Below is my column in The Messenger on the Supreme Court’s rejection of the motion by Special Counsel Jack Smith to curtail the appellate review of Donald Trump’s claim of immunity. While denounced by many in the media, it was not just a predictable but principled decision to stick with regular order in the consideration of such appellate issues. For too many legal experts, Trump offers the release of rage and the ability to adopt of the same dismissive, cavalier attitude of others when it comes to legal rights.
Long civil libertarians can experience the momentary freedom from the confines of blind justice and due process. They can just vent and demand abridged appeals for a presumed guilty defendant. They can embrace broad interpretations of criminal provisions and narrow interpretations of constitutional rights. Years of circumscribed restraint can be set aside for a cathartic demand for disqualification and incarceration. The Supreme Court, however, resisted such demands in a decision that declined to create a fast-track to favor the Special Counsel.
Here is the column:
The decision on Friday by the U.S. Supreme Court to deny a motion for expedited appeal is not ordinarily a matter for exhaustive media coverage. However, if the Trump name appears in the caption of a case, many legal experts suddenly jettison all due process concerns or sense of restraint. That is particularly true when the denial could — as here — prove highly beneficial to Donald Trump.
The denial very likely ends the effort by Justice Department special counsel Jack Smith to put Trump on trial just before the March 5 Super Tuesday primary elections, and it could well result in a trial after next November’s general election.
Smith was able to get D.C. District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan to shoehorn the trial into a small window in March 2024. At the time, some of us stated that we were skeptical whether Smith could hold to that date in light of the novel constitutional and evidentiary issues in the case.
Even with the expedited review of the D.C. Circuit appellate court with an oral argument scheduled for Jan. 9, it will take time to issue an opinion. Trump then has a right to seek review with the full court in an en banc petition. That could easily take weeks, even on an expedited basis. It would then have to be appealed to the Supreme Court for a full briefing and argument.
That schedule would likely approach or pass the March date. Assuming Smith prevails in every review, the pretrial proceedings still would have to resume after the case is returned to Judge Chutkan. That could easily push any potential trial to within 60 days of the general election — a period in which the Justice Department has historically avoided prosecutions under a long-standing policy to prevent influencing elections.
Ironically, Judge Chutkan ruled against Trump on immunity and the scheduling by insisting that he should be treated no differently from ordinary citizens. That is precisely what the Supreme Court just did. It refused to take away an appeal that most ordinary defendants could expect from the courts.
Once the Court’s rejection became known on Friday, the coverage was full of anger and accusations. Before the ruling, many legal experts praised Smith and supported the effort to cut short Trump’s right to appeal. Just a day before the Court’s decision to turn down Smith, legal expert Dave Aronberg declared on MSNBC that “the Supreme Court seems to be willing to hopscotch over the appellate court. Jack Smith is calling Trump’s bluff.”
It did not exactly work out that way.
Although the justices’ actual vote on the motion is not known, commentators immediately declared that conservatives on the Court had rendered a politically calculated opinion to spare Trump. A typical take appeared on Vox, where senior correspondent Ian Millhiser referred to “the GOP-controlled Supreme Court” and that three justices are Trump appointees, in order to paint the decision as nothing more than a rigged process.
The decision, however, stuck with the regular order of appeals used for defendants. The extraordinary act would have been for the Supreme Court to allow Smith to bypass the court of appeals for no other reason than his insistence that the case is hugely important.
It is clear, of course, that the case is important — but the question is why such weighty issues should be given less judicial scrutiny due to that importance.
A full appeal can produce concessions or admissions by a party in the course of arguing the issues. It creates a full appellate record that is considered by the Supreme Court, along with the trial record. So far, just one judge has ruled on this matter. The D.C. Circuit adds at least three — and potentially more — appellate judges as part of the standard review process.
If anything, Smith has an advantage before the D.C. Circuit. Notably, while two of the three judges were appointed by President Joe Biden, much of the media does not refer to the panel as “Democratic-controlled.”
Every defendant is entitled to due process, including a full opportunity of appellate review absent a set of narrow, expedient circumstances. This was not one of those. Smith never actually explained why the trial is so urgent that the defendant should be denied one of two courts for appellate review. The assumption is that Smith’s urgency is to convict Trump before the 2024 election for the benefit of voters.
That, of course, would overturn the long-standing Justice Department policy to avoid even the appearance of trying to influence elections.
The other obvious concern is that, if the March trial date is lost, it may be difficult to try the case before November’s general election. And if Trump were to be elected as president, a new attorney general might scuttle Smith’s investigation or Trump might grant himself a presidential pardon.
However, those are concerns that no judge should ethically consider.
That is why some of us said in advance that the Supreme Court should reject this motion, as it did on Friday. Regardless of who this decision benefits, the question is what due process demands — regardless of the defendant.
Nevertheless, the question posed by legal analysts like Vox’s Millhiser is whether the Supreme Court will “further sabotage Smith’s case by [keeping] the prosecution on pause while it reviews the D.C. Circuit’s decision.”
Perish the thought.
Jonathan Turley, an attorney, constitutional law scholar and legal analyst, is the Shapiro Chair for Public Interest Law at The George Washington University Law School.
Experts Fear Post-Election Crisis
CNN: 7/21/20
Voting experts and political strategists from across the political spectrum are increasingly alarmed about the potential for a disputed presidential election in November, one in which one candidate openly questions the legitimacy of the results or even refuses to concede.
These experts are keenly aware of President Donald Trump’s well-documented history of lying about voter fraud and claiming that elections were “rigged” when he doesn’t like the outcome.
Interviews with nearly 20 election experts, former lawmakers, political strategists, legal scholars and historians indicate there are widespread fears of a nightmare scenario in November, where Trump’s norm-breaking behavior – coupled with the unprecedented challenges of pandemic-era voting – test the limits of American democracy and plunge the country into a constitutional crisis.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/20/politics/disputed-election-crisis-trump/index.html
………………………………..
This was one of those “Experts Fear” articles that was right on the mark. Yet the headline might have looked highly speculative to CNN viewers in July of 2020. Trumpers at the time would have dismissed as anti-Trump propaganda.
This article clearly shows that Trump’s false election claims were widely expected amongst savvy observers.
Steaming turds in the middle of the night from turdrunner the coward
Wow, a paragon of meritocratic argument.
Trump Knew He Lost
And Voters Should Know He Knew
Count one of Special Counsel Jack Smith’s Aug. 1 indictment of Donald Trump alleges that he used “knowingly false” claims of election fraud in a conspiracy to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election. To help prove Trump’s guilt, prosecutors will seek to demonstrate that Trump knew his fraud claims were false. There are strong reasons to think Smith and his team will succeed.
The prosecution will almost certainly call witnesses who will swear that Trump privately acknowledged losing the election. Cassidy Hutchinson, former assistant to Trump’s chief of staff, Mark Meadows, testifying before the January 6th House Select Committee described conversations in which Meadows and other White House staff reported hearing Trump admit he lost.
Between the election and Jan. 6, 2021, Trump was aware that he and his allies were losing state and federal lawsuits alleging election fraud, the total reaching 61 by early January. Trump also knew that no state legislatures were acting to change their electoral college votes.
https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/4198002-how-jack-smith-can-prove-trump-knew-he-lost-the-2020-election/
………………………………………..
KEY PASSAGE FROM ARTICLE:
“Trump was aware that he and his allies were losing state and federal lawsuits alleging election fraud, the total reaching 61 by early January”.
***
With this column, Professor Turley reveals a serious blind spot in his hindsight. The public has heard too much already! We all know that Trump’s claims were rejected by more than 60 courts. We know that SCOTUS refused to hear Trump’s claims.
Therefore this notion we must presume Trump’s innocence (unless he stands trial), is strictly for yahoos. And that could be the problem here: ‘Turley is influenced by the Blog Stooge’s comments.
We know turdrunner is a chicken sh!t who wont even use his handle anymore because he fears Estovir the Terrible.
Now Trump is claiming that his Republican challengers will cheat in the Iowa caucuses. What a narcissist he is.
What demoncrats do is unfortunately picked up others over time.
Think those demoncrat superdelegates won’t decide who your sicko pink possible pick will be, think again whiner.
No. He just looked at what the Democrats did in Iowa in 2020. Just ask Bernie Sanders.
What ? We don’t get to know who voted what…. ?
“Although the justices’ actual vote on the motion is not known, commentators immediately declared that conservatives on the Court had rendered a politically calculated opinion…”
Oh, of course, another state secret, due to security, longstanding “tradition” (covering up), denial of the public’s right to know, secret courts that are 100% against the Constitution (no matter thousand of exceptions are now demanded and played out)…
It just never ends, thus the depths of corruption deepen and widen at an increasing pace.
Professor Turley Writes:
“If the March trial date is lost, it may be difficult to try the case before November’s general election”.
“However, those are concerns that no judge should ethically consider”.
……………………………..
Here Turley is telling us that no judge should consider holding Trump accountable before Trump has a chance to get elected and pardon himself. As though the American people have no right to know how Trump might have fared in a trial.
According to Turley, we, as voters, must presume Trump’s innocence and let him appear on the November ballot, despite the fact that Trump has made it clear he not only intends to pardon himself, but he also plans to ‘prosecute the prosecutors’!
And if this poisonous scheme is allowed to play-out on Trump’s terms, Turley will be telling us, at this time next year, that the case against Jack Smith is ‘pretty strong’.
This column goes to show that Turley plans to play cheerleader for the dictatorship Trump aspires to create.
My Christmas wish is that your nightmare comes true.
I call it late and weak justice, a really sad tale on the corrupt demoncratic debauchery and delusional hatred.
You will call it tears and rage and possibly self harm.
Our system should have stopped these clown courtroom charades a long time ago. All of you still need to answer for your in the open outrageous election thefts.
If your Christmas wish is that people’s nightmares comes true, then you’re a sociopath.
Wow, maybe they are the criminal anti-American estrogen doused whining goofballs and “their nightmare” is very simply plain goodness, common sense, honor justice and the American way.
BTW- didn’t say more than that particular poster’s nightmare, not “people’s”, but then liars and estrogen hyperized whack jobs can’t keep much straight, even with their insults, huh. Tsk tsk.
You two, or you and your duo anon posts should hug or self hug and cry together. LOL
LONG LIVE THE USA !
I’m sure that your dislike of estrogen makes you popular with women. /s
Never had a woman ask me how i felt about estrogen. Maybe your date was just looking for a way out.
Apparently when you throw up, no one knows that you’re sick unless they ask you.
Was that supposed to be analogous???
I take it you are sick after that vomit.
+100
If you like laying turds, you’re a turd layer
According to Turley, we, as voters, must presume Trump’s innocence and let him appear on the November ballot,
I love this.
Such a great example of the leftist trolls always getting it wrong.
This is NOT according to Turley . . . Its according to . . . THE CONSTITUTION.
And if this poisonous scheme is allowed to play-out on Trump’s terms,
Not Trump Terms, RULE OF LAW TERMS!. Just like the good Professor of Constitutional law already explained, using small words for the morons that frequent here.
Is it hard to be so stupid? You know even stupid people are smart enough not to comment of stuff they are totally ignorant, about
The Constitution doesn’t require anyone other than a member of a jury to presume innocence. Voters in general can think whatever they want about both Trump and Biden.
“must presume Trump’s innocence”
Another turd layer who wishes never be part of a jury pool
“According to Turley, we, as voters, must presume his innocence . . ..” Well, yeah.
Just like you presume Joe Biden is innocent, right?
Svelaz is correct: a jury must presume the defendant’s innocence. Everyone else can think whatever they want.
uh da dup uh duh dup you heard it here first….uh da dup everyone else can think whatever they like uh huh. Bet you didn’t know that uh da dup yea.
Thanks for that brilliant commentary, but yes, that could be the first time Svelaz has been right about anything
In all likelihood and barring the extraordinary, the SCOTUS denial will put the case beyond the election.
Appellate court decision likely by or before early February but Trump will have 14 days to petition for an en banc review (assuming immunity claim denied). If they decline en banc, then end of February. If they accept, then mid-April+. From there, the writ of certiorari process can begin and Trump will have 90 days to file. Once filed, Smith will have 30 days to file a brief in opposition. Trump could then file a reply brief possibly within 2, maybe 3 weeks.
As of now, earliest timeline looks to be late June/early July to take the case which is usually the beginning of the Court’s recess. The earliest Court could hear the case would be early October and then post-decision, you would still have to go to trial–with an election in November. The legal and political optics of all this would be well beyond unseemly.
The likeliest path forward would be that SCOTUS takes the case but later in the next term post-election. That being said, where it could get interesting is if SCOTUS declines to take the case (which is unlikely).
Boomerang effect is here.
Recall when SCOTUS was threatened by BLM ANTIFA Leftists and Merrick Garland ROFLOL, while the Dems thought it appropriate. Now that the CO Supreme Court justices are threatened, the Left wing MSM finds it unacceptable, to which Americans say… FJB!!!!
🖕🏾🖕🏾🖕🏾🖕🏾
I want to see what demoncrat upchuck Schumer has to say about the whirlwind now.
Judge Luttig on December 1: “today’s D.C Circuit opinion for why the former president is not entitled to immunity from civil suit for his conduct “up to and on January 6” is the same explanation for why he is also not entitled to immunity from criminal prosecution for that same conduct.”
Time will tell whether he’s correct about how the DCCA will rule on the latter, but Luttig’s argument is likely right.
whether he’s correct about how the DCCA will rule on the latter, but Luttig’s argument is likely right.
And Trump likely colluded with RUSSIA, RUSSIA, RUSSIA!
It likely right Jack Smith was never approved by the Senate, so has no power to do any of this.
HB is challenging Weiss’s SC status. So your wish for this to be determined in court will come true.
Turdrunner below, posting his evening jibberish as Anonymous, because he is too chicken sh!t to man up to Estovir,
+100
Poll: Americans Don’t Want A Trump / Biden Rematch
Most U.S. adults overall (56%) would be “very” or “somewhat” dissatisfied with Biden as the Democratic presidential nominee in 2024, and a similar majority (58%) would be very or somewhat dissatisfied with Trump as the GOP’s pick. Nearly 3 in 10 U.S. adults, or 28%, say they would be dissatisfied with both Trump and Biden becoming their party’s respective nominees – with independents (43%) being more likely than Democrats (28%) or Republicans (20%) to express their displeasure with both men gaining party nominations.
The poll shows neither man is viewed favorably by a majority of the U.S. public, with only 42% saying they have a favorable view of Biden and 36% saying the same of Trump.
Both are generally viewed favorably within their own party: About three-quarters of Democrats have a favorable view of Biden and about 7 in 10 Republicans have a favorable view of Trump. But Republicans are more likely to say their view of Trump is strongly favorable than Democrats are to say the same of Biden, 46% vs 34%. Democrats are more likely than Republicans are to say they have only a somewhat favorable view of their party’s 2024 frontrunner, 44% vs 24%.
https://apnews.com/article/biden-trump-2024-campaign-democrats-republicans-440088966619e68dbf89f745788bb372
…………………………..
This poll reflects what others are saying: ‘Americans don’t want a Trump / Biden rematch’. So this idea that Americans want Trump back is inaccurate. Only Trump’s base wants him back.
Steaming turd from a lying kunt^^^
+100
You want plain text. Here is some plain text….
No person shall hold any office.
It does not say, “No person shall run for any office.” It doesn’t say, “No person shall be elected to any office.”
Plain text. By that plain text, no SoS or court can keep Trump off of the ballot. Plain text.
Welcome to the Federalist Society.
Now lets see the kunt from CO or the libtards on the COSC keep Trump from taking the oath of office…LMAO
Dream on libtards!!!
Tom, see the conclusion on page 132 of the Colorado Supreme Court majority opinion where they apply section 3 to the Colorado election code. https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2023/23SA300.pdf
I see their claim however…
Funny because the word “disqualified” isn’t in the plain text.
14A doesnt say in the plain text that person is “not qualified”
Plain text, sorry.
Next
The Daily Mail “asked 1000 likely voters for one word to describe what Joe Biden and Donald Trump each want from a second term.” The top results for Biden: nothing, economy, and peace. The top results for Trump: revenge, power, and dictatorship. Trump is touting his wordcloud on his TruthSocial account. No one should want a President who touts being seen as most wanting revenge and dictatorship.
“author and conservative commentator Matt Lewis: ‘In the case of Donald Trump, the brand that has emerged is one that he has intentionally cultivated, and he has sought to become the candidate of vengeance. In the case of Biden, I think this is perhaps not great news. But then again it’s not terrible: It could have been old, it could have been demented. Instead, it’s nothing. It’s a blank slate. And they do say vanilla is the most popular flavor of ice cream.'”
“James Johnson, co-founder of polling firm J.L. Partners, said the wordclouds made for bleak reading. ‘Biden may not have set the world alight three years ago but he was the candidate of calm, and recovery from the pandemic. Now he is the nothing man,’ he said. ‘And for Trump, rather than people thinking he has a plan to restore America, most think he is just out for personal revenge.'”
To see the wordclouds:
https://web.archive.org/web/20231226122853/https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12890411/Voters-2024-choice-Trump-second-term-Biden-second-term-choice-REVENGE-Daily-Mail-poll.html
REGARDING ABOVE:
Estrogen hormones for Trans do evil things to nelly swishy queens like the above stooge
So Trump has man-boobs because he’s taking estrogen, got it.
How gay of you to notice. Got it
He also wears more makeup than many women, and lots of people notice it. After all, one of his nicknames is Agent Orange.
So what? you have a problem with men wearing makeup? LMAO
Let’s have some drag queen story hour without makeup next time!!
Idiot
So you think Trump is a drag queen, got it.
Idiot.
The idiot is the one who got that ^^^from what i said.
Although i would call you a f*cktard
Steaming turd from turdrunner, bane of Estovir the Almighty^^^
+100
If Biden wants peace, why are we constantly at war? If Trump wants dictatorship, why did he fail to censure, or persecute, or intimidate anyone in the four years of his Presidency? We are supposed to believe the rhetoric of second rate journalists and third rate trolls over our own experience.
Biden’s the one who actually ended the war in Afghanistan.
If you think that Trump “fail[ed] to censure, or persecute, or intimidate anyone in the four years of his Presidency?,” you’re not paying attention. Start with Comey.
“We are supposed to believe the rhetoric of second rate journalists …”
Not a troll, and it wasn’t a journalist’s “rhetoric.” It was simply reporting (a) what people who were surveyed said, and (b) Trump’s response. Don’t believe that Trump posted it? Here you go: https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/111648588624900975
“Biden’s the one who actually ended the war in Afghanistan.”
What a steaming turd. The war where no Americans were being killed until Biden “ended” it?
I recently read a column critical of Turley in which the author wondered whether he is possibly being blackmailed because of his predictably pro-Trump and anti patriotic consistent writings depended upon by alt right media. Jack Smith is the problem, according to Turley, not the pig who stirred up rebellion in this country because he lost a free and fair election, so he had to concoct the Big Lie that his adoring fans believe, and he got thousands of them to descend on Washington, DC to try to stop the election winner from taking office. The Big Lie cost lives and nearly overturned American democracy, his stealing of classified documents, disclosing the contents to unauthorized people, and lyng about returning them–piffle, according to Turley. What about raping E. Jean Carroll and defaming her? It must be politically-motivated. What IS important, according to Turley, is that the pig get away with delaying justice, so he can try to seize the levers of power and try, once again, to screw us royally–pulling the US out of NATO, insulting our EU allies, trying to overturn Obamacare, weaponizing our federal agencies and the judiciary, but most of all, pretending to be qualified to be a world leader instead of what he is–a fat loser, spoiled brat who squandered the wealth he in inherited by one failed business after another, pretending to be a wealthy, self-made billionaire and reveling in attention, adulation and praise that his bereft soul depends upon because he KNOWS he’s inferior. Someone who has a well-earned reputation for cheating at business, in his taxes and in his marriages (3) so far. Someone who consorts with porn actresses and nude models, but pretends to care about “unborn babies”, all to pander to Evangelicals.
Uh, Turley, in a NORMAL world, Jack Smith is our hero. The pig who lied and started an insurrection is the villian. We’re not in a normal world any more. In a NORMAL world, a law professor would support swift justice, and would laugh at the notion that someone who cheated his way into office by colluding with Russian hackers claiming to be immune from prosecution. In a NORMAL world, a law professor would not praise the SCOTUS for trying to help a cheater and criminal get away with his crimes by gaming the system to create delays. We’re not in a NORMAL world.
Indeed, Gigi.
Turley expects us to forget everything we heard from the January 6th Committee hearings. You see, that committee wasn’t legit because Jim Jordan didn’t get a seat. And besides, Fox News never covered those hearings so they didn’t really exist.
Instead we’re supposed to presume Trump is innocent, of all 91 felony counts, and allow him to run for president knowing full well that Trump will pardon himself of all charges if he gets the White House back.
Obviously Turley is speaking to only Fox News viewers and is oblivious to the rest of America.
The committee wasn’t legit because there was no cross-examination.
Steaming turds from turdrunner and Gigi ^^^
You see, that committee wasn’t legit because Jim Jordan didn’t get a seat
The committee was busy destroying testimony. It was so solid against Trump, it had to be destroyed.
You will not become a saint through other people’s sins, Jack
–Anton Chekov
Yea, I know, Russian.
“Instead we’re supposed to presume Trump is innocent, of all 91 felony counts”
Don’t let the ignorant kunt Gigi anywhere near a jury pool.
Did you really read a column concerning Professor Turley being black-mailed or did you just make that up? If not, then could you please provide a link? Thanks.
@Gigi
Apropos of precisely nothing relevant, as usual. Do you really think no one notices? Is narcissism nature, or nurture? I forget. Is it inversely proportional to dollars paid/personal boredom? Something tells me that may be closer to the mark. I like good Calzones, and that has about as much bearing on this conversation. Trolling forums is so 1999. I guess that would be retro to Gen Z, and therefore cool. See how I can bloviate and obfuscate too? Those are very nice shoes your wearing, Gigi. They remind me of the ones Michelle was wearing, and that certainly must mean that the world is one gigantic leftist sympathizer. You righties (read: anyone one centimeter to the center of the modern dems) are ignorant Nazis, just because I said it, and I am basically
God, in my own mind. At least a demigod. Bleh. 😂🙄😂 Whatever, Gigi.
“I recently read a column critical of Turley in which the author wondered whether he is possibly being blackmailed”
Post the link to the column you lying sack of sh!t
It’s easy to find with an internet search. Are you bad at those, or just too lazy?
If you rely upon such an article, you should be willing to cite it. If you actually read it, you could easily to do so. I also doubt such an article exists.
I’m not Gigi, so I *didn’t* rely on it, and I have no cause to cite it. I only pointed out that it’s easy to find with a relevant search (e.g., Jonathan Turley blackmailed, date-limited to this week).
Then why dont you paste it, liar?
“Are you bad at those, or just too lazy?”
Yes, I’m lazy and you can suck my dick.
weaponizing our federal agencies and the judiciary,Sounds like you are talking about Biden. The election was rigged on multiple fronts. Pelosi should be investigated for her actions and lying about Jan 6th. I could go on but it’s like talking to a brick wall. Besides I can’t support a racist party like the Democrats.
I recently read a column critical of Turley in which the author wondered whether he is possibly being blackmailed because of his predictably pro-Trump and anti patriotic consistent writings depended upon by alt right media
Gigi supposedly quoting some mysterious secret source never point the problem with Professor Turley’s scholarship that supports his opinions.
Just make wild accusations about bribery.
Nothing but a wholly white bread ad hominem attack.
So do the hard work and challenge the Professor’s scholarship, or buzz off
Gigi – “He lost a free and fair election.”. What election was that?
Meanwhile, Back At Turley’s Cesspool
Christmas is over and Tom/Estovir is back to his non-stop comments about gays, poop and and corn-holing.
Tom/Estovir has apparently never heard the term ‘one-trick pony’. In his mind, these references are fresh knee-slappers every time.
People tend to talk about those things that interest them. And one can easily guess that Tom/Estovir is obsessed with gays and poop. What a pathetic loser!!
Most of us cannot imagine waking up in the morning to write about gays and poop all day. Tom/Estovir obviously suffers serious mental problems.
Tom/Estovir’s puppets today include James, Waters, Thinkthrough, Upstate Farmer, Iowa2, Guy Ventner and that ever-present green anonymous.
The real question here is: ‘How long can Turley’s blog withstand this constant onslaught of slime before Tom/Estovir is virtually the only commenter here?’ Because we’re well past the halfway point of an Estovir-only comments section.
Steaming turd from turdrunner the anonymous^^^^
… you say, looking in the mirror.
uh duh dup I cant think of anything witty to say, so I go wif uh da dup, yea uh huh, looking in the mirror uh da dup
LMAO
“People tend to talk about those things that interest them”
“Tom/Estovir has apparently never heard the term ‘one-trick pony’.”
Have I ever mentioned that lefty turd layers have no concept of irony or self awareness?
The above quotes are from the turd layer who is fixated on Tom/Estovir. He sees them in every post.
He must have some weird interest in us (probably latent love interest).
Bwahahahahahahaha
REGARDING ABOVE:
The clinic where I go for my LGBTQIA+furrycritter2spiritdemon psychiatric care told me my estrogen levels would not be an issue as I transitioned from POS GARBAGE troll to POS swishy hips GARBAGETTE troll. It appears they lied to me which is fine since we all know I lie more than a carpet spread out on the Senate building to get porked by hung senate aids. So I apologize for my more than usual batsheet crazy behavior on here. Damn estrogen injections are not working, my falsies are sagging, my fat molded vagina is listing to the left (but of course), and I’m just more miserable as a disgruntled furry-beelzebub spirit than usual.
You’ve been told before. Dennis is not gay. He is a pedophile. Get yourself informed on the difference.
Idiot.
+100
At some point these people are going to have to smell what they are shoveling, and that goes across the board, institutionally. Most of us are not buying it, and the behavior of our modern left is shameful, ridiculous, insane in the extreme. No, we are not that stupid, in fact, many of us are much smarter than these tools that paid for an education receipt, and this circus they have made of our legal system has got to stop. People that still think George Soros is some kind of humanitarian need to have their heads examined, and a whole lot of blue folks, particularly on the coasts, do think exactly that. Just send us the liberal memo, so we know what we are supposed to think, that is the extent to which they engage with these issues. 🙄
Young people can be forgiven for being idiots, particularly in the modern era where they were not parented or educated and in that vulnerable state, are indoctrinated at every turn; grown a** adults? What in the actual **** is your excuse? If the answer is anything other than privilege, negligence, or flat out ignorance/not giving a s***, we would all love to hear it, and please do include links to your justifications. You should simply know better.
There will come a day when even these fools thank their lucky stars Trump balanced the courts.
Trump couldn’t balance a checkbook, much less courts. Trump doesn’t know any judges, and just did what the Federalist Society told him to do. They want radical conservatives whose views are not representative of the majority of Americans. People who don’t understand these facts are the fools.
@Gigi
Says the troll that is still free to say that in the first place. 😂 The day the likes of Gigi get it . . . well, it actually doesn’t matter if they get it so long as the rest of us do. I don’t generally dignify comments like that with upset, and this is no exception. Enjoy whatever bubble you enjoy, Gigi, nobody here is swayed/convinced/impressed with your squeaking. The rest of us will get on with things. Shake your fist at us or the heavens if you really need to. 😂 Hope you had a very merry Christmas.
Gigi is jealous of Sevlaz. He has an 18 lie lead on her.
Bwahahahahahaha
Gigi – So now you are attacking the Federalist Society. Last week, all the trolls were telling us that the decision of the Colorado Supreme Court barring Trump from the ballot was based on reasoning of the Federalist Society.
Updated 12/26 Lefty Wall of Shame aka The Lefty Turd Farm
Svelaz aka Mr Peetape starts his final week of the year off right with 3 more stars!
Svelass aka Mr Peetape 22
Lawn Boy Elvis Bug 7
Dennis McInlyre 8
Gigi the LIAR 4
ATS 3
brandrunnerPoopy Head 1
In Mcdonnell, SCOTUS narrowed the definition of what constitutes a benefit—Svelaz aka Mr Peetape.
Gifts and payments to family are not “official acts” with regard to Joe Biden—Mr Peetape
(confusing quid with quo)
The 14th Amendment argument was put forth by the Federalist Society—Mr Peetape
It will be up to a GRAND JURY to decide if Hunter is guilty of contempt—-Svelaz aka
Mr Peetape
2 USC 192 is a congressional rule—Svelaz aka Mr Peetape
Congressional rules trump the 6th Amendment—Mr Peetape
Convictions for tax evasion are rare (its 2 per day)—-Mr Peetape
The inflation rate is coming down and is at 2.5% (it’s 3.1% and steady, 12/12/23)—brandrunner aka Poopy Head
Hunter and his lawyer have said they would comply with the subpoena—Dennis McInlyre aka Mr Alpha Bank
The 5th Amendment cannot be invoked in a court or criminal proceeding—Svelaz aka Mr Peetape
Hunter won’t testify. He will plead the 5th. (12/15)—Svelaz, aka Mr Peetape
Hunter wants to testify. He is not trying to hide anything. (12/18)—Svelaz aka Mr Peetape
A President can’t be convicted of a crime unless there is no doubt—Svelaz aka Mr. Peetape
R.C.A.W.T. was a good pneumonic—- Elvis Bug aka The Lawn Boy
(its mnemonic)
Nuclear ICBM’s are more accurate, the closer you are to the target.—*Elvis Bug aka The Lawn Boy
Hunter doesn’t have to testify because Comer changed his mind—Dennis aka Mr Alpha Bank
The quid has to be illegal for a quid pro quo to be illegal—-*Elvis bug aka The Lawn boy
If Joe’s quid results in Hunter’s quo, that’s not illegal—-*Elvis Bug aka The Lawn Boy
Inflation was on a rising trend from 2015 until Trump left office—-Elvis Bug aka The Lawn Boy
(1.3, 2.2, 2.5, 1.9, 1.3)
Comer said that the mere presence of shell companies is *proof* of a crime—-Svelass aka Mr. Peetape
Hunter Biden showed up for his hearing today—–Svelass aka Mr. Peetape
Hunter Biden agreed to testify to a public hearing—–Gigi the LIAR
(who did he agree with?)
The Consumer Price Index was indeed at 7.6% when Trump left office—–Elvis Bug aka The Lawn Boy (it was 1.4%)
Archer gave no details about the meeting at the Naval Observatory with Marc Holtzman—-Svelaz aka Mr Peetape
Archer had no idea what was on those phone calls. He admitted it under oath—Svelaz aka Mr Peetape
Evidence isnt permissible unless its incontrovertible—-ATS
Circumstantial evidence alone is not enough to convict——Svelaz aka Mr Peetape
Republicans are the only ones calling for violence these days—-Dennis
Democrats call for violence when the cause is right—-Dennis in the same post
Gas prices spiked because Texas uses crude oil to make electricity—-Gigi the LIAR
AR-15’s ruin the meat—-Dennis
The inflation rate was 8% when Trump left office—-Gigi the LIAR
(it was actually 1.4%)
Biden only released the strategic oil reserve once—-Svelass Mr Peetape
Archer never said it was Joe that was called from Dubai—-ATS
The State of Florida does property tax “appraisals”—-Svelass Mr Peetape
You can’t convict without incontrovertible proof—ATS
Trump was convicted of rape—Svelass Mr. Peetape
The Jefferson County school board has a supermajority of republicans—-lawn boy EB
Trumps attorney forgot to “check a box”——Dennis
An insult or name calling is not a personal attack—-Svelass Mr. Peetape
The DC NG answers only to the President—-Gigi the LIAR
Christianity teaches to treat your fellow man the same way you treat Jesus—-Svelass Mr Peetape
The ideal athlete is 6’2” and 175#—-Dennis
There is no way a fat person can shoot a 67 in golf—-Dennis
“Bright red Alabama is the “wild west”,” (when its bright blue Birmingham that accounts for 95% of the gun violence in Alabama)—-Dennis
That’s why McCarthy didn’t hold a vote. He was going to, but upon realizing he didn’t have the votes he chose not to hold one.—-Mr Peetape
McCarthy never said he didn’t have the votes.—-Mr Peetape.
*These statements are attributed to the booger eater, because they were posted by a green anonymous. If that clown wants to step up and claim ownership, I will change attribution.
Jonathan: There is another reason you and DJT want to postpone his criminal trials until after the election. The Hill, where you are a frequent contributor, is reporting (12/29/23) that a new NYTimes/Siena College poll found that 24% of respondents who are DJT supporters also say if DJT is convicted in any of his criminal cases he should not be the GOP nominee. Seventy percent say it makes no difference. They will still vote for a convicted felon to be POTUS!
But it’s pretty clear. DJT needs EVERY SINGLE vote from his base if he stands a chance of getting the nomination or winning the 2024 election. Loss of 24% of MAGA voters is not a good sign. And probably why you won’t want to cite this poll!
Dennis
I think you are suffering from some serious post nut clarity issues after cornholing your nephew.
As opposed to an unconvicted felon?
According to Dennis, thats what Trump is now
Of course, Dennis is an unconvicted pedophile.
Anonymous: If you were not such a coward–afraid to use your real name–I would be suing you for defamation!
Dennis, you might email Turley to have him take it down. Just include the comment identifier, https://jonathanturley.org/2023/12/26/the-supreme-court-holds-to-regular-order-for-the-new-year/comment-page-2/#comment-2351689 (you can find this for any comment by clicking on the timestamp)
Yea do that you little kunt, because we don’t want everyone knowing you’re a pedophile.
This anon thinks Turley is here. LMAO you’ve got him fooled Denny.
My name is Joseph Smith. I will be waiting for the summons, pedophile.
Of course we both live in Texas, so truth is a defense, so watch out.
Ian Millhiser referred to “the GOP-controlled Supreme Court” . . . in order to paint the decision as nothing more than a rigged process.
These people are absurd. If it was political then the Dem-appointed Justices would have dissented, which didn’t happen. The Court was unanimous, which is not surprising since certiorari before judgment is rarely granted.
“The Court was unanimous”
No, as JT noted, “the justices’ actual vote on the motion is not known.” All we know is that there weren’t 5 votes for granting cert (5 rather than the usual 4 because that’s what’s required for granting cert before judgment).
Hey Dennis
Did Uncle Fred know you were cornholing his 11 year old son in the basement before dinner?