Sometimes people don’t want to hear the truth.

She’s wrong. Don’t shoot the messenger.

This is a moot point. In reality, any federal court will view Harris to be a natural born citizen and eligible to be president because she was born on US soil.

The fact that she was born on American soil means she’s a natural born citizen - that’s the current interpretation. There won’t be any TRO or real legal challenge to it. Don’t shoot the messenger.

Not under the current legal regime - if you are born on American soil, you are a natural born citizen. That’s the only legal analysis that is relevant.

That’s irrelevant to the analysis of her citizenship under current jurisprudence - hence the issue with “anchor babies.”

Obama was (supposedly) born in Hawaii

If you’re born in the United States you’re a natural born citizen, regardless of your parents citizenship status

Are you actually arguing that 44 defensive missiles (each with, at best, a dubious 56% success rate) serves are any sort of defense against enemies with thousands of such weapons? I didn’t invent math, don’t take it out on me.

My points stands - we don’t have any real defense if our enemies wanted to annihilate us.

The 44 missiles (and there are only 44) in the GMD have a very bad effectiveness rating of around 40%. North Korea and Russia combined have over 2,000 warheads ready for launch from silos or untraceable submarines at any time. The GMD is barely any protection at all against a real attack.

Our enemies could annihilate the U.S. in about 45 minutes if they decided to. The only deterrent is the fact that we are ready to do the same.

We don’t have any systems to protect the continental US from ICBMs or hypersonic missiles, interestingly

If Biden is a fake President, why would that mean a State (not federal) court is fake? The federal executive branch doesn’t have any power or control over NY state courts

Highly unlikely SCOTUS will do anything

The system isn’t set up (generally) for a person convicted of a crime to stay out of prison while they exhaust appeals. While there are exceptions, it would be highly unusual for him to stay out for years pending appeal.

Club fed is for people convicted of violating federal law; this exists entirely within the NY State legal system so they have no authority to send him to club fed.

If you like to knock around your wife or girlfriend you have more than mere “problems in your personal life”

That same link says the quote used by OP is a hoax and not something Israel Cohen event said, for whatever it’s worth.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/22-1028.html

Also Loy’s own YouTube and TikTok channels.

But no one has asked SCOTUS to review that yet so that can’t be it (it has to go through several layers of intermediate appeals first anyway)

There is nothing pending on the Brunson case - they decided not to hear it and nothing has happened since then.

There’s not really a such thing as a “referral” from a private citizen (or law firm) to a prosecutorial body - that term is usually reserved for intragovermemt processes (the IRS recommending that the DOJ prosecute someone for tax fraud after an audit is a referral).

Not saying this is meaningless, just that it’s the same as if you or I wrote a letter to a prosecutors office and asked them to do something. They don’t have any obligation to do anything and likely won’t.

I didn’t mean drug possession charges are violent felonies, I meant that as two separate statements.

I agree that drug addiction is a complicated and serious problem and is less so a moral failing for the people afflicted by it. However, crack addiction drives people into crime - many, many thefts and crimes and spurred by addicts trying to steal to support their habits. They shouldn’t be allowed to own firearms for the good of everyone else.

All rights have limits. They lost theirs when they became addicted to a substance that erodes their sense of judgment, as tragic as it may be.

I don’t think someone addicted to crack should own a gun. I don’t think someone convicted of a violent felony should have the right to own a gun.

All constitutional rights have limits - we have a right to free speech, but (even at the time of adopting the 1st amendment), there were many examples of legal limits on speech, even making some speech (i.e. fraudulent speech) a crime.

You are right! My mistake.

Weren’t there criminal charges in the works against Nixon, which were only ended by Carter’s preemptive pardon of Nixon?