted July 1 2 minutes ago, Tommy Callahan said: You ever actually research the amount of money to politicians? Dems kill it with the corporate cash. What are they buying with it. Massive stimulus to those companies and ngo's I believe that. All I have been saying since I’ve been on here is ALL politicians are corrupt. I was hoping the court wasn’t. They only took this case on to help trump delay his trial till after the election. They didn’t rule that trump won’t stand trial today. They just muddied the waters to delay it. 1
B-Man Posted July 1 Posted July 1 3 minutes ago, Tommy Callahan said: You ever actually research the amount of money to politicians? Dems kill it with the corporate cash. What are they buying with it. Massive stimulus to those companies and ngo's You're wasting your time Tom. Anyone stupid enough to sat "the Supreme Court is bought" after seeing the diverse number of opinions over the past two weeks , is beyond reason. . 1
Pokebball Posted July 1 Posted July 1 1 minute ago, 4th&long said: I believe that. All I have been saying since I’ve been on here is ALL politicians are corrupt. I was hoping the court wasn’t. They only took this case on to help trump delay his trial till after the election. They didn’t rule that trump won’t stand trial today. They just muddied the waters to delay it. You don't think SCOTUS was pretty much obligated to take on this case? I don't understand how anyone could possibly not feel that they had to. 1
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted July 1 Posted July 1 1 minute ago, B-Man said: You're wasting your time Tom. Anyone stupid enough to sat "the Supreme Court is bought" after seeing the diverse number of opinions over the past two weeks , is beyond reason. . Maybe it's being paid for on a layaway plan, B. Did you ever think about that. A layaway plan? 5
4th&long Posted July 1 Posted July 1 (edited) 11 minutes ago, Pokebball said: You don't think SCOTUS was pretty much obligated to take on this case? I don't understand how anyone could possibly not feel that they had to. I’m not a lawyer but not don’t think they needed to. The lower court ruled on this and their decision was fine. The Supreme Court just ruled basically the same thing. They always had immunity in official roles, that’s why Obama was never charged. All that has really happened is now a lower court has to have hearings on wether Jack smiths case against trump can go forward, was 1/6 and trying to overturn the election and his role in it an official act? That will push the trial back till after the election. I’m sure their might be more to it but at this point, just getting home from the gym, and just starting to read up on it all… 14 minutes ago, B-Man said: You're wasting your time Tom. Anyone stupid enough to sat "the Supreme Court is bought" after seeing the diverse number of opinions over the past two weeks , is beyond reason. . Ha ha ha ha ha. How much money in “gifts” has Clarence Thomas accepted? $2 million. Am I supposed to believe he is the only one? Hell no! Edited July 1 by 4th&long
Pokebball Posted July 1 Posted July 1 (edited) 12 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said: Maybe it's being paid for on a layaway plan, B. Did you ever think about that. A layaway plan? This congressional hearing, with questions from Tom Massie, was the most interesting exchange. Especially sexual misconduct payments for congress men/women (with taxpayer money nonetheless) Edited July 1 by Pokebball 2
Warcodered Posted July 15 Posted July 15 17 minutes ago, BillsFanNC said: It's just so ***** stupid, Special Counsel is used to avoid influence/bias from the administration, it's a ***** tool. If you remove the fact that they used a Special Counsel and if they'd just used the normal department of Justice it wouldn't ***** matter.
B-Man Posted July 15 Posted July 15 Just now, Warcodered said: If you remove the fact that they used a Special Counsel and if they'd just used the normal department of Justice it wouldn't ***** matter. But they didn't. Only Congress can use a special prosecutor. Unconstitutional Mr. Smith. . 1
Warcodered Posted July 15 Posted July 15 2 minutes ago, B-Man said: But they didn't. Only Congress can use a special prosecutor. Unconstitutional Mr. Smith. . That seems unlikely, if it was the case Republicans would have actually done something when he was first appointed because despite all the crazy ***** some of them say, there are still plenty of them that actually do know the constitution and the law. Seems far more likely that an incompetent judge, Cannon, seized on some crazy statements from one of the worst SC judges.
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted July 15 Posted July 15 8 minutes ago, Warcodered said: That seems unlikely, if it was the case Republicans would have actually done something when he was first appointed because despite all the crazy ***** some of them say, there are still plenty of them that actually do know the constitution and the law. Seems far more likely that an incompetent judge, Cannon, seized on some crazy statements from one of the worst SC judges. Welp, there's a process to consider all these allegations--baseless or otherwise. 1
Scraps Posted July 15 Posted July 15 33 minutes ago, B-Man said: But they didn't. Only Congress can use a special prosecutor. Unconstitutional Mr. Smith. . So the conviction of Hunter Biden should be thrown out.
B-Man Posted July 15 Posted July 15 6 hours ago, Scraps said: So the conviction of Hunter Biden should be thrown out. NO.
Recommended Posts