"rPOTUS" ...that's a thing?

YGBFKM

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Obama's CIA director, David Petraeus, (who was never president with declassification authority) stole classified documents and gave them to his mistress in exchange for sex for years

He was allowed to plead to a misdemeanor and got probation

All this matters.

Trump could have turned over these documents and he wouldn't have been charged with anything. About this.

All this matters.

A bunch of "Lock her up" types are now digging around for every example of lenient prosecution they can find, but Trump opined on such matters extensively during his presidency, and his positions have been included in the indictment. How much time he does is debatable, but there is no way he can avoid a felony conviction.

Turley on Fox:

"TURLEY: It is an extremely damning indictment. There are indictments that are sometimes called narrative or speaking indictments. These are indictments that are really meant to make a point as to the depth of the evidence. There are some indictments that are just bare bones. This is not. The special counsel knew that there would be a lot of people who were going to allege that the Department of Justice was acting in a biased or politically motivated way.

This is clearly an indictment that was drafted to answer those questions. It’s overwhelming in details. And, you know, the Trump team should not fool itself, these are hits below the waterline. These are witnesses who apparently testified under oath, gave statements to federal investigators, both of which can be criminally charged if they’re false. Those witnesses are directly quoting the president in encouraging others not to look for documents or allegedly to conceal them. It’s damaging."

https://www.foxnews.com/media/new-trump-indictment-documents-whole-different-ballgame-jonathan-turley

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Omfg please read the indictment. When you can tell me what the charges are, come back. Otherwise stop repeating nonsense you heard from Mark Levin.

Again, the indictment is from the same person who had a guilty verdict overturned unanimously by the SC. Not so good a track record there. Seems he breaks the law to prosecute.

Losing a case isn’t breaking the law

When the SC overturns your verdict because you prosecuted unconstitutionally, you broke the law.

That case wasn’t decided on constitutional grounds though.

Constitution is law. Do you deny that?

Not all laws are the Constitution. Please tell me, according to the Supreme Court, which portion of the Constitution was violated in that case?

“ “There is no doubt that this case is distasteful; it may be worse than that. But our concern is not with tawdry tales of Ferraris, Rolexes, and ball gowns,” Roberts wrote. “It is instead with the broader legal implications of the Government’s boundless interpretation of the federal bribery statute.”

“ In writing the court’s unanimous ruling, Roberts agreed that the government and the lower courts took too broad a view of when a politician’s actions can be considered nefarious.”

Which part of that mentions the constitution?

The ‘boundless interpretation’ and ‘broad view’ part.

In what way does that implicate the constitution? Can you tell me which clause or amendment? Thx.

I’m completely wrong. There is no reference to the Constitution. The unanimous decision should be immediately overturned. Please petition the SC to have this corrected because there’s NO WAY this ruling is correct without a clause or amendment.

“ What are the limits of a government official’s conduct being considered an “official action,” and what implications do these limits have on jury instruction and the constitutionality of the Hobbs Act and the honest-services fraud statute?”

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/15-474

So, you agree then that Jack Smith didn’t “commit a crime” by losing before the Supreme Court? Good! Then that eliminates your reason for not trusting the indictment. Great! Will you go read it it now?

I just gave you the Cornell interpretation speaking of the constitutionality of the Hobbs act. Fail on your part. So now you are switching by claiming I said that Smith “committed a crime”. I didn’t say that. I said he broke the law (which he clearly did if the case was unanimously overturned) by too liberally interpreting the federal bribery statute. And that’s what he is also doing in this indictment. Repeating the same ‘mistake’.

Trump’s DOJ lost some SCOTUS cases too. Did they “break the law” by doing that?? Should they be in jail???

Poor dear. Admit defeat

I’m serious. Did they “break the law” by losing those cases? Answer the question.

I already did. I stated that if they hadn’t broken constitutional law by broadly and boundlessly interpreting the federal bribery statute. Read the Cornell interpretation. The SC overturned the conviction because (wait for it) they broke the law. You are trying to compare every case lost in the SC court to this one. They are all different, every case, so your question is not relevant. Smith’s prior case being overturned because he played fast and loose with the law is relevant because he’s again, playing fast and loose with the law.

I was asking about Trump’s DOJ. Did they break the law when they lost SCOTUS cases? That’s what you said Jack Smith did. Can you distinguish the two situations for me?

Just to add, Trump specifically lost SCOTUS cases on constitutional grounds. I want to know how those situations were different. Did the lawyers who tried/argued those cases “break the law”?

Let’s settle this. You are right. You are a supreme being who is always right. Trump always breaks the law and Smith is a saint who never does. Happy now?

PS - leftists like you are partisan idiots.

NP. Really hope you are just a troll. I can’t imagine any American reading these indictments without a sense of disgust. I can imagine that we’d have different opinions on whether Trump is being unfairly targeted or how political going after him is. I can accept that we see things from different partisan positions. But man. To still want this piece of s*** to be president. You have to be kidding me. I sort of long for the days of Nixon when we at least agreed we didn’t like crooks as president.

Anonymous wrote:Obama's CIA director, David Petraeus, (who was never president with declassification authority) stole classified documents and gave them to his mistress in exchange for sex for years

He was allowed to plead to a misdemeanor and got probation

All this matters.

Trump could have turned over these documents and he wouldn't have been charged with anything. About this.

All this matters.

Obama's CIA director, David Petraeus, (who was never president with declassification authority) stole classified documents and gave them to his mistress in exchange for sex for years

He was allowed to plead to a misdemeanor and got probation

All this matters.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Omfg please read the indictment. When you can tell me what the charges are, come back. Otherwise stop repeating nonsense you heard from Mark Levin.

Again, the indictment is from the same person who had a guilty verdict overturned unanimously by the SC. Not so good a track record there. Seems he breaks the law to prosecute.

Losing a case isn’t breaking the law

When the SC overturns your verdict because you prosecuted unconstitutionally, you broke the law.

That case wasn’t decided on constitutional grounds though.

Constitution is law. Do you deny that?

Not all laws are the Constitution. Please tell me, according to the Supreme Court, which portion of the Constitution was violated in that case?

“ “There is no doubt that this case is distasteful; it may be worse than that. But our concern is not with tawdry tales of Ferraris, Rolexes, and ball gowns,” Roberts wrote. “It is instead with the broader legal implications of the Government’s boundless interpretation of the federal bribery statute.”

“ In writing the court’s unanimous ruling, Roberts agreed that the government and the lower courts took too broad a view of when a politician’s actions can be considered nefarious.”

Which part of that mentions the constitution?

The ‘boundless interpretation’ and ‘broad view’ part.

In what way does that implicate the constitution? Can you tell me which clause or amendment? Thx.

I’m completely wrong. There is no reference to the Constitution. The unanimous decision should be immediately overturned. Please petition the SC to have this corrected because there’s NO WAY this ruling is correct without a clause or amendment.

“ What are the limits of a government official’s conduct being considered an “official action,” and what implications do these limits have on jury instruction and the constitutionality of the Hobbs Act and the honest-services fraud statute?”

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/15-474

So, you agree then that Jack Smith didn’t “commit a crime” by losing before the Supreme Court? Good! Then that eliminates your reason for not trusting the indictment. Great! Will you go read it it now?

I just gave you the Cornell interpretation speaking of the constitutionality of the Hobbs act. Fail on your part. So now you are switching by claiming I said that Smith “committed a crime”. I didn’t say that. I said he broke the law (which he clearly did if the case was unanimously overturned) by too liberally interpreting the federal bribery statute. And that’s what he is also doing in this indictment. Repeating the same ‘mistake’.

Trump’s DOJ lost some SCOTUS cases too. Did they “break the law” by doing that?? Should they be in jail???

Poor dear. Admit defeat

I’m serious. Did they “break the law” by losing those cases? Answer the question.

I already did. I stated that if they hadn’t broken constitutional law by broadly and boundlessly interpreting the federal bribery statute. Read the Cornell interpretation. The SC overturned the conviction because (wait for it) they broke the law. You are trying to compare every case lost in the SC court to this one. They are all different, every case, so your question is not relevant. Smith’s prior case being overturned because he played fast and loose with the law is relevant because he’s again, playing fast and loose with the law.

Trump broke the law, repeatedly, egregiously, and shamelessly. He’s going down hard.

If Trump declassified all of the documents taken from Mar a Lago, as Republicans now claim, then shouldn’t be possible to put in a FOIA request for them?

Anonymous wrote:Hopefully Trump has the decency to step out of politics so that DeSantis can get the nomination

oxymoron

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Omfg please read the indictment. When you can tell me what the charges are, come back. Otherwise stop repeating nonsense you heard from Mark Levin.

Again, the indictment is from the same person who had a guilty verdict overturned unanimously by the SC. Not so good a track record there. Seems he breaks the law to prosecute.

Losing a case isn’t breaking the law

When the SC overturns your verdict because you prosecuted unconstitutionally, you broke the law.

That case wasn’t decided on constitutional grounds though.

Constitution is law. Do you deny that?

Not all laws are the Constitution. Please tell me, according to the Supreme Court, which portion of the Constitution was violated in that case?

“ “There is no doubt that this case is distasteful; it may be worse than that. But our concern is not with tawdry tales of Ferraris, Rolexes, and ball gowns,” Roberts wrote. “It is instead with the broader legal implications of the Government’s boundless interpretation of the federal bribery statute.”

“ In writing the court’s unanimous ruling, Roberts agreed that the government and the lower courts took too broad a view of when a politician’s actions can be considered nefarious.”

Which part of that mentions the constitution?

The ‘boundless interpretation’ and ‘broad view’ part.

In what way does that implicate the constitution? Can you tell me which clause or amendment? Thx.

I’m completely wrong. There is no reference to the Constitution. The unanimous decision should be immediately overturned. Please petition the SC to have this corrected because there’s NO WAY this ruling is correct without a clause or amendment.

“ What are the limits of a government official’s conduct being considered an “official action,” and what implications do these limits have on jury instruction and the constitutionality of the Hobbs Act and the honest-services fraud statute?”

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/15-474

So, you agree then that Jack Smith didn’t “commit a crime” by losing before the Supreme Court? Good! Then that eliminates your reason for not trusting the indictment. Great! Will you go read it it now?

I just gave you the Cornell interpretation speaking of the constitutionality of the Hobbs act. Fail on your part. So now you are switching by claiming I said that Smith “committed a crime”. I didn’t say that. I said he broke the law (which he clearly did if the case was unanimously overturned) by too liberally interpreting the federal bribery statute. And that’s what he is also doing in this indictment. Repeating the same ‘mistake’.

Trump’s DOJ lost some SCOTUS cases too. Did they “break the law” by doing that?? Should they be in jail???

Poor dear. Admit defeat

I’m serious. Did they “break the law” by losing those cases? Answer the question.

I already did. I stated that if they hadn’t broken constitutional law by broadly and boundlessly interpreting the federal bribery statute. Read the Cornell interpretation. The SC overturned the conviction because (wait for it) they broke the law. You are trying to compare every case lost in the SC court to this one. They are all different, every case, so your question is not relevant. Smith’s prior case being overturned because he played fast and loose with the law is relevant because he’s again, playing fast and loose with the law.

I was asking about Trump’s DOJ. Did they break the law when they lost SCOTUS cases? That’s what you said Jack Smith did. Can you distinguish the two situations for me?

Just to add, Trump specifically lost SCOTUS cases on constitutional grounds. I want to know how those situations were different. Did the lawyers who tried/argued those cases “break the law”?

Let’s settle this. You are right. You are a supreme being who is always right. Trump always breaks the law and Smith is a saint who never does. Happy now?

PS - leftists like you are partisan idiots.

Glad we agree! Please read the indictment now.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Omfg please read the indictment. When you can tell me what the charges are, come back. Otherwise stop repeating nonsense you heard from Mark Levin.

Again, the indictment is from the same person who had a guilty verdict overturned unanimously by the SC. Not so good a track record there. Seems he breaks the law to prosecute.

Losing a case isn’t breaking the law

When the SC overturns your verdict because you prosecuted unconstitutionally, you broke the law.

That case wasn’t decided on constitutional grounds though.

Constitution is law. Do you deny that?

Not all laws are the Constitution. Please tell me, according to the Supreme Court, which portion of the Constitution was violated in that case?

“ “There is no doubt that this case is distasteful; it may be worse than that. But our concern is not with tawdry tales of Ferraris, Rolexes, and ball gowns,” Roberts wrote. “It is instead with the broader legal implications of the Government’s boundless interpretation of the federal bribery statute.”

“ In writing the court’s unanimous ruling, Roberts agreed that the government and the lower courts took too broad a view of when a politician’s actions can be considered nefarious.”

Which part of that mentions the constitution?

The ‘boundless interpretation’ and ‘broad view’ part.

In what way does that implicate the constitution? Can you tell me which clause or amendment? Thx.

I’m completely wrong. There is no reference to the Constitution. The unanimous decision should be immediately overturned. Please petition the SC to have this corrected because there’s NO WAY this ruling is correct without a clause or amendment.

“ What are the limits of a government official’s conduct being considered an “official action,” and what implications do these limits have on jury instruction and the constitutionality of the Hobbs Act and the honest-services fraud statute?”

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/15-474

So, you agree then that Jack Smith didn’t “commit a crime” by losing before the Supreme Court? Good! Then that eliminates your reason for not trusting the indictment. Great! Will you go read it it now?

I just gave you the Cornell interpretation speaking of the constitutionality of the Hobbs act. Fail on your part. So now you are switching by claiming I said that Smith “committed a crime”. I didn’t say that. I said he broke the law (which he clearly did if the case was unanimously overturned) by too liberally interpreting the federal bribery statute. And that’s what he is also doing in this indictment. Repeating the same ‘mistake’.

Trump’s DOJ lost some SCOTUS cases too. Did they “break the law” by doing that?? Should they be in jail???

Poor dear. Admit defeat

I’m serious. Did they “break the law” by losing those cases? Answer the question.

I already did. I stated that if they hadn’t broken constitutional law by broadly and boundlessly interpreting the federal bribery statute. Read the Cornell interpretation. The SC overturned the conviction because (wait for it) they broke the law. You are trying to compare every case lost in the SC court to this one. They are all different, every case, so your question is not relevant. Smith’s prior case being overturned because he played fast and loose with the law is relevant because he’s again, playing fast and loose with the law.

I was asking about Trump’s DOJ. Did they break the law when they lost SCOTUS cases? That’s what you said Jack Smith did. Can you distinguish the two situations for me?

Just to add, Trump specifically lost SCOTUS cases on constitutional grounds. I want to know how those situations were different. Did the lawyers who tried/argued those cases “break the law”?

Please give me a case

You seem pretty smart. I’m sure you know them all.

Thought so

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Omfg please read the indictment. When you can tell me what the charges are, come back. Otherwise stop repeating nonsense you heard from Mark Levin.

Again, the indictment is from the same person who had a guilty verdict overturned unanimously by the SC. Not so good a track record there. Seems he breaks the law to prosecute.

Losing a case isn’t breaking the law

When the SC overturns your verdict because you prosecuted unconstitutionally, you broke the law.

That case wasn’t decided on constitutional grounds though.

Constitution is law. Do you deny that?

Not all laws are the Constitution. Please tell me, according to the Supreme Court, which portion of the Constitution was violated in that case?

“ “There is no doubt that this case is distasteful; it may be worse than that. But our concern is not with tawdry tales of Ferraris, Rolexes, and ball gowns,” Roberts wrote. “It is instead with the broader legal implications of the Government’s boundless interpretation of the federal bribery statute.”

“ In writing the court’s unanimous ruling, Roberts agreed that the government and the lower courts took too broad a view of when a politician’s actions can be considered nefarious.”

Which part of that mentions the constitution?

The ‘boundless interpretation’ and ‘broad view’ part.

In what way does that implicate the constitution? Can you tell me which clause or amendment? Thx.

I’m completely wrong. There is no reference to the Constitution. The unanimous decision should be immediately overturned. Please petition the SC to have this corrected because there’s NO WAY this ruling is correct without a clause or amendment.

“ What are the limits of a government official’s conduct being considered an “official action,” and what implications do these limits have on jury instruction and the constitutionality of the Hobbs Act and the honest-services fraud statute?”

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/15-474

So, you agree then that Jack Smith didn’t “commit a crime” by losing before the Supreme Court? Good! Then that eliminates your reason for not trusting the indictment. Great! Will you go read it it now?

I just gave you the Cornell interpretation speaking of the constitutionality of the Hobbs act. Fail on your part. So now you are switching by claiming I said that Smith “committed a crime”. I didn’t say that. I said he broke the law (which he clearly did if the case was unanimously overturned) by too liberally interpreting the federal bribery statute. And that’s what he is also doing in this indictment. Repeating the same ‘mistake’.

Trump’s DOJ lost some SCOTUS cases too. Did they “break the law” by doing that?? Should they be in jail???

Poor dear. Admit defeat

I’m serious. Did they “break the law” by losing those cases? Answer the question.

I already did. I stated that if they hadn’t broken constitutional law by broadly and boundlessly interpreting the federal bribery statute. Read the Cornell interpretation. The SC overturned the conviction because (wait for it) they broke the law. You are trying to compare every case lost in the SC court to this one. They are all different, every case, so your question is not relevant. Smith’s prior case being overturned because he played fast and loose with the law is relevant because he’s again, playing fast and loose with the law.

I was asking about Trump’s DOJ. Did they break the law when they lost SCOTUS cases? That’s what you said Jack Smith did. Can you distinguish the two situations for me?

Just to add, Trump specifically lost SCOTUS cases on constitutional grounds. I want to know how those situations were different. Did the lawyers who tried/argued those cases “break the law”?

Let’s settle this. You are right. You are a supreme being who is always right. Trump always breaks the law and Smith is a saint who never does. Happy now?

PS - leftists like you are partisan idiots.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Omfg please read the indictment. When you can tell me what the charges are, come back. Otherwise stop repeating nonsense you heard from Mark Levin.

Again, the indictment is from the same person who had a guilty verdict overturned unanimously by the SC. Not so good a track record there. Seems he breaks the law to prosecute.

Losing a case isn’t breaking the law

When the SC overturns your verdict because you prosecuted unconstitutionally, you broke the law.

That case wasn’t decided on constitutional grounds though.

Constitution is law. Do you deny that?

Not all laws are the Constitution. Please tell me, according to the Supreme Court, which portion of the Constitution was violated in that case?

“ “There is no doubt that this case is distasteful; it may be worse than that. But our concern is not with tawdry tales of Ferraris, Rolexes, and ball gowns,” Roberts wrote. “It is instead with the broader legal implications of the Government’s boundless interpretation of the federal bribery statute.”

“ In writing the court’s unanimous ruling, Roberts agreed that the government and the lower courts took too broad a view of when a politician’s actions can be considered nefarious.”

Which part of that mentions the constitution?

The ‘boundless interpretation’ and ‘broad view’ part.

In what way does that implicate the constitution? Can you tell me which clause or amendment? Thx.

I’m completely wrong. There is no reference to the Constitution. The unanimous decision should be immediately overturned. Please petition the SC to have this corrected because there’s NO WAY this ruling is correct without a clause or amendment.

“ What are the limits of a government official’s conduct being considered an “official action,” and what implications do these limits have on jury instruction and the constitutionality of the Hobbs Act and the honest-services fraud statute?”

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/15-474

So, you agree then that Jack Smith didn’t “commit a crime” by losing before the Supreme Court? Good! Then that eliminates your reason for not trusting the indictment. Great! Will you go read it it now?

I just gave you the Cornell interpretation speaking of the constitutionality of the Hobbs act. Fail on your part. So now you are switching by claiming I said that Smith “committed a crime”. I didn’t say that. I said he broke the law (which he clearly did if the case was unanimously overturned) by too liberally interpreting the federal bribery statute. And that’s what he is also doing in this indictment. Repeating the same ‘mistake’.

Trump’s DOJ lost some SCOTUS cases too. Did they “break the law” by doing that?? Should they be in jail???

Poor dear. Admit defeat

I’m serious. Did they “break the law” by losing those cases? Answer the question.

I already did. I stated that if they hadn’t broken constitutional law by broadly and boundlessly interpreting the federal bribery statute. Read the Cornell interpretation. The SC overturned the conviction because (wait for it) they broke the law. You are trying to compare every case lost in the SC court to this one. They are all different, every case, so your question is not relevant. Smith’s prior case being overturned because he played fast and loose with the law is relevant because he’s again, playing fast and loose with the law.

I was asking about Trump’s DOJ. Did they break the law when they lost SCOTUS cases? That’s what you said Jack Smith did. Can you distinguish the two situations for me?

Just to add, Trump specifically lost SCOTUS cases on constitutional grounds. I want to know how those situations were different. Did the lawyers who tried/argued those cases “break the law”?

Please give me a case

You seem pretty smart. I’m sure you know them all.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Omfg please read the indictment. When you can tell me what the charges are, come back. Otherwise stop repeating nonsense you heard from Mark Levin.

Again, the indictment is from the same person who had a guilty verdict overturned unanimously by the SC. Not so good a track record there. Seems he breaks the law to prosecute.

Losing a case isn’t breaking the law

When the SC overturns your verdict because you prosecuted unconstitutionally, you broke the law.

That case wasn’t decided on constitutional grounds though.

Constitution is law. Do you deny that?

Not all laws are the Constitution. Please tell me, according to the Supreme Court, which portion of the Constitution was violated in that case?

“ “There is no doubt that this case is distasteful; it may be worse than that. But our concern is not with tawdry tales of Ferraris, Rolexes, and ball gowns,” Roberts wrote. “It is instead with the broader legal implications of the Government’s boundless interpretation of the federal bribery statute.”

“ In writing the court’s unanimous ruling, Roberts agreed that the government and the lower courts took too broad a view of when a politician’s actions can be considered nefarious.”

Which part of that mentions the constitution?

The ‘boundless interpretation’ and ‘broad view’ part.

In what way does that implicate the constitution? Can you tell me which clause or amendment? Thx.

I’m completely wrong. There is no reference to the Constitution. The unanimous decision should be immediately overturned. Please petition the SC to have this corrected because there’s NO WAY this ruling is correct without a clause or amendment.

“ What are the limits of a government official’s conduct being considered an “official action,” and what implications do these limits have on jury instruction and the constitutionality of the Hobbs Act and the honest-services fraud statute?”

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/15-474

So, you agree then that Jack Smith didn’t “commit a crime” by losing before the Supreme Court? Good! Then that eliminates your reason for not trusting the indictment. Great! Will you go read it it now?

I just gave you the Cornell interpretation speaking of the constitutionality of the Hobbs act. Fail on your part. So now you are switching by claiming I said that Smith “committed a crime”. I didn’t say that. I said he broke the law (which he clearly did if the case was unanimously overturned) by too liberally interpreting the federal bribery statute. And that’s what he is also doing in this indictment. Repeating the same ‘mistake’.

Trump’s DOJ lost some SCOTUS cases too. Did they “break the law” by doing that?? Should they be in jail???

Poor dear. Admit defeat

I’m serious. Did they “break the law” by losing those cases? Answer the question.

I already did. I stated that if they hadn’t broken constitutional law by broadly and boundlessly interpreting the federal bribery statute. Read the Cornell interpretation. The SC overturned the conviction because (wait for it) they broke the law. You are trying to compare every case lost in the SC court to this one. They are all different, every case, so your question is not relevant. Smith’s prior case being overturned because he played fast and loose with the law is relevant because he’s again, playing fast and loose with the law.

I was asking about Trump’s DOJ. Did they break the law when they lost SCOTUS cases? That’s what you said Jack Smith did. Can you distinguish the two situations for me?

It’s not about losing cases It’s about why the cases were lost.

Why were cases where the Trump admin lost on constitutional grounds different from the case Jack Smith lost (which ton say was on constitutional grounds, even though you haven’t explained why—you still haven’t said which part of the constitution was violated)?