In order to free him, he must first be locked up.
Although this does suggest that if he is locked up, the grifters using his name will continue to swarm.
< On the jukebox, a record plays. “A Boy Named Sue” >
All it will cost you is your self-respect… or your soul.
Wait. I think its not free, probably Says free trump. D’oh.
Gotta lock him up first.
I’m listening…
How can I miss you if you never leave?
It pisses me off that people eagerly let Trump humiliate them and ask: “please sir, may I have some more?”.
What is it that could possibly be worth letting someone treat you like this? I will never understand.
Quoting myself from a related thread:
It’s all about which candidate will make his life better. It is entirely self-interest. No different than a prostitute that lets a John hit her, because he’ll pay more for the option. Like has nothing to do with it.
(Aside, I’m not blaming the prostitute in the above example, there’s a lot of other factors for that profession, just using a nice insulting way to say that Barr’s virtue is entirely mercenary in the wealth and social sense)
It’s still astonishing to me that Barr, an able and respected lawyer before he became Trump’s AG, fully aware of what a threat his former boss poses to American democracy and the rule of law, and having been personally dumped upon, belittled and insulted by the guy, would now actually endorse him. Jeez.
I’m sure he mentally justifies it as a noble sacrifice, accepting the slings and arrows of an idiot to save the country from the evils of progressivism.
That’s actually a pretty funny post. Seeing as how it’s grammatically correct, only has a few random capitalizations and contains several 3- and 4-syllable words, I’m pretty sure Trump didn’t write it.
This. No way did trump write that. Or even think of writing it.
This HAS to be fake. Right? Right?
Yes, because it’s actually funny and self-aware.
I could take a free Trump (I always wanted a pet monkey), but is the T shirt decent quality?
What pisses me off about that turd having been president and standing a good chance of getting back in office is that lawyers supporting him actually argue this bullshit in court and his herd doesn’t bat an eye.
Trump Lawyer Tells SCOTUS That Even A Military Coup Order Would Be Immune From Prosecution
WASHINGTON — A presidential order to the military to conduct a coup to keep him in office “might well be an official act,” Donald Trump’s lawyer told the Supreme Court Thursday on the question of whether Trump’s attempted coup is immune from prosecution.
Kind of makes you wonder, though, if the jackass thought he had such control over the military, why he didn’t send the troops in to stop the insurrection.*
*Of couerse we all know why.
There’s something very frustrating to me about the arguments that Trump’s lawyers keep making in this case. The justices keep asking some variation of “would the president be immune if he…” (ordered the assassination of a rival, ordered the military to stage a coup, etc.). The response from the lawyer is always some form of “it depends.”
Depends on what? I have not heard him take a stand on when this magical presidential immunity kicks in and when it doesn’t. It’s impossible to get anything specific from this guy.
Is that common in these sorts of court cases? Do attorneys deliberately avoid giving specifics when arguing constitutional issues before the Supreme Court, and do the justices deliberately let them weasel out of it?
It depends.
I agree and had the same thought. They’re obviously weasel words to somehow avoid acknowledging the absurdity of the argument. Reductio ad absurdem on the justices’ part.
But I also wish Justice Jackson had followed the “it depends on the details” response with, “Okay, can you provide a hypothetical where the president issued such an order, but immunity would not apply? Because given your argument, I lack the imagination to conjure up such a scenario.”
That would have been interesting.