« First « Previous Comments 149 - 176 of 176 Search these comments
Even if the Colorado decision stands (and personally I don't think it will) what would prevent people from simply writing in Trump, even if he's not "on" the ballot per se?
Even if the Colorado decision stands (and personally I don't think it will) what would prevent people from simply writing in Trump, even if he's not "on" the ballot per se?
Because the Colorado decision specifically included disregarding any write-in votes for Trump.
The man who has been filing lawsuits in every state to get Donald Trump removed from the 2024 election ballot has been arrested & charged with filing 17 sets of false tax documents to the IRS
In total, John Anthony Castro has been charged with 33 counts of aiding the preparation of false tax returns. Prosecutors claim he ran a virtual tax preparation business that provided customers with tax returns beyond what they were actually owed, defrauding the government.
Castro announced his "campaign" for President in the Republican primary which was clearly all for show in order for the deep state to use him as a vehicle to file the ballot lawsuits (all of which have failed).
You literally cannot make this up, this guy told judges Donald Trump was a criminal when in actuality, he was a criminal.
SCOTUS smashes Colorado's "case" on Trump (and, along with it, the "insurrection" narrative)
Kagan, Jackson seemed to share the doubts of the conservative majority as to this latest "liberal" effort to condemn both Trump and those Americans who'd vote for him to "civil death"
Regardless of your take on Trump, or anybody else’s, the Court was somehow overtaken by lucidity—a rare thing in Year 4 of the “COVID crisis.”
As The Federalist reported, federal authorities informed Baker and his legal team on Tuesday of a signed warrant for his arrest and instructed him to self-surrender for “alleged J6 crimes” in Dallas, Texas, on Friday morning. Baker has been at the forefront of reporting on the more questionable aspects of the Jan. 6 demonstrations.
While told he was being charged with “non-violent misdemeanors,” federal authorities declined to disclose to Baker or his lawyers what specific crimes underlie the arrest. According to Blaze News, the feds refused to reveal the charges ahead of Friday’s arrest because “they believe[d] Baker [would] post them on social media.” The Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees individuals accused of a crime a right to “be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation.”
tanked says
There is 0 chance this will stand after review by the SCOTUS. All the Colorado supremes did was embarass themselves. Perhaps this can now start an impeachment process on them.
Everything is going to shit. So don't count on it.
BTW
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/maine-elections-official-disqualifies-trump-presidential-primary-ballot-2023-12-28/
UkraineIsFucked says
tanked says
There is 0 chance this will stand after review by the SCOTUS. All the Colorado supremes did was embarass themselves. Perhaps this can now start an impeachment process on them.
Everything is going to shit. So don't count on it.
BTW
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/maine-elections-official-disqualifies-trump-presidential-primary-ballot-2023-12-28/
This was obvious it would happen. Colorado was so bad even the SCOTUS libs didn't stand for it.
Perhaps this can now start an impeachment process on them.
Everything is going to shit. So don't count on it.
You:
tanked says
Perhaps this can now start an impeachment process on them.
Me:
UkraineIsFucked says
Everything is going to shit. So don't count on it.
Colorado SC justices won't be impeached. Just as as I said. Has no bearing at all on how SCOTUS ruled, either.
Why would you say "don't count on it" to what I said "perhaps" about. If I was counting on it I wouldn't have said "perhaps". So what you said only made sense if you were referring to the SCOTUS striking down the Colorado decision and you were saying don't count on it. Even though it was obvious it would happen.
tanked says
Why would you say "don't count on it" to what I said "perhaps" about. If I was counting on it I wouldn't have said "perhaps". So what you said only made sense if you were referring to the SCOTUS striking down the Colorado decision and you were saying don't count on it. Even though it was obvious it would happen.
Not my problem if you cherry pick the wrong part of what you wrote that I wasn't replying to.
not my problem if you make no sense
Perhaps this can now start an impeachment process on them.
Everything is going to shit. So don't count on it.
tanked says
not my problem if you make no sense
I make perfect sense. Not my prob you can't fucking comprehend what you yourself wrote:
You:
tanked says
Perhaps this can now start an impeachment process on them.
Me:
UkraineIsFucked says
Everything is going to shit. So don't count on it.
Unless you still want to jack off over the fantasy that CO SC justices will be impeached over this.
What I thought you meant, was dumb. But it turns out what you actually meant was even dumber,
tanked says
What I thought you meant, was dumb. But it turns out what you actually meant was even dumber,
^^^^^ don't do drugs while posting on PatNet, kiddies. You'll come across as a Libtard...or just don't come across as anything at all.
Don't count on the Colorado Supremes getting overturned...
don't count on them perhaps possibly getting impeached. Yeah that's it.
« First « Previous Comments 149 - 176 of 176 Search these comments
It is not only un-American, it is literally the elimination of democracy for the benefit of the CIA, NSA, and the corporations which run them and benefit from their treason and subversion.
I hope to be in the front row with a big bag of popcorn when the deep state criminals are hanged for their crimes.