2
supertootsday 2 points ago +2 / -0

Broken hips can be death sentences for old people. One can only hope.

1
supertootsday 1 point ago +1 / -0

Whatever they say it is, it ain't. End of story.

4
supertootsday 4 points ago +4 / -0

I find it comical that the phrase "Don't trust, verfiy" is bandied about, but people do not apply it to Q (whom cannot be verified at all)

26
supertootsday 26 points ago +26 / -0

I love David Martin. I point people in his direction every chance I can get. You probably have someone in your family or friend circle that can use his wake up call. Choose from any video below or all.

MUST WATCH! Dr David Martin's presentation during the International Covid https://www.bitchute.com/video/BJF6vz5onmQx

EXPOSING THE CRIMINALS (Dr. David Martin's Must See Presentation) https://www.bitchute.com/video/bwUN0EmouI7g

DR. DAVID MARTIN PRESENTATION ON THE PLANDEMIC https://www.bitchute.com/video/qIa4GCZRJTXv

Dr. David Martin: Red Pill Expo Presentation Spring 2021 https://www.bitchute.com/video/InnFwpjxDJh3

3
supertootsday 3 points ago +3 / -0

If they really don't know, they better find the fuck out. If they do know (likely) then what the fuck are we paying you for. Treason. The Federal Government has one job. The Security of the United States.

2
supertootsday 2 points ago +2 / -0

And just wait until they call "solitary confinement" > "single person cell"

35
supertootsday 35 points ago +35 / -0

The interviewer is dead as well I believe. Just as Buttar said he would be soon, in the interview.

2
supertootsday 2 points ago +2 / -0

Terrible Idea. Maybe some you folks haven't been around long enough to know about the North American Union. Also, if they become states, the migrants will flow unimpeded.

2
supertootsday 2 points ago +2 / -0

This is setting a very bad precedent. This gives the state incentive to overcharge and if it doesn't stick, just drop it last minute. No charges should be allowed dropped after the jury has started deliberating. The case is closed and in their hands.

It is also obvious, this is about getting a conviction, not in the interest of justice. The jury couldn't get to the latter charges unless they reached a unanimous decision on the first. They didn't. Dismissing that charge does not change the fact that they had not reached a unanimous decision and therefore should NOT even be deliberating anything after.

2
supertootsday 2 points ago +2 / -0

Why do they always have the crazy eyes?

2
supertootsday 2 points ago +2 / -0

Yes. There is a duplicate post covering the same here.

3
supertootsday 3 points ago +3 / -0

I stand corrected. Thank you. Its dogshit though.

"Legal Perspective: The Supreme Court has affirmed that the President can pardon someone before any formal legal process. This suggests that the pardon could apply to potential crimes not yet formally charged or even known to the public or legal authorities at the time of the pardon."

"Ethical and Political Considerations: While legally permissible, issuing pardons for crimes never formally alleged or charged could be seen as an abuse of power or an interference with justice by some observers. Critics might argue that it undermines the legal system's integrity by preemptively nullifying accountability for possible future revelations of wrongdoing."

"Practical Application: Presidents have used this power in various ways. For instance, President Gerald Ford's pardon of Richard Nixon for any offenses he might have committed during his presidency is a notable example of a preemptive pardon. This action was controversial but demonstrated the broad interpretation of presidential pardon power."

5
supertootsday 5 points ago +5 / -0

REPEAT AFTER ME - You cannot pardon a person for a crime they have neither been to have alleged to have committed, or indicted for, or convicted of.

view more: ‹ Prev Next ›