Napolitano to Newsmax: Quick Decision Likely in Trump Immunity Case

[Deluge]

Trump was well within his right as President of the United States to question the scumbag cheaters.

I like it.  

"A decision will come quickly on whether former President Donald Trump is immune from prosecution in connection with the events of Jan. 6 at the Capitol, former New Jersey Superior Court Judge Andrew Napolitano told Newsmax on Tuesday. And the argument will play out around the question of whether Trump's actions that day were as president or on his own.

"It depends on what he was doing on Jan. 6," Napolitano told Newsmax's "Wake Up America." "Was that in order to execute his office as president of the United States, or was it to interfere with the passage of power from himself to Joe Biden?"

And if Trump was "exercising the normal faculties of the president of the United States, he can't be prosecuted," said Napolitano."

https://www.newsmax.com/newsmax-tv/judge-andrew-napolitano-donald-trump/2023/12/26/id/1147199/

[robosmith]

I agree with Napolitano. The SCOTUS will quickly decide he does NOT have immunity for INCITING THE OBSTRUCTION of THE EC VOTE COUNT.

[Rebound]

5 hours ago, Deluge said:

Trump was well within his right as President of the United States to question the scumbag cheaters.

I like it.  

"A decision will come quickly on whether former President Donald Trump is immune from prosecution in connection with the events of Jan. 6 at the Capitol, former New Jersey Superior Court Judge Andrew Napolitano told Newsmax on Tuesday. And the argument will play out around the question of whether Trump's actions that day were as president or on his own.

"It depends on what he was doing on Jan. 6," Napolitano told Newsmax's "Wake Up America." "Was that in order to execute his office as president of the United States, or was it to interfere with the passage of power from himself to Joe Biden?"

And if Trump was "exercising the normal faculties of the president of the United States, he can't be prosecuted," said Napolitano."

https://www.newsmax.com/newsmax-tv/judge-andrew-napolitano-donald-trump/2023/12/26/id/1147199/

Napolitano is absolutely incorrect. 
Let’s first understand Trump’s claim:

”Trump was indicted on Aug. 1. He sought to have the charges against him dismissed on two different grounds. First, he contended, he cannot be prosecuted for acts that were part of his responsibilities as president. Second, he argued, and in any event, he cannot be prosecuted in this case because he had already been impeached, but not convicted, in 2021 on charges arising from the same conduct. ”

What Trump is charged with clearly was not part of his official duty.  Now, the jury may rule that he’s innocent, but if he is guilty of Conspiracy to Defraud, Obstruction of an Official Proceeding and/or Conspiracy to Violate Civil Rights, none of those things are the duty of a President to perform.  
 

President Obama ordered soldiers to invade Pakistan and illegally capture bin Laden, which resulted in bin Laden’s death. Obama was NOT criminally charged, because capturing bin Laden was one of his official duties as President.  But if Trump is guilty of the crimes he is accused of, then no, those acts are not the official acts of a President. 
 

On the second point, Presidential Impeachment is not a criminal trial, and the punishment of impeachment is limited to removal from office and disqualification. Therefore, double jeopardy does not apply.   That’s more than obvious, as the Constitution clearly states:

”Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States; but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.”

Edited December 27, 2023 by Rebound

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, Rebound said:

Napolitano is absolutely incorrect. 
Let’s first understand Trump’s claim:

”Trump was indicted on Aug. 1. He sought to have the charges against him dismissed on two different grounds. First, he contended, he cannot be prosecuted for acts that were part of his responsibilities as president. Second, he argued, and in any event, he cannot be prosecuted in this case because he had already been impeached, but not convicted, in 2021 on charges arising from the same conduct. ”

What Trump is charged with clearly was not part of his official duty.  Now, the jury may rule that he’s innocent, but if he is guilty of Conspiracy to Defraud, Obstruction of an Official Proceeding and/or Conspiracy to Violate Civil Rights, none of those things are the duty of a President to perform.  
 

President Obama ordered soldiers to invade Pakistan and illegally capture bin Laden, which resulted in bin Laden’s death. Obama was NOT criminally charged, because capturing bin Laden was one of his official duties as President.  But if Trump is guilty of the crimes he is accused of, then no, those acts are not the official acts of a President. 
 

On the second point, Presidential Impeachment is not a criminal trial, and the punishment of impeachment is limited to removal from office and disqualification. Therefore, double jeopardy does not apply.   That’s more than obvious, as the Constitution clearly states:

”Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States; but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.”

Yeah. In what i must assume was a completely random event you're probably right    I just don't see how he can stretch it to say that it was part of his duties or claim that impeachment would trigger double jeopardy.

Instead, i would suggest they were delay tactics designed to a) stretch the trial to  july when he'll be confirmed as the nominee and stand an excellent chance of having the trial put off till after the election, and b) lay the ground work for appeals .

I don't think what he did was 'insurrection' at all - but his best chance is to win the presidency and excuse himself of any prior wrongdoings.  That's the safest way to be sure.  I would guess that he's about certain he'll win (he's always that confident) so that'll be his angle i'm confident.

 

[Rebound]

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

Yeah. In what i must assume was a completely random event you're probably right    I just don't see how he can stretch it to say that it was part of his duties or claim that impeachment would trigger double jeopardy.

Instead, i would suggest they were delay tactics designed to a) stretch the trial to  july when he'll be confirmed as the nominee and stand an excellent chance of having the trial put off till after the election, and b) lay the ground work for appeals .

I don't think what he did was 'insurrection' at all - but his best chance is to win the presidency and excuse himself of any prior wrongdoings.  That's the safest way to be sure.  I would guess that he's about certain he'll win (he's always that confident) so that'll be his angle i'm confident.

 

You are essentially agreeing that he is guilty of the charges brought. The criminal charges are not “insurrection,” probably because prosecutors avoid charging under that statute because it was poorly written. At least, you have strong belief that he will be convicted if he’s tried.  
 

I don’t think that being the nominee will get him out of a trial.  Because the judge would say, “Look, you ran one delay after another after another and that was your choice.” There is certainly no legal reason why being the nominee absolves him of the responsibility of going to trial.  

Edited December 27, 2023 by Rebound

[CdnFox]

14 hours ago, Rebound said:

You are essentially agreeing that he is guilty of the charges brought.

No, that's stupid. You finally managed to get something right at the start of this thread, don't screw it up now

Whether he's innocent or guilty it's in his best interests not to go to trial.  If he's innocent there's always a chance he'll be wrongfully convicted, especailly with the left paying fast and loose with the truth and laws these days. And if he's guilty there's always a chance he'll be rightfully convicted     So innocent or guilty staying out of a trial is the best choice.

Quote

At least, you have strong belief that he will be convicted if he’s tried.  

I don't really have any belief one way or another but there's a CHANCE he would be convicted - if he doesn't go to trial then there's NO chance and no chance is better than some chance.

14 hours ago, Rebound said:

I don’t think that being the nominee will get him out of a trial.  Because the judge would say, “Look, you ran one delay after another after another and that was your choice.” There is certainly no legal reason why being the nominee absolves him of the responsibility of going to trial.  

Being a nominee would not get him 'out' of a trial. But it could very easily justify a delay in the trial till after the election. That's a very likely possibility.

If he loses - still trial.  If he wins tho.... then he can kill the whole thing and no trial.

[Deluge]

On 12/26/2023 at 7:28 PM, Rebound said:

Napolitano is absolutely incorrect. 
Let’s first understand Trump’s claim:

”Trump was indicted on Aug. 1. He sought to have the charges against him dismissed on two different grounds. First, he contended, he cannot be prosecuted for acts that were part of his responsibilities as president. Second, he argued, and in any event, he cannot be prosecuted in this case because he had already been impeached, but not convicted, in 2021 on charges arising from the same conduct. ”

What Trump is charged with clearly was not part of his official duty.  Now, the jury may rule that he’s innocent, but if he is guilty of Conspiracy to Defraud, Obstruction of an Official Proceeding and/or Conspiracy to Violate Civil Rights, none of those things are the duty of a President to perform.  
 

President Obama ordered soldiers to invade Pakistan and illegally capture bin Laden, which resulted in bin Laden’s death. Obama was NOT criminally charged, because capturing bin Laden was one of his official duties as President.  But if Trump is guilty of the crimes he is accused of, then no, those acts are not the official acts of a President. 
 

On the second point, Presidential Impeachment is not a criminal trial, and the punishment of impeachment is limited to removal from office and disqualification. Therefore, double jeopardy does not apply.   That’s more than obvious, as the Constitution clearly states:

”Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States; but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.”

See, the problem with you leftoids is that you're operating under the mistaken belief that Trump is guilty of insurrection when he hasn't been convicted of insurrection or even charged with insurrection.

Based on that alone, Napolitano doesn't even need venture into this area. 

The Colorado SC overstepped its bounds and the SCOTUS is going to have to step in and swat them on the nose. 

The REAL crime in all of this is found with the Colorado SC and its interference with Trump's campaign for US President. 

[Rebound]

21 hours ago, CdnFox said:

No, that's stupid. You finally managed to get something right at the start of this thread, don't screw it up now

Whether he's innocent or guilty it's in his best interests not to go to trial.  If he's innocent there's always a chance he'll be wrongfully convicted, especailly with the left paying fast and loose with the truth and laws these days. And if he's guilty there's always a chance he'll be rightfully convicted     So innocent or guilty staying out of a trial is the best choice.

I don't really have any belief one way or another but there's a CHANCE he would be convicted - if he doesn't go to trial then there's NO chance and no chance is better than some chance.

Being a nominee would not get him 'out' of a trial. But it could very easily justify a delay in the trial till after the election. That's a very likely possibility.

If he loses - still trial.  If he wins tho.... then he can kill the whole thing and no trial.

His legal claim in court is not, “I am absolutely immune to all criminal prosecution.”  His claim is that he is immune to prosecution for the things he is accused of doing, because those things were official acts of office.  
 

So either he did them, or he did not.  If he says he is immune from prosecution for the act, he is therefore admitting to committing the act.  

[CdnFox]

31 minutes ago, Deluge said:

See, the problem with you leftoids is that you're operating under the mistaken belief that Trump is guilty of insurrection when he hasn't been convicted of insurrection or even charged with insurrection.

Based on that alone, Napolitano doesn't even need venture into this area. 

The Colorado SC overstepped its bounds and the SCOTUS is going to have to step in and swat them on the nose. 

The REAL crime in all of this is found with the Colorado SC and its interference with Trump's campaign for US President. 

There's truth in that.  Other jurisdictions have already disagreed with colorado and the decision there was clearly about politics and not law.  And they will almost certainly be told  'nuh uh - put him back on the ballot'.

And it really really is a shame and a crime to see this. Courts should ALWAYS be looking to PROMOTE democracy, not twisting the laws to deny it.  Protecting the democratic process should always supercede politics.  And they utterly failed in this case.

Now others will feel emboldened to do the same thing,  And democracy will take hit after hit as the courts and other 'extra-legal' methods are used as bludgeons for political gain.

[Rebound]

1 minute ago, CdnFox said:

There's truth in that.  Other jurisdictions have already disagreed with colorado and the decision there was clearly about politics and not law.  And they will almost certainly be told  'nuh uh - put him back on the ballot'.

And it really really is a shame and a crime to see this. Courts should ALWAYS be looking to PROMOTE democracy, not twisting the laws to deny it.  Protecting the democratic process should always supercede politics.  And they utterly failed in this case.

Now others will feel emboldened to do the same thing,  And democracy will take hit after hit as the courts and other 'extra-legal' methods are used as bludgeons for political gain.

Should the courts disregard the Electoral College? 
 

It’s ok with you when the Constitution prevents a person you don’t like from being President. So it must go both ways. The Fourteenth Amendment is absolute.  It’s not an option.  It must be obeyed. 

[Legato]

3 minutes ago, Rebound said:

. The Fourteenth Amendment is absolute.  It’s not an option.  It must be obeyed. 

Just like the second amendment. Tell that to the Dems who have been trying to weasel their way around for years.

[CdnFox]

Just now, Rebound said:

His legal claim in court is not, “I am absolutely immune to all criminal prosecution.”  His claim is that he is immune to prosecution for the things he is accused of doing, because those things were official acts of office.  
 

 

I'm aware. That changes nothing of what i've said.

Quote

So either he did them, or he did not.

Noooooo....  either he can be tried or he cannot.  Whether he did them doesn't enter into it. Your own words... immune to prosecution.  Not "innocent".

I'm annoyed i have to explain this again but lets take a bit of a deeper dive seeing as you're forcing me to cover this.

First off - whether or not a person is innocent - EITHER WAY they do not want to face a prosecution. If you did not rape a girl, and she claimed you did - would you WANT to stand trial for rape? What if they believed her and not you? What if something went wrong? even if it goes right it's a lot of money and time and stress, and you're innocent! See how that works?

But - more importantly there are many cases where the law allows for actions that would normally violate the law but the law is not considered to be offended in such a case.  Consider this -  you're being chased by a hungry bear and you jump over a  fence into someone's yard to get away. You're guilty of trespass - but in canadian law at least they would say "sure under normal circumstances we would say those actions broke the law but it was necessary and therefore the law is not offended and no crime has taken place".

So -  what really is being said by trump is that his actions are necessary as part of the discharge of his duties and therefore the law is not offended if he does something which otherwise may be considered to offend the law. It is possible to break a law but not offend the law (that's why we call  it an 'offence')

So it's not a case of "Did it or didnt'" or "guilty" or not - it's that there is no offence to consider. That's his position.

Its like if you shot someone and they died -  if you did it because you don't like the guy that's a crime, if you did it in self defense not a crime. Same actions - one's a crime, one is not.

 

 

Quote

 If he says he is immune from prosecution for the act, he is therefore admitting to committing the act.  

No, he is not.  FFS - this is not that complex.  If I say "You're under arrest for eating a sandwich for lunch yesterday"  and you say "hold on - I can't remember what i had for lunch but whether i did or didn't there's no law against that you can't arrest me",  that does not mean you did or did not each a sandwich   It just means that no matter what the prosecution is invalid.

 

I hope that clears that up - it is in no way shape or form even remotely kind of sort of an admission of guilt.  It's simply a statement that there is no possible criminal offence here. There cannot be a trial if there is no crime. 

There's enough legitimate stuff to say about trump without making up stuff  

[CdnFox]

10 minutes ago, Rebound said:

Should the courts disregard the Electoral College? 
 

Yes  if it speaks out side of it's authority.  If the electoral college says we should invade norway - feel free to ignroe. They have not got the power to do that.

Quote

It’s ok with you when the Constitution prevents a person you don’t like from being President.

Which person that i don't like has been prevented from being president, and when did i say it was ok with me?

Yeash dude....

Quote

So it must go both ways. The Fourteenth Amendment is absolute.  It’s not an option.  It must be obeyed. 

The only thing "absolute" about the constitution is that nothing is absolute. IT's all open to interpretation and context.

So when you make a statement like that you just come across as slightly dumber than the trumpers who say that "DEFINITELY WITHOUT A DOUBT THE ELECTION WAS STOLEN".   I mean - it COULD have been theoretically but no that is not definite.

Insurrection is a criminal offence. Donald trump has not been charged with nor is he being charged with insurrection. Therefore the court is stepping outside of its authority.  Pretty simple.

So it'll go to the supreme court where it belongs, and if they say you're wrong you're going to look like a major 1diot.    so ease up on the absolutes and keep in mind that everything needs context and interpretation and that job is up to the SC

[Nationalist]

1 hour ago, Rebound said:

His legal claim in court is not, “I am absolutely immune to all criminal prosecution.”  His claim is that he is immune to prosecution for the things he is accused of doing, because those things were official acts of office.  
 

So either he did them, or he did not.  If he says he is immune from prosecution for the act, he is therefore admitting to committing the act.  

Did...what?

Did Trump hold a rally that well over 100,000 folks came from all over America, everyone else watching on TV, to make his case for why he believed the election was rigged? Yes he did.

Did he tell this small city's worth of Americans to go peacefully protest at the capital while the electoral collage was being counted? Yes he did.

Is any of that illegal?

No it's not.

[Rebound]

12 hours ago, Nationalist said:

Did...what?

Did Trump hold a rally that well over 100,000 folks came from all over America, everyone else watching on TV, to make his case for why he believed the election was rigged? Yes he did.

Did he tell this small city's worth of Americans to go peacefully protest at the capital while the electoral collage was being counted? Yes he did.

Is any of that illegal?

No it's not.

Is that all that happened?

No it’s not.

[Nationalist]

3 hours ago, Rebound said:

Is that all that happened?

No it’s not.

That's all Trump did and...I'm sorry but none of that is illegal. 

[Rebound]

6 hours ago, Nationalist said:

That's all Trump did and...I'm sorry but none of that is illegal. 

I read this story today about a girl named Gypsy Rose. She was let out of prison after serving seven years for conspiring to kill her mother. Now, she didn’t kill her mother, her boyfriend did. But when you aid and abet and conspire, you become an accessory and equally liable to criminal prosecution.  
 

Trump knows perfectly well that every time he attacks a prosecutor, witness, judge or court staff on Truth Social, that person receives death threats. He knows this, and he doesn’t care one bit. In fact,  it’s likely that he’s happy about it.  That’s culpability as well.  

Edited December 29, 2023 by Rebound

[robosmith]

On 12/28/2023 at 1:45 PM, Legato said:

Just like the second amendment. Tell that to the Dems who have been trying to weasel their way around for years.

"For years" the 2nd was interpreted as applying only to "well regulated militias."

[robosmith]

23 hours ago, Nationalist said:

Did...what?

Did Trump hold a rally that well over 100,000 folks came from all over America, everyone else watching on TV, to make his case for why he believed the election was rigged? Yes he did.

Did he tell this small city's worth of Americans to go peacefully protest at the capital while the electoral collage was being counted? Yes he did.

Is any of that illegal?

No it's not.

He told them to "fight like hell" to "stop the steal." AKA the EC vote certification. Duh

 

[CdnFox]

4 hours ago, Rebound said:

I read this story today about a girl named Gypsy Rose. She was let out of prison after serving seven years for conspiring to kill her mother. Now, she didn’t kill her mother, her boyfriend did. But when you aid and abet and conspire, you become an accessory and equally liable to criminal prosecution.  
 

 

Sigh - when you read two things about the law i guess you'll be twice as smart on the subject  

For Gypsy to be found guilty the court would have had to have recieved evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that she deliberately intended for her boyfriend to kill her mother and participated with that end in mind as a goal.  It can't be fhat once she said "god i wish mom was dead' once or twice - that wouldnt' count.

 

Now - for trump to face charges of aiding or abetting insurrection you would have to prove a) there was an insurrection of course but b) - that he deliberately took action specifically with the direct intention of making it happen. 

Not in a 'round about' way.  But directly.  As in "ok, i'll say this on that day and then you guys go over here with the mob and try to break in this way and then.... "

Quote

Trump knows perfectly well that every time he attacks a prosecutor, witness, judge or court staff on Truth Social, that person receives death threats. He knows this, and he doesn’t care one bit. In fact,  it’s likely that he’s happy about it.  That’s culpability as well.  

Bernie sanders knew perfectly well that his statements that trump was trying to kill people with cutting medical services lead to death threats -  and then a nut bar shot up a ball stadium with a bunch of republicans in it and killed people and quoted sanders specifically as being why he did it.

We didn't try sanders for murder did we?

I rest my case 😮 LOL.  Sorry, they'll have to  do better than 'heated rhetoric'.

[Nationalist]

6 hours ago, Rebound said:

I read this story today about a girl named Gypsy Rose. She was let out of prison after serving seven years for conspiring to kill her mother. Now, she didn’t kill her mother, her boyfriend did. But when you aid and abet and conspire, you become an accessory and equally liable to criminal prosecution.  
 

Trump knows perfectly well that every time he attacks a prosecutor, witness, judge or court staff on Truth Social, that person receives death threats. He knows this, and he doesn’t care one bit. In fact,  it’s likely that he’s happy about it.  That’s culpability as well.  

Lol...you do understand how nutty you sound...don't you?

5 hours ago, robosmith said:

He told them to "fight like hell" to "stop the steal." AKA the EC vote certification. Duh

 

And? Is that insurrection? Nope.

[Rebound]

2 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Sigh - when you read two things about the law i guess you'll be twice as smart on the subject  

For Gypsy to be found guilty the court would have had to have recieved evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that she deliberately intended for her boyfriend to kill her mother and participated with that end in mind as a goal.  It can't be fhat once she said "god i wish mom was dead' once or twice - that wouldnt' count.

 

Now - for trump to face charges of aiding or abetting insurrection you would have to prove a) there was an insurrection of course but b) - that he deliberately took action specifically with the direct intention of making it happen. 

Not in a 'round about' way.  But directly.  As in "ok, i'll say this on that day and then you guys go over here with the mob and try to break in this way and then.... "

Bernie sanders knew perfectly well that his statements that trump was trying to kill people with cutting medical services lead to death threats -  and then a nut bar shot up a ball stadium with a bunch of republicans in it and killed people and quoted sanders specifically as being why he did it.

We didn't try sanders for murder did we?

I rest my case 😮 LOL.  Sorry, they'll have to  do better than 'heated rhetoric'.

The House Jan. 6 committee has already laid out the case very clearly.  No need to restate it all.  Trump refused in September 2020 to state he would support a peaceful transfer of power if he lost. He told the proud boys to Stand By. There’s abundantly documented evidence that ALL of his advisors and his attorney general told him he lost and that there was no evidence of widespread fraud.  He illegally pressured election officials to corruptly change the voting outcome.  He illegally established “alternate electors,” including fraudulent certificates.  He chose to rally on Jan 6 specifically. He had other protests and rally’s rescheduled to Jan 6. He conspired with those organizers to tell the Park Service there would be no march to the Capitol, and to say so on the permit applications.  He called supporters to “Stop the Steal.” He sat for three hours watching the attacks on TV and doing nothing to stop it.  He didn’t call any National Guard, Army or police units to deploy.  

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, Rebound said:

The House Jan. 6 committee has already laid out the case very clearly.  

No. It's clear to you because you like it.  But the committee has no ability to pass a legal judgement. And its pretty highly political.

Guess you should have read that second thing before replying

2 hours ago, Rebound said:

Trump refused in September 2020 to state he would support a peaceful transfer of power if he lost.

Which is not an act of insurrection

Quote

He told the proud boys to Stand By.

Which is not an act of insurrection

Quote

There’s abundantly documented evidence that ALL of his advisors and his attorney general told him he lost and that there was no evidence of widespread fraud.

His inability to accept advice other than his own is not insurrection.

Sensing a theme?

If that was your argument - then he's not guilty. Which would explain why he hasn't been charged.

You guys need to stop.  Seriously, you do not understand the harm you're doing with lies like this.

2 hours ago, Rebound said:

He illegally pressured election officials to corruptly change the voting outcome.

Yeah - i heard that tape and that's  not what I heard.  But - fair enough, put him in front of a judge and lets ask the question.   But - even if he's guilty of an offense there it would not be insurrection

2 hours ago, Rebound said:

 He illegally established “alternate electors,” including fraudulent certificates.

See above.

2 hours ago, Rebound said:

 He chose to rally on Jan 6 specifically. He had other protests and rally’s rescheduled to Jan 6.

Do you need me to answer that? Can you work that out for yourself at this point?

2 hours ago, Rebound said:

He called supporters to “Stop the Steal.”

Not insurrection. Bernie sanders called for people to stop the republicans from killing people by opposing obama care and one of his supporters quoted that as the reason he shot up and killed republicans.  Did we arrest bernie? Nope.

Quote

He sat for three hours watching the attacks on TV and doing nothing to stop it

Still not insurrection. incompetence maybe, confused and indecisive maybe, even spiteful and vendictive maybe,  but that would not reach the bar of aiding an insurrection.

 

Seriously - you need to stop.  Go after him for legit charges that are serious. Holding on to documents for example - that's a legit thing he should defend against  But every time you lie about the 'insurrection' thing you justify HIS next lie or HIS next abuse of the justice system.  And when it comes to vengence he might turn out to be pretty good at it.

You're tearing your country apart over a lie.

[robosmith]

On 12/29/2023 at 8:41 PM, Nationalist said:

Lol...you do understand how nutty you sound...don't you?

You sound like you don't know US laws. As usual.

On 12/29/2023 at 8:41 PM, Nationalist said:

And? Is that insurrection? Nope.

And you just proved it, AGAIN.

Of course FOS LIES does not tell you how Trump planned to use the disruption of the EC vote count to change the election outcome. You don't even know why Trump was so pissed when Pence certified the EC vote and said Pence deserved to be hung.

And you're far from smart enough to figure it out on your own, even though it's been posted here several times.

Cause you're that DENSE.

 

[CdnFox]

1 minute ago, robosmith said:

You sound like you don't know US laws. As usual.

And you just proved it, AGAIN.

Of course FOS LIES does not tell you how Trump planned to use the disruption of the EC vote count to change the election outcome. You don't even know why Trump was so pissed when Pence certified the EC vote and said Pence deserved to be hung.

And you're far from smart enough to figure it out on your own, even though it's been posted here several times.

Cause you're that DENSE.

 

Aww - isn't he cute? You can always tell when he knows the other person is right when he has his little tantrum and blames FOS LIES