NWO/Illuminati US politics - Pt 2

[Kurve]

Here is US Politics - Pt 1

 

[Mofra]

Thought you might have finally been shipped to the front, товарищ.

That reminds me of an old Ryan Ganju joke.

"I tried to join the army but they said they didn't need to win that badly"

 

[BlueE]

Yes he is. He's a terrible candidate. Unlike cultists, progressives will actually acknowledge reality.

The choice is between senile, or senile/fraud/rapist/sociopath.

Once again you don't seem to realise how obvious now your projection is and who really is in a cult keep passive by the main stream media.

You so called "progressives" were only a few days ago denying Joey's fall into dementia which was obvious and acknowledged even from a few who let the word out from the Democrats from before the last election.

Including Cory Booker "Hey Joe did you just forget what you said?" in 2016 debates.

"It's just a stutter"

WSJ https://www.wsj.com/politics/elections/biden-age-concerns-world-leaders-democrats-6d753921

You're just being a useful idiot now to call Trump senile when they are standing side by side in a debate, let alone acknowledge all the speeches hours ling he gives without a teleprompter.

Maybe because he can't read, but the last thing Trump is, is senile.

 

[BlueE]

Ad hominems after two posts

Temper temper BlueE.

LOL

Not temper or ad hominem, but truth.

You will claim anything to deflect from being able to discuss and unfortunately declining to patrol level!

Sad.

 

[Bostonian]

You err... you might want to get off the internet for awhile

I'm sure they will take notice of your bootlicking talents when a new position comes up

 

[Malifice]

View attachment 2038251

NWO/Illuminati - US politics - Pt 2

Here is US Politics - Pt 1

www.bigfooty.com

This is only from a couple of pages and before I look at your misconstrued rants about Nixon V Fitzgerald.

What the **** are you on about you cooker? Those posts you quote there are irrelevant.

I've been predicting for months the SCOTUS would rule for Sovereign immunity. I told you as much (directly) no fewer than three times. I predicted it would be a 6/3 majority, and would grant (at least) partial immunity.

I just provided you with the link to where I did this. In more than a few of those posts, I even explain WHY I thought the SCOTUS would rule for Sovereign Immunity.

And you're still trying to argue... I didn't make that prediction?

I clearly did make it (multiple times) and ****ing told you about it, in this thread.

How cooked do you have to be to just totally ignore reality? You were wrong, just man up and admit it.

 

[bourbons]

You so called "progressives" were only a few days ago denying Joey's fall into dementia which was obvious and acknowledged even from a few who let the word out from the Democrats from before the last election.

You appear to have been consuming too much MSM, товарищ.

 

[bourbons]

I'm sure they will take notice of your bootlicking talents when a new position comes up

Nawww

You really want to be a mod don't you? Keep at it son, life goals are important!

 

[Malifice]

BlueE

From March 5 (in this thread):

Re the immunity clause, the SCOTUS will rule for at least limited Criminal immunity IMO.

Our Executive arm of Government (and indeed pretty much all Commonwealth realms) confer near total (or total) immunity to Criminal liability for official acts done by our Executive branch, and a similar level of immunity from Civil liability.

Our PM could order ASIS to kill a citizen, and the PM would not be criminally liable for so doing. Civil immunity would depend on the Crown exercising its civil immunity and a number of other factors.

That said, the PM would be criminally liable if he picked up a gun, and shot his neighbor over a dispute about a fence line on his private property, and he could be sued in person for those acts as well. Those are not 'official acts' so he or she could hide behind immunity.

The King however could literally murder someone on the street, and not be charged with murder (as long as he remained King).

The Americans were wary of creating a similar 'King' of the USA, in particular the Founding Fathers, at the time of the Revolution against the British Crown. There is plenty of discussion around the topic from the Framers of the Constitution in debates about how the new Republic would look like.

The SCOTUS if they're being consistent with their originalist interpretation should rule against total immunity (citing the debates at the creation of the Republic, and what the framers of the Constitution meant), but because they're almost certain to bend over backwards to protect Trump, will probably come up with some kind of tortured legal reasoning and grant him partial immunity.

I'm actually really interested (as a lawyer) as to reading their judgement. Their judgement on DC v Heller (Gun rights) featured a glaring deviation from originalist interpretation (even if much of the rest of the reasoning was legit) with respect to the definition of 'Arms' in the 2A, and their judgement in Dobbs v Jackson (overturning Roe v Wade) did nothing more than highlight the absurdity of originalist interpretation (the case is now an authority for the Constitution only protecting 'liberty' as it was understood to be mean in the 18th century, when a quarter of the US population was literally enslaved).

For mine, the real legal question in the immunity argument is 'Is Donald Trump acting in his official role as President, by ignoring the result of an election, and attempting to overturn the election result so he can be installed as President'.

Again for mine, the answer is a clear 'No'. In fact seeking to overturn an election is repugnant to his official role as President. It's antithetical to the office.

January 16: (This thread):

What worries me about the argument (and there is some legal merit to it by the way) is that if it stacks up, the President can only be held to account by a majority vote of the Legislature.

Apply the same rules to Hitler (Godwin alert). In order to legally sanction him for anything he did while in office as Head of State of Germany, you would have need a majority of the Reichstag to vote for impeachment.

The Reichstag being all Nazis from 1933.

Effectively, if the argument holds water the US President could flat out order a political rivals murder, and unless the Senate voted for impeachment, he cant ever be held to account for it.

It's not an argument without precedent though. In Commonwealth countries, our Head of State has absolute immunity from civil suits and criminal prosecution (the Crown generally, and also the King in person).

From my reading of the text surrounding the US Constitution, it doesnt seem like the Seppos wanted a similar system in place though. They were extremely wary of creating a 'King' of the newly formed USA, who would be above the law.

Previous Presidents have also been at least wary of the prospect of being held to account for Criminal actions done while in office, with Nixon being pardoned for his actions as President in Watergate by Gerald Ford.

Previous SCOTUS decisions have granted the Prez absolute immunity from Civil cases (as opposed to Criminal ones) like being sued for civil wrongs. That said even the Civil immunity is not absolute - it only applies to acts done in office that are 'within the outer perimeter' of his role as President. The SCOTUS didnt grant absolute immunity in all cases of civil wrongs (and were quiet as to the question of criminal wrongs).

If the President did something outside the 'outer perimeter' of his official tasks, then he would still be liable in a Civil suit. It would have to be something not connected to the job as President though (such as personally punching someone in the face, while in his or her own home).

The current legal arguments puts the SCOTUS in a tricky spot. Obviously they're going to bend over backwards to get Trump off the hook, but their originalist interpretation of the Constitution will likely get in the way here. Most of the drafters and debates around the US Constitution pretty clearly indicate the framers did not intend for a President to be 'above the law'.

I look forward to some tortuous legal reasoning in the final decision around the topic.

January 12 (this thread again):

The only thing that stops him running is the (6/3 conservative majority, with 3 Trump appointees) SCOTUS.

My strong suspicion is the SCOTUS will find a way to grant him Presidential immunity in a convoluted and legally flawed judgement and overturn the bans on him running in some States that have already banned him under the insurrection clause.

BlueE how the **** can you sit there and say I didnt predict the Immunity ruling, when I expressly did so above three times in January and March in this very thread?

 

[BlueE]

What the **** are you on about you cooker? Those posts you quote there are irrelevant.

I've been predicting for months the SCOTUS would rule for Sovereign immunity. I told you as much (directly) no fewer than three times. I predicted it would be a 6/3 majority, and would grant (at least) partial immunity.

I just provided you with the link to where I did this. In more than a few of those posts, I even explain WHY I thought the SCOTUS would rule for Sovereign Immunity.

And you're still trying to argue... I didn't make that prediction?

I clearly did make it (multiple times) and ****ing told you about it, in this thread.

How cooked do you have to be to just totally ignore reality? You were wrong, just man up and admit it.

You stuttering on the personal abuse or you just like inanely repeating it?

I posted what you told me directly, which was the same as what you told me directly about 'Sovereign Immunity' with Nixon V Fitzgerald which I haven't got to yet, along with about 20 pages of catch ups, that don't even include kanga attack dog and beta soy or wannabe.

But Oh!

Now after these incorrect gaslighting rants, has it dawned on you that you were wrong and you've changed your tune??

And you want credit for that?

LOL.

YOU'RE WELCOME.

Thoughts on the recent Judgement re sovereign immunity not being applicable to Trump?

Does your 'Constitutional lawyer' from that Twitter feed (you definitely don't look at) have anything to say about it?

Ahh more gaslighting and strawmen.

You must be so popular in real life relationships.

Amazing really how abusive men think another lashing of the usual manipulative insults is normal communication and should be immediately answered.

...says the Trump supporter, without a hint of irony.

Again, any thoughts on the Judgement? You were claiming last week that the Law supported Trump having sovereign immunity.

Do you still think that's true?

And as I said, didn't allow oral arguments.

A memorandum opinion by a single judge, already shown bias against Trump, denies motion to dismiss based on Presidential immunity, without a hearing to allow for oral arguments.

Who the **** do you think argued for and against?

No one.

Should be on the first page and impossible to miss.

Puppet masters are going tick tock.

 

[BlueE]

Manufacturing media consent.

Have got whiplash in the changes of direction by the media messaging, so not sure where we're up to now.

Trump seems to know.



"He'll quit. I got him out of there. And that means you'll have Kamilla. I think she's going to be better. She's so bad. She's so pathetic. She's so dreadful. Can you imagine that guy dealing with Putin and the President of China, who's a fierce person, a fierce man, a tough guy? If they just announce, he's probably quitting"

 

[Malifice]

You stuttering on the personal abuse or you just like inanely repeating it?

I posted what you told me directly, which was the same as what you told me directly about 'Sovereign Immunity' with Nixon V Fitzgerald which I haven't got to yet, along with about 20 pages of catch ups, that don't even include kanga attack dog and beta soy or wannabe.

Now after these incorrect gaslighting rants, has it dawned on you that you were wrong and you've changed your tune??

No you cooker, I told you twice in January (and again in March) that I thought the SCOTUS would rule in favor of Sovereign immunity. I told you they would likely find Sovereign immunity exists (at least partially) in this case, and would do so via a 6/3 margin.

I have posted the clear and unambiguous text - with links - for those statements.

I also told you that there was no existing authority for Sovereign immunity. In other words, the case last week was a landmark case.

From the decision:

''This case is the first criminal prosecution in our Nation’s history of a former President for actions taken during his Presidency. Determining whether and under what circumstances such a prosecution may proceed requires careful assessment of the scope of Presidential power under the Constitution...''

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf

You were trying to argue sovereign immunity from Criminal prosecution was settled law. It was NOT settled law, there had literally never before been a criminal prosecution of a sitting President. This was literally the first case to decide these issues.

I was trying to explain to you that:

1) It was far from settled law, and there was no authority for absolute immunity from criminal prosecution that existed anywhere (and only authority for limited immunity from civil liability, via Nixon), and

2) That it would be likely that the SCOTUS would find some form of immunity from Criminal prosecution in this case.

You see your problem is you don't read, and just parrot the same shit over and over again, confident you're correct without actually bothering to worry about things like 'facts' or even trying to understand the argument.

View attachment 2038586

What on earth do you think the above proves exactly?

The quote you reference above has zero to do with whether or not I predicted the SCOTUS would rule in favor of Sovereign immunity.

The fact is I told you no fewer than three times that this was the likely outcome of the trial.

No amount of bullshitting and obfuscating by you changes that fact.

 

[BlueE]

No you cooker, I told you twice in January (and again in March) that I thought the SCOTUS would rule in favor of Sovereign immunity. I told you they would likely find Sovereign immunity exists (at least partially) in this case, and would do so via a 6/3 margin.

I have posted the clear and unambiguous text - with links - for those statements.

I also told you that there was no existing authority for Sovereign immunity. In other words, the case last week was a landmark case.

From the decision:

''This case is the first criminal prosecution in our Nation’s history of a former President for actions taken during his Presidency. Determining whether and under what circumstances such a prosecution may proceed requires careful assessment of the scope of Presidential power under the Constitution...''

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf

You were trying to argue sovereign immunity from Criminal prosecution was settled law. It was NOT settled law, there had literally never before been a criminal prosecution of a sitting President. This was literally the first case to decide these issues.

I was trying to explain to you that:

1) It was far from settled law, and there was no authority for absolute immunity from criminal prosecution that existed anywhere (and only authority for limited immunity from civil liability, via Nixon), and

2) That it would be likely that the SCOTUS would find some form of immunity from Criminal prosecution in this case.

You see your problem is you don't read, and just parrot the same shit over and over again, confident you're correct without actually bothering to worry about things like 'facts' or even trying to understand the argument.



What on earth do you think the above proves exactly?

The quote you reference above has zero to do with whether or not I predicted the SCOTUS would rule in favor of Sovereign immunity.

The fact is I told you no fewer than three times that this was the likely outcome of the trial.

No amount of bullshitting and obfuscating by you changes that fact.

You told me nothing in March.

Whatever you told Jatz in SRP thread I'm banned from that you linked or Johnny Dogs link here, is what you're now saying is 180 degrees against what you were demanding was true, with me.

You're unhinged and an out of control hypocrite drunk with exerting control, even when confronted with your actual replies to me.

I'll take it back.

YOU ARE NOT WELCOME!

 

[Malifice]

You told me nothing in March.

You claimed I never predicted the SCOTUS decision.

I then proceed to show you three posts - from this thread - from as early as January - where I unambiguously and expressly state my prediction that the SCOTUS will rule for at least partial immunity in this case, and via a 6/3 majority.

Rather than say 'Shit sorry man, I was wrong' you waffle nonsense.

Whatever you told Jatz in SRP thread I'm banned from that you linked or Johnny Dogs link here, is what you're now saying is 180 degrees against what you were demanding was true, with me.

No it's not 180 degrees from what I said. You just didn't (and apparently still don't) understand what I said because you didnt bother to read it.

Firstly, I never said the SCOTUS would find Trump (or indeed all Presidents) do not have at least partial immunity. On three occasions in fact I literally said the exact opposite and openly stated I thought they WOULD find for at least partial criminal immunity.

What I did tell you (and what we argued about for 3 pages) was that there was no existing authority for Criminal immunity in the case law; only authority for civil immunity (via Nixon), and that the cooker you were quoting was wrong to claim there was authority.

This case is the landmark case on the subject. It's literally the first time criminal liability and immunity has been judicially determined in the USA.

Now we have that authority (Trump v USA). Which is the outcome I predicted three times, yet you're sitting here telling me I didn't predict it, even after I linked you to three posts where I did.

Can you at least agree that I predicted the outcome of this case, on three separate occasions, in this thread (in the links I have provided)?

Yes or No will suffice.

 

[BlueE]

Lefties really struggling to cope with the events of the past week.

I feel your anxiety and frustration, I really do.

Don’t worry you have the hush money sentencing next week to look forward to… oh wait

Rehabbing Kamilla from when she had to drop out of the last Presidential race before the first ballot, to frontrunner for replacing Joey will be a thing of wonder.

I can't really see it.

How Kamala Harris’s Campaign Unraveled​

Ms. Harris is the only 2020 Democrat who has fallen hard out of the top tier of candidates. She has proved to be an uneven campaigner who changes her message and tactics to little effect and has a staff torn into factions.

How Kamala Harris’s Campaign Unraveled (Published 2019)

Ms. Harris is the only 2020 Democrat who has fallen hard out of the top tier of candidates. She has proved to be an uneven campaigner who changes her message and tactics to little effect and has a staff torn into factions.

www.nytimes.com

 

[Ghost Patrol]

Manufacturing media consent.

Have got whiplash in the changes of direction by the media messaging, so not sure where we're up to now.

Trump seems to know.



"He'll quit. I got him out of there. And that means you'll have Kamilla. I think she's going to be better. She's so bad. She's so pathetic. She's so dreadful. Can you imagine that guy dealing with Putin and the President of China, who's a fierce person, a fierce man, a tough guy? If they just announce, he's probably quitting"

Speaking of manufacturing consent, what are your thoughts on all the Trump appearances in the latest Epstein file drop?

 

[Malifice]

The facts are that the only settled immunity the Prez has is vs civil litigation. The question in relation to criminal liability is open.

BlueE there is me literally telling you that the question WRT criminal liability is open (as in there was no authority either way in existence yet).

That post even quoted you in it. I was responding to a question, but obviously you glossed over it and just kept parroting nonsense.

Now here is me also giving my prediction on how the SCOTUS will rule in this case and why:

Re the immunity clause, the SCOTUS will rule for at least limited Criminal immunity IMO.

Our Executive arm of Government (and indeed pretty much all Commonwealth realms) confer near total (or total) immunity to Criminal liability for official acts done by our Executive branch, and a similar level of immunity from Civil liability.

Our PM could order ASIS to kill a citizen, and the PM would not be criminally liable for so doing. Civil immunity would depend on the Crown exercising its civil immunity and a number of other factors.

That said, the PM would be criminally liable if he picked up a gun, and shot his neighbor over a dispute about a fence line on his private property, and he could be sued in person for those acts as well. Those are not 'official acts' so he or she could hide behind immunity.

The King however could literally murder someone on the street, and not be charged with murder (as long as he remained King).

The Americans were wary of creating a similar 'King' of the USA, in particular the Founding Fathers, at the time of the Revolution against the British Crown. There is plenty of discussion around the topic from the Framers of the Constitution in debates about how the new Republic would look like.

The SCOTUS if they're being consistent with their originalist interpretation should rule against total immunity (citing the debates at the creation of the Republic, and what the framers of the Constitution meant), but because they're almost certain to bend over backwards to protect Trump, will probably come up with some kind of tortured legal reasoning and grant him partial immunity.

I'm actually really interested (as a lawyer) as to reading their judgement. Their judgement on DC v Heller (Gun rights) featured a glaring deviation from originalist interpretation (even if much of the rest of the reasoning was legit) with respect to the definition of 'Arms' in the 2A, and their judgement in Dobbs v Jackson (overturning Roe v Wade) did nothing more than highlight the absurdity of originalist interpretation (the case is now an authority for the Constitution only protecting 'liberty' as it was understood to be mean in the 18th century, when a quarter of the US population was literally enslaved).

For mine, the real legal question in the immunity argument is 'Is Donald Trump acting in his official role as President, by ignoring the result of an election, and attempting to overturn the election result so he can be installed as President'.

Again for mine, the answer is a clear 'No'. In fact seeking to overturn an election is repugnant to his official role as President. It's antithetical to the office.

My debate with you last year was in relation to you making the assertion that it was settled law that Vance and Nixon established Criminal immunity for the President.

It was not settled law, and those cases do nothing of the sort.

The case that establishes Criminal immunity for the President is Trump v the US, literally the first case to ever decide the topic, and it went exactly as I predicted it would go, and it was only determined a few days ago.

Stop for a second and read.

 

[Malifice]

all the Trump appearances in the latest Epstein file drop?

Nah, its all part of his 4D chess moves. He was hanging around with Epstein, and flying on his Jet and calling him all the time simply to expose Epstein for what he was, and to get intel on the 'satanic paedo ring' in advance of the 'Storm'.

I've said it before, and you could literally produce a video of Trump abusing a teen with Epstein looking on in glee, and they still wouldnt condemn him.

 

[Lebbo73]

The "Lock her up!" / "Laptop!" crew certainly change their tune on a regular basis, don't they?

Multiple allegations, multiple victims over multiple years. Only a cult could get comfortable with ignoring sex crimes for "their" guy.

Wow! The TDS is strong with this one. You belong with Maggie, Campbell and Co on SRP.

 

[Lebbo73]

In case you missed it:





Trump demolished Biden in the debate





Leftist media ripping Biden to shreds





Biden’s polls tanked





SCOTUS overturned hundreds of J6 felonies





SCOTUS neutered Jack Smith’s prosecution of Trump





SCOTUS neutered Deep State by overturning Chevron





All in the past 24 hours!!





We are taking this country back

 

[Present Not Past]

In case you missed it:





Trump demolished Biden in the debate





Leftist media ripping Biden to shreds





Biden’s polls tanked





SCOTUS overturned hundreds of J6 felonies





SCOTUS neutered Jack Smith’s prosecution of Trump





SCOTUS neutered Deep State by overturning Chevron





All in the past 24 hours!!





We are taking this country back

I think you missed that bit where SCOTUS just handed Presidential immunity to Joe Biden and all of his cabinet and associates.

 

[Ghost Patrol]

We are taking this country back

Mate, you can't even get a direct flight from Toowoomba

 

[Mofra]

LOL

Not temper or ad hominem, but truth.

You will claim anything to deflect from being able to discuss and unfortunately declining to patrol level!

Sad.

You're twisting yourself in mental knots again to defend a child rapist.

That's the truth.

 

[Mofra]

Wow! The TDS is strong with this one. You belong with Maggie, Campbell and Co on SRP.

Mate, you've been posting the most hilarious, wacky stuff on here for years.

"Daipers over Dems"

 

[EasternTiger]

Rehabbing Kamilla from when she had to drop out of the last Presidential race before the first ballot, to frontrunner for replacing Joey will be a thing of wonder.

I can't really see it.

How Kamala Harris’s Campaign Unraveled​

Ms. Harris is the only 2020 Democrat who has fallen hard out of the top tier of candidates. She has proved to be an uneven campaigner who changes her message and tactics to little effect and has a staff torn into factions.

How Kamala Harris’s Campaign Unraveled (Published 2019)

Ms. Harris is the only 2020 Democrat who has fallen hard out of the top tier of candidates. She has proved to be an uneven campaigner who changes her message and tactics to little effect and has a staff torn into factions.

www.nytimes.com

The Democrats are in such a sad state.

After the debate, they also can't gaslight the public anymore.

The vegetable in the White House doesn't possess a functioning brain, and even rusted ons
are questioning whether it is a good idea to vote for a bloke who doesn't know what day it is.

They really have no options. Cackling Kamala is an A Grade space cadet. Biden is brain dead.

Not sure who else they have with leadership qualities.

Rachel Levine??

 

[Ghost Patrol]

The Democrats are in such a sad state.

After the debate, they also can't gaslight the public anymore.

The vegetable in the White House doesn't possess a functioning brain, and even rusted ons
are questioning whether it is a good idea to vote for a bloke who doesn't know what day it is.

They really have no options. Cackling Kamala is an A Grade space cadet. Biden is brain dead.

Not sure who else they have with leadership qualities.

Rachel Levine??