Bobby. wrote on Feb 7^th, 2024 at 12:41pm:


So, for example, a convicted child sex offender waiting to go on trial (and who allegedly raped a child with a President, before they became POTUS) could "commit suicide" in his prison cell whilst on 24 hour suicide watch and nobody would bat an eyelid?

philperth2010 wrote on Feb 7^th, 2024 at 12:58pm:


It's just ludicrous to suggest that the Supreme Court would rule in favour of the POTUS having immunity from all crimes.

That leaves the door open for a Republican President to remove all Democrat-appointed Supreme Court Justices by any means they want.

Or, for a Democrat President to remove all GOP-appointed Supreme Court Justices.

They will never cede their power like that.

Bobby. wrote on Feb 7^th, 2024 at 1:27pm:


Yes I made a guess I did not not state it as fact....You claimed Presidents have immunity from their crimes which is a statement of fact....How do you know how the Supreme Court will vote???

Bobby. wrote on Feb 7^th, 2024 at 10:37am:


Why would it go to the SC, Bobby?

What would be the grounds for appeal?

Read the 57 page ruling and tell me where there's an opening for an appeal?

Every legal expert in the country - from the left and the right - is saying that the ruling is "air tight" and "bullet proof".

It's been described as one of the best legal rulings ever made, in so much as it completely destroys every argument made by the appellant.

By all means though, tell us all where you think the three judges went wrong thus requiring the SC to review the decision.

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 7^th, 2024 at 5:05pm:


It's hard to say, Greggery. Yes, on the one hand you have a bullet proof 57 page ruling.

On the other, you have the eminent legal opinion that Dear Leader can order the Navy Seals to take out a hit on his political rivals and not get into any trouble, it's all good.

Look, they say one thing, DL says another. I will say this, I see no reason why he would do it.

We'll have to wait and see what happens, yes?

Bobby. wrote on Feb 7^th, 2024 at 1:27pm:


Now now, Bobby, we're all friends here. The big fella says one thing, the courts say another. Just remember, when SCOTUS tells Jack Smith to carry on, you'll be perfectly free to revise your views of the Supreme Court, dear.

Rather than the Deep State being less in charge, I think we can safely say this:

RIGGED!!! WITCH HUNT!!! SO UNFAIR!!!

And one more:

DEEP STATE!!!

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 7^th, 2024 at 5:27pm:


That's minimum security, Greggery. They'll need something a little more high end to house the big fella.

Besides, we're talking a minimum of ten years. Federal corrections policy mandates Max, I'm afraid.

Bobby's DL will require a holding pen with the highest standards of inmate safety, a facility with a track record of both protection and correction. Tough, but fair.

My money's on FCC Fort Buttner.

There, the big fella will receive the best standard of care and restraint. Rehabilitation, dear, and discipline.

Bobby's DL will be required to keep his personal effects in order, his cell tidy, and all holes clean.

Bend over sir, cough, lift your sack, skin it back.

Right, Bubba, he's all yours.

Correct him.