Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trump 9-0.

Sorry.

6-3

9-0, and stay in immunity case denied 9-0

If The three liberals sell their vote for this then they will sell their vote for immunity. Despicable, corrupt and every damn one of them should rot in Hell listening to a neverending campaign rally from Trump.

... not sure you understand how negotiating works, friend.

Yup. This horse trading already happened. Roberts is desperate to boost the court’s credibility.

If they had already made their decision then today was just a sham
How does this boost the court's credibility? It doesn't.

Sometimes they've already decided before the oral argument, sometimes not. It's not a sham, either way.

Of course it's a sha. Most of us were interested in today's proceeding because we believed this was an honest hearing. To already have decided is a sham on the American people. My God, the United States of America is no better than as Third World Banana Republic.

Anonymous wrote:The only reason it was not televised was because SCOTUS still has a large picture of Trump on the wall as the current president.

If you wanted to see it, you could have stood in line to go watch. That's how it works.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trump 9-0.

Sorry.

6-3

9-0, and stay in immunity case denied 9-0

If The three liberals sell their vote for this then they will sell their vote for immunity. Despicable, corrupt and every damn one of them should rot in Hell listening to a neverending campaign rally from Trump.

... not sure you understand how negotiating works, friend.

Yup. This horse trading already happened. Roberts is desperate to boost the court’s credibility.

If he were truly interested in the court's credibility then he would have seen to it that Thomas recused himself.

No Thomas has to make his sale numbers otherwise Robert does not get his taste.

The only reason it was not televised was because SCOTUS still has a large picture of Trump on the wall as the current president.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trump 9-0.

Sorry.

6-3

9-0, and stay in immunity case denied 9-0

If The three liberals sell their vote for this then they will sell their vote for immunity. Despicable, corrupt and every damn one of them should rot in Hell listening to a neverending campaign rally from Trump.

... not sure you understand how negotiating works, friend.

Yup. This horse trading already happened. Roberts is desperate to boost the court’s credibility.

If he were truly interested in the court's credibility then he would have seen to it that Thomas recused himself.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trump 9-0.

Sorry.

6-3

9-0, and stay in immunity case denied 9-0

If The three liberals sell their vote for this then they will sell their vote for immunity. Despicable, corrupt and every damn one of them should rot in Hell listening to a neverending campaign rally from Trump.

Did you listen to the arguments?
The three "liberals" asked tough questions of CO's counsel and were very skeptical of the responses. They are not "selling their vote."

Thats because they’ve already made a deal to vote with the republicans on this one in exchange for denying the stay on immunity.

Why did they bother with the “arguments”? They should have just issued their edict on Twitter or Fox. At least that would have been honest. What we heard today was something the Soviets would have put out.

Farm

I don't know exactly what you call this, but I can't see any possibility that the SCOTUS will take the immunity case.

I don't know what it means: "lift the stay"? Does that mean the SCOTUS would hear the immunity case?

Didn't the federal appeals court rule that Trump had no absolute immunity? What is "the stay"?

Sorry if these are dumb, ignorant questions. It would be helpful if someone explained in normal English.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trump 9-0.

Sorry.

6-3

9-0, and stay in immunity case denied 9-0

If The three liberals sell their vote for this then they will sell their vote for immunity. Despicable, corrupt and every damn one of them should rot in Hell listening to a neverending campaign rally from Trump.

... not sure you understand how negotiating works, friend.

Yup. This horse trading already happened. Roberts is desperate to boost the court’s credibility.

If they had already made their decision then today was just a sham
How does this boost the court's credibility? It doesn't.

Sometimes they've already decided before the oral argument, sometimes not. It's not a sham, either way.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It wasn’t an insurrection. It was a protest that started off peaceful and then turned into a riot.

+1

The SC will rule on truth and law; hence, this will end badly for the Democrats.

This court's three who owe Trump their lofty position will vote for him. Roberts, Alito, and Thomas are already beyond corrupt. Thomas and Alito were probably already paid for their vote.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trump 9-0.

Sorry.

6-3

9-0, and stay in immunity case denied 9-0

If The three liberals sell their vote for this then they will sell their vote for immunity. Despicable, corrupt and every damn one of them should rot in Hell listening to a neverending campaign rally from Trump.

Did you listen to the arguments?
The three "liberals" asked tough questions of CO's counsel and were very skeptical of the responses. They are not "selling their vote."

Thats because they’ve already made a deal to vote with the republicans on this one in exchange for denying the stay on immunity.

I don't really understand the logic of this trade. Are they thinking that without a stay, the DC case will proceed to conviction, before or after November, and then Trump will be "for real" disqualified? Either by Congress or in a self-executing fashion? (Or if he loses the election, then they will be able to avoid the entire issue?).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trump 9-0.

Sorry.

6-3

9-0, and stay in immunity case denied 9-0

If The three liberals sell their vote for this then they will sell their vote for immunity. Despicable, corrupt and every damn one of them should rot in Hell listening to a neverending campaign rally from Trump.

Did you listen to the arguments?
The three "liberals" asked tough questions of CO's counsel and were very skeptical of the responses. They are not "selling their vote."

Thats because they’ve already made a deal to vote with the republicans on this one in exchange for denying the stay on immunity.

That is not how they operate.
You people are just nuts.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trump 9-0.

Sorry.

6-3

9-0, and stay in immunity case denied 9-0

If The three liberals sell their vote for this then they will sell their vote for immunity. Despicable, corrupt and every damn one of them should rot in Hell listening to a neverending campaign rally from Trump.

... not sure you understand how negotiating works, friend.

Yup. This horse trading already happened. Roberts is desperate to boost the court’s credibility.

If they had already made their decision then today was just a sham
How does this boost the court's credibility? It doesn't.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trump 9-0.

Sorry.

6-3

9-0, and stay in immunity case denied 9-0

If The three liberals sell their vote for this then they will sell their vote for immunity. Despicable, corrupt and every damn one of them should rot in Hell listening to a neverending campaign rally from Trump.

Did you listen to the arguments?
The three "liberals" asked tough questions of CO's counsel and were very skeptical of the responses. They are not "selling their vote."

Thats because they’ve already made a deal to vote with the republicans on this one in exchange for denying the stay on immunity.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trump 9-0.

Sorry.

6-3

9-0, and stay in immunity case denied 9-0

If The three liberals sell their vote for this then they will sell their vote for immunity. Despicable, corrupt and every damn one of them should rot in Hell listening to a neverending campaign rally from Trump.

... not sure you understand how negotiating works, friend.

Yup. This horse trading already happened. Roberts is desperate to boost the court’s credibility.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trump 9-0.

Sorry.

6-3

9-0, and stay in immunity case denied 9-0

If The three liberals sell their vote for this then they will sell their vote for immunity. Despicable, corrupt and every damn one of them should rot in Hell listening to a neverending campaign rally from Trump.

Did you listen to the arguments?
The three "liberals" asked tough questions of CO's counsel and were very skeptical of the responses. They are not "selling their vote."