Trump’s Judges Aren’t Using Legal Reasoning.
(www.americanthinker.com)
Comments (21)
sorted by:
The judges have their walking orders from the Deep State and the retribution if they do not follow those orders are probably death. That is strong motivation to put aside the rule of law.
Military is the only way?
I have tried to think up how the military would logically get to take over and I don't think it will be pretty.
I'm hoping not for them. I want to see most of them hanged.
When you fuck kids, the Deep State can make up any law they want or any fake evidence they want. When you fuck kids, Trump's defense isn't even allowed to submit legally obtained evidence, or exercise his 1st amendment rights.
"When you fuck kids, the Deep State can make up any law they want or any fake evidence they want."
Or when the DS threatens you and/or your family with a horrible death if you don't do as you're told.
It's a mistake to think that sexual blackmail is the only weapon in the Deep State's arsenal.
In some cases, I agree. But these Judges were put into place for a reason. You don't get that kind of power given to you from the Deep State unless you are controlled from the very start. That usually involves blackmail and not a death threat. Hell, one Judge was posting half nude picks of himself all over the internet. You can't tell me he isn't a degenerate. There are pics of white SCOTUS Judges on beaches with brown kids sitting on their laps. Where there is smoke, there is usually fire.
This. They have been compromising people throughout history. It’s no longer “get him drunk and photos with a hooker”. It’s horrible shit. Most of it is probably done voluntarily. There are many “Epstein Islands” for all the politicians, CEOs, Hollywood types. As Q said about Hollywood grooming them from childhood we have to assume that they groom political figures and judges as well.
God bless President Donald Trump, his wife, family, legal team, friends, Q followers, the Voters that support Trump, the Military that supports the Constitution and Trump, Law Enforcement that too supports the Constitution and Trump, most of all Trumps security team and their families too, God Bless America, Bless the missing children and you the reader Too.🙏
It's becoming a tour-du-force showing the military is the only way.
When you are paid MILLIONS of dollars, some traitors will happily sacrifice their license; knowing they will never need to work another day in their life, and their grandchildren will be provided for.
The answer is rope
These judges don’t care if they get overturned. They’re following orders and that’s to get a conviction asap so they can label Trump a convicted felon before the election, consequences be damned.
No such thing as a "Trump judge." The US Senate is responsible for the confirmation of federal judges, not the executive branch. The Executive only nominates the potential selections for the senate to vote on- and a president can only realistically nominate candidates that have a chance to pass senate confirmation.
I think OP meant "the judges sitting in judgement over Trump".
I believe that is the whole point of the movie. Justice for sale.
Imagine if all these cases went his way, its better that they dont. If I was in his position I would want all my enemies to think I'm loosing constantly. Fog of war I really do hope this is the case.
if they had there would be no trials at this time.
Projection.
Isn't this how indictments work
The trial is when you prove things.
The grand jury returned an Indictment. There will be a trial. The judge can't dismiss the Indictment.
The argument in this article is that this view constitutes a logical fallacy. And it may very well be. But when one really looks at what is said here, I wonder:
Can the government claim such? Of course it can. One only need to look at the several titles of the USC to conclude that this premise is considered ok.
For instance, if you torch a Federal Building, owned by the USA, you harm the interests of the USA, clearly.
One might be tempted to go further and pose this question: Is the USA harmed by a President who talks about election fraud and to which he clearly has evidence?
Elections are a contentious matter in it's very nature as it rests upon indirect means to convey trustworthiness. This trust is decreased when all means to game the election are employed. And that gaming is at the heart of the contention. One side will say A, another side will say B. This is a conflict that needs resolution by open discussion and presentation and weighing of evidence.
Wow. Who would have thought: The USA government, bound by the 1st amendment that clearly prima facie limits the government in terms of laws and actions it can take.
Is the government harmed by discussions on the quality of the election? No. The reason is a simple: The only reason governments are instituted among men is to protect the rights of men, not to protect the systemic rights of a government.
Does that mean that governments will never try? Nope. Governments are made up of parties of men with agendas. There is an interesting article on the first 12 years of the USA, and how party infighting lead to a law that made any criticism on the President or government a federal crime. It is called the Alien and Sedition Act. https://www.history.com/topics/early-us/alien-and-sedition-acts
And this is exactly the current government position, driven by an Hamiltonian zeal to create a strong central government. It is not for nothing the DEMS, when the musical came out, all celebrated it.
Jefferson wrote this:
So, here we have the contention in full view. But note what the judge said: From what is free speech not impenetrable? From prosecution. So, governments, due to their very nature will try to impinge upon freedoms time and again, and need reminding of the fact that The People have created government to protect their unalienable rights. The Government did not create The People, although, it seems, Bribem is trying very very hard.
At any rate, the logical fallacy in my view is the wrong premise on which cases are being brought, and allowed to proceed. These cases prima facie cannot stand.