Though this may deny Trump the “absolute immunity” that would lead to the dismissal of his charges, it would give him what he may have wanted even more: a further delay of his trial past the Nov. 5 election. If Trump, the presumptive Republican Party presidential nominee, wins that election, he would become effectively immune from prosecution because of the Department of Justice’s policy not to prosecute a sitting president. It is possible that Trump could even pardon himself, although the justices noted in arguments that the court has never ruled on the constitutionality of a self-pardon.

Delay has been the chief strategy deployed by Trump since he was indicted in four different courts for crimes including trying to overturn the 2020 election, taking classified documents from the White House and paying to quash damaging stories from alleged mistresses.

Repeatedly, the conservative justices noted that they were not concerned with the case at hand but rather with their hypothetical concerns about how the threat of criminal sanction could restrain a president in the future.

“I’m not concerned about this case so much as future ones, too,” said Justice Neil Gorsuch, a Trump nominee.

“Like Justice Gorsuch, I’m not focused on the here and now of this case; I’m very concerned about the future,” said Justice Brett Kavanaugh, another Trump nominee.

“I’m not discussing the particular facts of this case,” said Justice Samuel Alito, a George W. Bush nominee.

The conservatives instead largely focused on the difference between an official act and an unofficial act, and whether the two could be realistically separated. In doing so, they went far afield to ask whether, after leaving office, President Lyndon Johnson could have been indicted for lying about the Vietnam War, if President Franklin Roosevelt could have faced criminal charges for incarcerating Japanese Americans or whether President John F. Kennedy could have been charged for trying to overthrow Fidel Castro in Cuba. (Kennedy, of course, died in office, so the question would be moot.)

In one jarring instance, Alito seemingly turned the case against Trump entirely on its head by suggesting that, without immunity, it was the threat of criminal sanction that would destabilize democracy by encouraging presidents to use force or fraud to stay in office.

“If an incumbent who loses a very close, hotly contested election knows that a real possibility after leaving office is not that the president is going to be able to go off into peaceful retirement but that the president may be criminally prosecuted by a bitter political opponent, will that not lead us into a cycle that destabilizes the functioning of our country as a democracy?” Alito asked. The case before Alito was, of course, already about a president who tried to overturn an election he lost.

When the arguments did veer back to the actual facts of Trump’s case, a majority of justices could be seen to coalesce around the view that the charges in the indictment, or at least some of them, did not qualify as official acts and, therefore, could be brought against him.

D. John Sauer, Trump’s lawyer, agreed that Trump’s actions in organizing the fake electors scheme ― in which Republican officials in six states submitted fake slates of electors to Congress in a scheme to overturn the election ― and acts involving private campaign officials or private lawyers did not constitute official acts, although Sauer disagreed about the facts surrounding them.

But Sauer also argued that elements of the indictment included official acts, such as Trump’s conversations with Vice President Mike Pence, his submission of the false electors and his effort to fire his attorney general and appoint Assistant Attorney General Jeffrey Clark because he would carry out his order to declare an investigation into nonexistent election fraud.

Were the court to not grant Trump absolute immunity, Sauer argued, the court should impose a rule to determine what is or isn’t an official act and require a lower court to review the indictment against Trump to excise any reference to official acts.

At the same time, Sauer expanded his argument beyond the initial absolute immunity claim to argue that presidents cannot be charged under any statute that does not specifically state that they apply to the president. This new logic would excuse the charges against Trump even if he did not obtain immunity for his official acts.

The conservatives entertained all of this, with Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Justice Clarence Thomas seeming to be most firmly in Sauer’s corner. In ignoring the specific question presented to the court about absolute immunity for the charges Trump faced, they all focused on what they deemed the bigger question of creating a standard for future cases that would protect the president from interference in the difficult decision-making required for the office.

And so, the debate focused on what standard the court could adopt that would immunize presidents from prosecution for official acts, or some official acts, while perhaps allowing prosecution for non-official acts, those taken in pursuit of private gain.

Sauer wanted the court to extend its 1982 precedent in Fitzgerald v. Nixon, which granted presidents absolute immunity from civil liability, to cover criminal acts. In Fitzgerald, the court set a standard that included everything within the “outer perimeter” of the president’s official role as official acts. But Fitzgerald’s “outer perimeter” test should not be applied if the court seeks to create a new standard for presidential immunity in this case, Michael Dreeben, the lawyer representing special prosecutor Jack Smith, argued.

The justices discussed other possibilities, including the adoption of the standard set by the D.C. Circuit in Blassingame v. Trump, which denied Trump immunity from civil liability related to harms caused during the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection by distinguishing between his dual roles as “office-holder” and “office-seeker.”

Dreeben was more amenable to the Blassingame standard, arguing that Trump’s alleged acts in the indictment were done in furtherance of his campaign and not as part of his duty as president, but Dreeben added that the government would look “more at the content of that actual interaction in order to make that determination than Blassingame suggested” by examining the “objective of the activity as opposed to the subjective motive.”

While the conservatives were more focused on creating a standard to protect future presidents, the liberal justices were concerned about the harms that could ensue by granting those future presidents absolute, or even qualified, immunity from prosecution for criminal acts.

>>1290005
>And though a majority of the court did appear to reject Trump’s full claim of “absolute immunity,” this suggested a desire to craft a ruling that would grant some form of immunity to presidents in some cases, and then remanding Trump’s case back to the lower courts for more hearings.
They're going to split the baby, which is what pussy judges always do.

“If the president decides that his rival is a corrupt person and he orders the military to assassinate him, is that within his official acts to which he has immunity?” Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked.

“That could well be an official act,” Sauer replied.

“How about if the president orders the military to stage a coup?” Justice Elena Kagan asked.

“I think it would depend on the circumstances,” Sauer said, after a pause.

“You seem to be worried about the president being chilled,” Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said to Sauer. “I think that we would have a really significant opposite problem if the president wasn’t chilled. If someone with those kind of powers ― the most powerful person in the world with the greatest amount of authority ― could go into office knowing there would be no potential penalty for committing crimes ― I’m trying to understand what the disincentive is from turning the Oval Office into the seat of criminal activity in this country.”

The only conservative justice who appeared strongly opposed to Trump’s arguments for some kind of immunity or the prospect of further delay of his federal trial was Justice Amy Coney Barrett. She was the only conservative justice to directly press Sauer on the actual alleged acts in the indictment and, in questioning Dreeben, she repeatedly noted her agreement with his analysis of the case.

Near the end of the arguments, Barrett appeared to be looking for a way out of both granting absolute immunity and further delaying the trial. She pressed Dreeben on the special prosecutor’s desire to move the case forward quickly but noted that if the court were to adopt a new standard on immunity, “the normal process would be to remand” to the lower courts “if we decided there was some ‘official acts’ immunity.”

“It is another option for special counsel to proceed on ‘unofficial conduct’ based on the private conduct and drop the ‘official conduct,’” Barrett said.

Dreeben replied that his understanding is that the indictment does not charge Trump with anything that could be construed as an official act. Where the indictment does mention events that Sauer claimed to be official acts (the effort to elevate Clark, for example), it did so to present supporting material as evidence that Trump abused his office to advance a scheme to overturn the election. Perhaps, he suggested, the trial court could allow the introduction of these potentially official acts as “evidence of intent” and instruct the jury that they could not be interpreted for the purpose of “criminal culpability.”

Jackson also homed in on whether the court should again delay Trump’s trial by arguing that the court need only rule on the question before it: whether presidents have absolute immunity from criminal prosecution.

“I thought he was arguing that all official acts get immunity?” Jackson asked. “And so I didn’t understand us having to drill down on which official acts do. My question is, why isn’t it enough, for the purposes of this case given what the petitioner has argued, to just answer the question of whether all official acts get immunity?”

“We should probably wait for a vehicle that allows us to test the different sides of the standard that we’d be creating,” she added.

There are two possible ways the court could go. With five conservative justices seemingly laser-focused on hypothetical future dangers imposed on the presidency by the threat of criminal charges, the case appeared headed to a result that would provide another Trump another delaying tactic. But the three liberals could join Barrett and Chief Justice John Roberts, the most skeptical of the other five conservatives, and send the case back to trial with jury instructions limiting how the prosecution could use certain official acts in their case. That would allow the election interference case to go forward quickly.

But it appeared that Trump’s lawyer believed he had won the day’s arguments. Following Dreeben’s responses, Sauer declined to give a rebuttal.

The court will decide the case by the end of its term, on June 30.

>>1290013
Trump and his court is conspiring to delay the trail so he won't be found guilty before the election so he can then steal the election and drop the charges against himself.
This is just their way of running out that clock.

>>1290005
>the packed Republican Supreme Court
the GOP never packed the SCOTUS. tranny head cannon is so wild

>>1290005
You posted a huffpost story and linked a TheHill story. Why the bait and switch?

>>1290020
what clock is that shillkun? :D

>>1290029
>>1290030
>>1290033
>/pol/ in full damage control
They're afraid.

>>1290035
please show me when the GOP changed the size of the scotus, tranny

>>1290037
I'm going to be nice and give you this academic article explaining what court packing is and why you're only describing one way court packing is done.
https://www.rutgers.edu/news/what-court-packing

>>1290035
>You posted a huffpost story and linked a TheHill story. Why the bait and switch?
This is not damage control it's a simple question.

>>1290045
>Rutgers
>State University of New Jersey
Fuck off, get nuked.

>>1290048
>>1290047
>Can't handle the facts
Good to know you're admitting to lying and acting in bad faith.

>>1290045
>jewish woman attempts to redefine a word that was in use for over a hundred years
you gotta do better than that, moshie. when did trump and the GOP change the size of the court?

>>1290051
>/pol/ glowing this hard
Try again

>>1290020
Dude lost already when he had all the cards in his favor. He isn't stealing shit. Get mushed loser.

>>1290050
Ok but why the bait and switch with the OP story?

>>1290051
>Being antisemitic

>>1290082
Trump will absolutely pull a soft coup again when Johnson refuses to certify the election and send it back to the Republican controlled states to steal the election.
That was actually their plan in 2020, and the Trump terrorist attack on the capital was just a means of delaying certification and not to overthrow the government.

>>1290076
/pol/ doesn't glow
>>1290105
how is pointing out that someone is jewish antisemitism?

>>1290098
>>1290047
>>1290030
because he knows the huffington posts isn't a legit source and fags who posts article text doctor the text

>>1290122
/pol/ glows red like Russia.

>>1290143
/pol/ isn't communist, dems are

>>1290005
>at least five conservative justices suggested that they would create a new rule providing some form of immunity from criminal prosecution for former presidents
What about present Potus'?
Biden should run tRump over and claim executive privilege.

>>1290147
Then why are Republicans red?
Checkmate fascist.

>>1290158
republicans aren't fascist. that would be the anti gun dems

>>1290165
They're just using guns to threaten people like fascists.

Do you think Ruth Bader Ginsberg handing Trump the majority will result in Democrats dropping their dicksucking worship of that corrupt hag?

>>1290169
the government?
>>1290170
why? that was the single most based thing she ever did in her entire life

>>1290172
>What was the coup

>>1290176
what coup?

He's going to get away with it, isn't he? This motherfucker. He's going to get away with it and the Republicans will all hoot and cheer and shoot their guns in the air and their fat fucking self-hating wives will shit out another six or seven of their inbred little piglets and within a few generations that's all that will be left, little feudal Republican warlord states.

>>1290177
Don't mind the /news/ schizo. The spectres of imaginary coups live rent free in xir's mind

>>1290076
>glowing this hard
You're not even using the meme right you dumb newfag, nice job outing yourself.

>>1290178
blame the dems for having such a fucking terrible platform people would rather vote for trump. Like think about how much you hate trump, the fact 100% of the media is on bidens side. But most people still like trump because the dems are wrong on literally every issue that matters

>>1290125
This.

>>1290169
Don't try to take my property and rights and you won't get shot. The British learned that, why can't you?

>>1290178
Feels so good, I have five already and I post regularly on /pol/. Enjoy the future, tranny. Get dragged behind a truck.

>>1290182
This. We don't care if Trump said a mean thing or fucked a hooker. I think it's wrong that he fucked a hooker when he's married, but Clinton and Biden fuck kids and if Obama's dick wasn't permanently caged by that tranny he's married to so would he. I care that Trump is a better and more competent president than Biden and even though he's not as based as he could theoretically be, he's a good start. Plus I miss gas being cheap.

>>1290181
>/pol/ being this mad they outted themselves.

>>1290197
Indian post.

>>1290198
>Pajeet protection intensifies

>>1290199
You also don't use that term correctly. If you'd ever interacted with the greater first world your problems with English would immediately stick out to you.

>>1290200
>N-o-o-o-o u....
Cope more.

>>1290202
You're still not using it right, especially seeing as you initiated this retarded defensive tactic to stall and meet your required shilling postcount after being btfo.

>>1290051
>>1290045
>>1290037
>>1290029
Perhaps "stacked" would be a better word for what I think anon means

>>1290207
he is intentionally using the word packed because dems want to pack the court to force single party rule and to do retarded shit like the 9th circuit and yurope does. also the GOP didn't cheat or do anything wrong. Biden literally gave a speech in 1992 saying if any of the scotus members died he wouldn't let bush appoint a replacement

>>1290122
The intention behind pointing out someone's ethnicity unprompted in conversation is pretty obvious in most contexts, no?

>>1290208
I'm not saying it's wrong, it's the obvious political strategy. But I do think it's a pretty glaring flaw in the system to be able to do so. The proclivities of the highest court have been set for several decades, and regardless of what direction it slants in that simply seems like far too long.

>>1290209
why are jews offended to be called jews?
>>1290211
blame dems for using the courts to legislate from the bench instead of having the court do its job and interoperate the law and ensure the law conforms to the constitution. You literally have dem judges arguing the constitution guarantees abortion as a right but doesn't protect the right to own a gun in your own home.

>>1290005
fake news

>>1290212
>why are jews offended to be called jews?
You're being disingenuous. No matter the race, including it in such a manner comes with its own respective connotations and implied meaning. We all know what anon means when he complains about someone while noting they're a Jew, the same way we all know what a SJW means when they complain about someone while noting they're white.
>blame dems for using the courts to legislate from the bench instead of having the court do its job and interoperate the law and ensure the law conforms to the constitution. You literally have dem judges arguing the constitution guarantees abortion as a right but doesn't protect the right to own a gun in your own home.
Agreed. Judicial activism is an unstable and unintended form of governance and the Dems are guilty of it far more often than Republicans, so much so that they tend to neglect to codify their victories into law and simply assume the rulings will always be upheld. But this observation doesn't mitigate the negative impact of lifetime appointments to the SCOTUS.

>>1290206
No, you're clearly projecting and are trying to gaslight after getting BTFO

>>1290214
nah, you are acting pretty jewish to be offended by someone pointing out a jew. And we shouldn't change the scotus because it currently is giving the GOP an advantage. only change it if dems get an advantage

>>1290217
>We're winning so we shouldn't change the rules. We should only change the rules if they start winning.
That is a policy clearly in bad faith. How do you operate like that in good conscience?

>>1290222
because the alternative of letting dems get an advantage is worse because its the official stance of the DNC to overturn heller.

>>1290224
So then are you banking on your opposition's unwillingness to play similarly unfairly in response, or hoping that if such practices were to come head-to-head your side would prevail? Either way it's a gambit, but moreover it doesn't seem like a tenable structure for a healthy society to govern itself.

I certainly agree that Heller was a rightful ruling, but I also think stooping to such measures as you're recommending are detrimental to long-term stability. Changing the system because it's flawed is valid, but changing it because you're losing is a subversive means to strip power from a legitimate source. If the Dems were to change it because they were momentarily disadvantaged, would you be so understanding? Or would you be outraged?

>>1290217
>nah, you are acting pretty jewish to be offended by someone pointing out a jew.
I'm not personally offended by anon's post, but it would be intellectually dishonest of me to pretend not to understand the implied meaning of a statement when applied to some race while acknowledging it when substituted for some other race.

>>1290225
>So then are you banking on your opposition's unwillingness to play similarly unfairly in response, or hoping that if such practices were to come head-to-head your side would prevail? Either way it's a gambit,
dems wouldn't be talking about "court reform" if they were winning. we both know this. Dems only think its a current problem because they are losing. Same thing with the EC. Same thing with how somehow gerrymandering isn't a problem in new england even though 0 republicans came out of that area for the house despite getting like a third of the vote there. I 100% guarantee if Thomas and Alito died today the dems would ram through 2 scotus picks and then refuse to "reform the courts" in anyway
> but moreover it doesn't seem like a tenable structure for a healthy society to govern itself.
the US isn't a healthy society, half the country hates the other half. this was made much worse by the scotus making it so only cities have a say in state governments
>I certainly agree that Heller was a rightful ruling, but I also think stooping to such measures as you're recommending are detrimental to long-term stability. Changing the system because it's flawed is valid, but changing it because you're losing is a subversive means to strip power from a legitimate source. If the Dems were to change it because they were momentarily disadvantaged, would you be so understanding? Or would you be outraged?
dems are literally talking about eliminating the filibuster and packing the court as a way to subvert the scotus and senate because they are currently losing. That is 100% all they care about. Its like how they nuked the judicial filibuster under obongo and then flipped the fuck out when mitch used their rule against them under Trump, because somehow dems either think they will never lose or they have zero ability to think about the future
>>1290226
what is the implication of calling a jew a jew? they are what they are

>>1290228
>dems wouldn't be talking about "court reform" if they were winning. we both know this.
>dems are literally talking about eliminating the filibuster and [...]
I know. But I'm not asking about what Dems would do, I'm asking about what you would do and, moreover, how a society aught to engage in politics. My example was only just that; the competitors can be substituted or interchanged but the idea remains the same.
What you're describing is something I would expect at least some portion of either side of the aisle to attempt or ideate on, and is something that can only, and must, be halted by a principled majority that is less concerned with a short-term win and more concerned with a healthy and representative political arena.
>the US isn't a healthy society, half the country hates the other half.
You're right, and today it's at its worst in living memory. Other than one side brutally seizing power over the other (not ideal, at least in my opinion) or moving away from the two-party system (exceptionally hard to do with an established system already in place) it's hard to imagine how we can reconcile, but attempting to disenfranchise the opposition with underhanded measures will only make the tension worse.

>>1290229
>be halted by a principled majority that is less concerned with a short-term win and more concerned with a healthy and representative political arena.
the dems literally do everything they can to fuck over republican voters at every turn. The dems also legit believe that within a few years they will get the nonwhite demographics to the point they won't lose elections. The issue with both the courts and senate are that dems fundamentally want a system more like the UK where cities have all the say in government and there is no constitution or bill of rights. a lot of policies dems want federally are super unpopular outside their cities/voter base and aren't supposed by the constitution. changing this shit only benefits them. status quo on the federal level benefits the GOP because as of right now there are 5 SCOTUS members and to a much lesser extent roberts, who are in favor of limiting federal power and upholding the constitution. Literally all heller says is
>owning a gun is an individual right outside militia service
>the government can't infringe on guns commonly used in self defense
>the government can enforce laws that prevent someone from owning a gun in their house and having access to it for self defense.
The dems think this is intolerable and want to overturn it. that means they don't believe the second amendment protect any rights and its why they want "court reform" because they want to be able to "amend" the constitution using the courts without going through the formal amendment process.
The issue has and always will be dems aren't acting in good faith and believe the ends justify the means. and that they should be able to use the federal government to impose regulations on everyone
>but attempting to disenfranchise the opposition with underhanded
the GOP literally isn't disenfranchising anyone with underhanded methods. that would be the spirit of aloha dems ignoring the soctus and demanding to pack the court.

>>1290232
>the GOP literally isn't disenfranchising anyone with underhanded methods.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_n5E7feJHw0

>>1290235
>no argument
Every time. Luckily Saul Alinsky's work is well-known enough by now that we know leftists only turn to empty ridicule when they've lost, so on the other anon's behalf I accept your concession.

>>1290235
>oh no, requiring people to be who they say they are

Only God is absolute. If you think a president could do something evil and not be assassinated, you haven't been paying attention.

The energy, aeronautics and bioengineering industrial complexes, etc, are the only things that matter for existence on earth to increase in quality, and it will continue to function with or without whatever wannabe emperor and paper mache government you decide to parade around infront of the true work being done by hardworking scientists behind scenes.

Defund all the news agencies so we can get this trash out of here and read some real news, instead of this constant mental suffocation imposed by the circus freaks.

>>1290237
>>1290236
>Schizo head cannon
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/jan/17/voting-rights-republicans-texas-restrictions

https://www.democracydocket.com/analysis/the-anti-voting-bills-republicans-enacted-this-legislative-season/

https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/many-problems-gop-backed-voting-bill

This is where you attack the source or move the goalposts because you can't refute the facts.

>>1290151
>Biden should run tRump over and claim executive privilege.

in his vintage corvette
OOps. ...i'm old

Or just order the secret service agents off him

The 5 Scotus Republicans will just delay and give tRump every opportunity to steal the election

>>1290242
>reddit spacing
also you didn't read any of those links did you, you just clicked on the first 3 links. they are all normal shit like increasing jail time for voter fraud, making a division to check irregularities, giving the state ag more power to check in counties that don't cooperate, getting rid of fraud by mail, requiring free id. One set of things, idk why its in the voting section, was just stripping power from blue cities which is mega based and mega constitutional. SCOTUS has been clear on this. cities and counties are creatures of the state. the federal constitution doesn't say dick about cities so they are 100% under stat control and any powers they have are based on state constitution or statute

>>1290045
Court packing/stacking is just like gerrymandering. It's a bad word, but only used when Repubs do it. When Dems do it, brave journos magically morph into church mice.

>>1290250
He's right and you just got BTFO

>>1290284
>Voting fraud is good, and here's why

>>1290250
>Voter Fraud
https://www.brennancenter.org/issues/ensure-every-american-can-vote/vote-suppression/myth-voter-fraud
https://www.aclu.org/video/voter-fraud-not-problem

>>1290284
nope, you are just retarded and cannot read
>>1290307
I don't care what 2 companies that work for the DNC say. requiring ID when you vote is a normal common sense thing and does not disenfranchise anyone. most countries do it. it is common sense.

>>1290255
Gerrymandering is bad when anyone does it as it fundamentally makes our system less democratic. Court packing/stacking is a potential natural consequence of democratic elections that is not bad in and of itself, but is bad as a natural consequence of a lack of term limits for justices.

And obviously any political process with negative outcomes is bad. So winning elections isn't bad, but Republicans winning elections is bad.

If presidents lose immunity, then every living president should be immediately jailed. Obama, Clinton, Bush. The lot.

Hell, Obama assassinated American citizens. He should get the death sentence.

So be careful what you wish for, lefties.

>>1290311
>requiring ID when you vote
I vote by mail. I literally HAVE to vote by mail. How is that supposed to work?

We require ID to register. We require registration to vote. That's fucking good enough.

You either want voter ID to disenfranchise people like me or you think not requiring voter ID is good enough for me, but arbitrarily want it for others. Fuck off and die.

>>1290318
>You either want voter ID to disenfranchise people
Aw shit, here we go again.
Dem blacks caint 'fford no ID.
You don't HAVE to vote by mail you lazy fuck, and if you HAVE to you need to stay in your euro shithole.

>>1290315
>Gerrymandering is bad when anyone does it
Yes, but only Repubs gerrymander. When Dems do it, it's called "redistricting," and therefore ok. Court packing, again, is only something Rs do. When Ds do it, it's called "free and fair" etc.

shill hours boys

>>1290323
As it turns out, its illegal to look up what kinds of IDs and voting methods black people use the most and then ban those things in an attempt to stop black people from voting. If you've got an issue with that take it up with the North Carolina supreme court that accused GOP lawmakers of targeting black people with "surgical decision" when striking down their voting reform laws.

>>1290323
>You don't HAVE to vote by mail you lazy fuck
I am literally disabled and have uncontrolled pseudoseizures for hours on end if overstimulated. Fuck off and die, and thanks for confirming you do want to disenfranchise people.

Couldn't even keep from exposing yourself as an evil, lying bastard when presented with the lightest prodding.

>>1290311
>DNC
Always funny to see /pol/ppets stuck in 2016 because the Russians never updated their talking points.

>>1290328
1. Redistricting and gerrymandering aren't the same thing.
2. Both parties redistrict and gerrymander
3. Other than the tail end of the Warren court (widely considered basically the single greatest period of the court in the last century), the court has never fucking had a liberal majority. Acting like both sides court pack is just an outright lie unless you're going back to shit in my parent's childhood.

God you people are dishonest sacks of shit.

>>1290329
Thanks, boss. Just woke up in my tent behind the Starbucks.
I'll get to work now.

>>1290005
There's not going to be an election if they set it up like this. If some crazy shit happens then it will let the current administration do whatever it deems fit during a time of crisis to protect democracy. The college protests are more than they appear. They legitimatly think they are fighting a peaceful revolution but it's going to be met with extreme violance

>>1290344
>You should just KYS.
Oh, child, I have plenty to live for. If you knew what that felt like, you might realize the need for better attacks.

But just because your life is empty and meaningless, don't kill yourself. Get cancer or something. That will be more fun for the people around you.

I don't even know why you pretend to want fair elections. You can just say you don't want "certain people" to have any political power. This is a fucking anonymous message board. It's not like you'll face any consequences. No need to act like a spineless cuck.

>>1290348
>Oh, child, I have plenty to live for.
I doubt it, crip-tranny-faggot.

>>1290351
>I doubt it
Of course you do. You don't know the feeling.

>crip-tranny-faggot
Keep me out of your sexual fantasies.

>>1290333
>I can't leave my house because I'm a special snowflake
No one believes you.

>>1290354
Whatever the reason, the fact that you want to suppress votes to only people who agree with your position shows the weakness of your position. As you know, if every person who could vote legally in this country did, a Republican would never win an election again. Even republicans admit this fact.

>>1290354
>being disabled makes someone a special snowflake
Is that what your parents told you to help you cope with your cognitive issues?

>>1290315
gerrymandering ensure as many people as possible are represented. highly competitive districts are fucking terrible because it means half of the people get disenfranchised. there is no such thing as a moderate in congress, go look at their voting records they all vote party like 85%+ of the time and the only time anyone ever defects is when it doesn't change the outcome of the vote anyway. a good example of that is when the dems voted to give the capital police more money. the squad COULD have nuked the bill, but strategically did no and present votes so it would pass by 1 vote
>but is bad as a natural consequence of a lack of term limits for justices.
lack of term limits for judges is to remove the judges from the political process

>>1290318
>reddit spacing
vote by mail should be banned nation wide. it isn't secure. I have voted in every election aside from one governor election since I turned 18. I have never ever needed to show any documentation to vote. you sound like the same british tranny who couldn't read the BJS gun report

>>1290333
>anti gun faggot cant walk
top fucking keke. vote by mail should be banned. see vid related for evidence of vote by mail voter fraud
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=71-tMMtVWMI

>>1290334
dems are still run by the dnc, retard

>>1290367
>it isn't secure
Then provide evidence it isn't secure. So far your party has had 8 years to prove that its susceptible to fraud or abuse and they can't. Not a single of evidence. You're essentially arguing for a solution to a problem you can't even prove exists.

>>1290331
what did they ban? using malt liquor as ID?>>1290338
>3. Other than the tail end of the Warren court (widely considered basically the single greatest period of the court in the last century),
the warren court was the single worse period in SCOTUS history and every member of that court was a communist piece of shit who hated America

>>1290371
here is the evidence, cripple boi
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=71-tMMtVWMI

>>1290370
>Doubling down on his outdated russian talking points
The sad state of /pol/

>>1290375
the Democratic National Committee is literally the body that organizes and runs the democrat party you complete retard

>>1290371
There's literally been dozens of democrat politicians over the last 4 years that were arrested and either charged with, or convicted of, various types of voter fraud having to do with abuse of the mail in vote system.

The most recent I hear of was 2 months ago or so where the dude was literally only caught because he was raided for financial fraud and the FBI found stacks of mail in ballots at his house and found out that he had registered a bunch of fake people and voted for himself using their names. Wasn't ever caught in any routine audit because this sort of shit can't be caught in routine audits, which only statistically verify through random sampling that the submitted votes were properly counted

>>1290379
>any routine audit because this sort of shit can't be caught in routine audits,
They literally design the audits not to catch anything. County after county is found rigging the audits, any time anyone bothers looking into it.

>>1290379
It's more than just mail in voting. The issue highlighted in that instance is the fact that this person could literally register anyone to vote. The mail in just made it easier for them to submit illegal votes anonymously

>>1290380
They're designed to make sure that the ballots were counted properly. Nothing more or less.

>>1290379
>There's literally been dozens of democrat politicians over the last 4 years that were arrested and either charged with, or convicted of, various types of voter fraud having to do with abuse of the mail in vote system.
This really sheds light on the childishness of your worldview. I didn't ask for cherry picked articles about "various forms of fraud" that confirms your narrative. I asked for evidence that mail in voting is not secure or is succeptible to abuse or fraud. You can't provide the second - all you have is the stream of information you've been fed by right-wing media outlets to fuel your voter fraud narrative. You are a walking, talking chinese bank robber fallacy.

>The most recent I hear of was 2 months ago or so where the dude was literally only caught
Provide evidence, anon. Not stories. Data is built on evidence. Tangible proof that the institution of mail-in-voting is not secure. Not headlines you read on Newsmaxx.

>>1290380
>"The votes were rigged!"
>*audits find no evidence*
>"The audits were rigged!"

Honestly, you people are pathetic.

>>1290382
They aren't designed to do that, either. I'm not going to bother sourcing examples of where this is proven to be bullshit, but there are tons where the election commissioners rig the "public audits" that are supposed to confirm exactly what you're talking about. They have the election workers perform the counts first, and if there's any "anomalies" they just don't include them in the audits.

If the point of the audit is to discover anomalies in the counts, and the people running the audit intentionally exempt them - what are the audits meant to accomplish, exactly? I would argue they only exist to convince the public that the elections are legitimate, and finding problems during the audit process accomplishes the exact opposite, doesn't it?

>>1290386
>I asked for evidence that mail in voting is not secure or is succeptible to abuse or fraud
Bro I literally provided an example in the same post, the subsequent paragraph of mail in voting being exploited by a bad actor, and it only being discovered by accident

>>1290386
>Provide evidence, anon. Not stories. Data is built on evidence. Tangible proof that the institution of mail-in-voting is not secure. Not headlines you read on Newsmaxx.
I can provide an la times article but something tells me that even if I do you will still act like a retard and deflect.

So what do you want? Do you want an article or do you want to act like a retard?

>>1290388
how is the law being enforced an accident

>>1290379
1. You're conflating voter fraud and election fraud
2.
>he most recent I hear of was 2 months ago or so where the dude was literally only caught because he was raided for financial fraud and the FBI found stacks of mail in ballots at his house and found out that he had registered a bunch of fake people and voted for himself using their names
I'll take shit that didn't happen for 500.

Also, and this should go without saying, fake people can't register to vote. Most cases like what you're talking about involve someone using old people or ESLs tricked into either handing over their paperwork to someone that wants to use them to vote fraudulently. Also, it's usually fucking Republicans that get caught doing it cause of course that's who is going to prey on foreigners and the elderly. Also, forcing elderly people to the polls so nobody steals their vote is just going to disenfranchise a ton more of them. If your goal is to have elections represent the will of the fucking people (which it isn't), that's a shitty way to do it.

Also also, most fraud connected to elections is election fraud, not voter fraud, which voter ID will do jack shit about.

>>1290391
>You're conflating voter fraud and election fraud
That's ok, both occur every 2 years like clockwork and sometimes even more often.

>>1290386
you are sealioning. no matter what people send you are going to goal post shift and say it isn't enough evidence that the outcome of the election was changed

>>1290396
>we don't have evidence but if you point it out you're sealioning

>>1290397
>Loud sea lion barking continues

>>1290396
>"You have no evidence"
>*Gives me an excuse for why you can't/won't provide evidence"

I accept your concession.

>>1290398
it must be embarrassing having your job

>>1290399
>>1290397
we've done this song and dance before samefag. there are tons of vote by mail voter fraud news articles. you are just going to say that it isn't enough votes to matter and waste everyone's time

>>1290401
and you're proving that they were caught and the fraud didn't count. thanks for playing faggot

>>1290402
>If they aren't caught that means it never happened
>If they are caught it means it doesn't matter
Yeah, faggot, you're so clever.

>>1290380
>They literally design the audits not to catch anything.
No, they don't, you fucking nutjob. Audits make sure the ballots cast equal the vote totals and the number of votes received equal the number of votes cast and that vote counting machines are working properly, as they are designed to do. And they work that way in every god damn state except Louisiana which produces no paper record of votes, likely all the better to disenfranchise Black people.

About the only thing they don't do is compare signatures to voter records because votes are required to be anonymized after being logged to prevent anyone facing reprisal for voting a particular way. This has been standard practice in America since 1888.

It is however worth noting that those signatures are checked on the fucking way in in the first damn place, you fucking idiot. Also, whether anyone in particular cast a ballot is both logged, and a matter of public record, even if their ballot isn't. This is also used to look for voting and registration irregularities. And abused by dipshits that don't understand 2 people can have the same name to gin up fake fraud controversies.

>>1290403
yes. if people who break the law don't get to break the law without consequences, you don't get to pretend otherwise. but you get paid to do so on this dead board so you'll keep going

>>1290405
>If it lands heads I win, if it lands tails you lose
Isn't it almost shabbat, rabbi?

>>1290402
>if they were never caught it didn't happen
>if they were caught it doesn't count reee
half the county thinks you cheated, best solution would be to enforce strict voter ID and ban vote by mail to restore confidence into elections. All election boards should also be monitored by the RNC

>>1290406
jews lost the argument for you?

>>1290404
yeah, I'm sure that signature verification I am doing with my finger on a touch screen is legit

>>1290407
or stop russian propaganda from being disseminated, but then you'd be out a job

>>1290378
Except the DNC takes a back seat when the Democratic party holds the presidency because Joe Biden is the leader of the party and won the presidency even though Trump staged a coup.
Obviously this would elude you since you're working off 8 year old spoonfed talking points, but I can't expect you to know anything about American politics.

>>1290387
You realize that audit results are public and you're spouting nonsense, right?
>They have the election workers perform the counts first, and if there's any "anomalies" they just don't include them in the audits.
"anomalies" not included in the initial count obviously aren't going to be included in a fucking recount, you fucking idiot. Messed up ballots and shit are set aside and not counted until and unless the person that cast them comes in and cures them.

Also, a vote not being counted isn't going to be fucking stopped with voter id. I actually agree poll workers can be too aggressive with this shit and end up disenfranchising a ton of people, but this is an entirely separate issue.

If you think anything else is going on with "anomalies", you're a fucking idiot. Recounts have to publish new totals. Fraud via ballot manipulation at any scale would show up in a sudden large swing in votes which would then need to be explained. Also, again, not going to be stopped by fucking voter ID.

>>1290411
potato?

>>1290394
I'm glad you live in the world you've constructed for yourself.

>>1290378
>Using literally wrong
>He's an ESL too.
Sad

>>1290410
unlike you and obongo, I'm American
>>1290411
biden has dementia. he isn't leading the party. one of the main themes of the biden admin is that none of the people making decisions were elected or confirmed. its entirely figureheads
>Trump staged a coup.
when?

>>1290415
>The Democratic National Committee (DNC) is the principal committee of the United States Democratic Party. The committee coordinates strategy to support Democratic Party candidates throughout the country for local, state, and national office, as well as works to establish a "party brand".[1] It organizes the Democratic National Convention held every four years to nominate candidates for President and Vice President of the United States and to formulate the party platform. While it provides support for party candidates, it does not have direct authority over elected officials.[2] When a Democrat is president, the White House controls the Committee. According to Boris Heersink, "political scientists have traditionally described the parties’ national committees as inconsequential but impartial service providers."[3][4]

>>1290417
nothing says american like feeling the need to convince people you're american

>>1290409
>yeah, I'm sure that signature verification I am doing with my finger on a touch screen is legit
I'm talking about signature verification on mail in ballots.

In person voter fraud isn't a thing that matters, rarely happens, and can't be done at scale. God, if you're worried about someone running around to different polling places or cycling outfits with a bunch of stolen IDs, you're a complete nutter.

Everyone knows the only point to requiring in person voter ID is to go after mail in ballots. You sound insane claiming in person voter fraud is a real problem.

>>1290418
Come on man, you know better than this.

>>1290420
>complete nutter.
>britfag, an expert in US elections
sure, sure.

>>1290419
I just like pointing out obongo was born in kenya and is jewish
>>1290421
again, biden has dementia, he isn't running shit. he isn't even pretending to be running shit, the biden admin has talked about letting the bureaucrats work

>>1290423
>britfag
I'm a Hoosier, m8.

>>1290424
do you think they'll ever move you to a livelier board, or will you always be this lackluster of a shill

>>1290421
>>1290424
I meant why are you taking the time to argue with that gigantic faggot trying to say the DNC and Democrats are not the same thing.

>>1290420
>I'm talking about signature verification on mail in ballots.
yeah, I'm sure my signature matches when I signed with my finger on a touch screen at the DMV
> cycling outfits with a bunch of stolen IDs,
you literally do not need an ID to vote. I've never in all my times voting ever been asked to present my ID to vote. I literally intentionally go to the polls without any ID on me
>you're a complete nutter.
why didn't you lead with the fact you are a bong and your opinion is irrelevant. /news/ needs flags

>>1290428
you can go back to pol if you like flags

>>1290427
waiting for slopdown to start so I can get upset they only show IYO SKY for 5 mins at 9:45

>>1290425
lol I don't think so, faggot.

>>1290429
every board on the site should have flags

>>1290355
>anon is too lazy to leave his house
>this is somehow "vote suppression"
libtard headcanon is wild

>>1290432
and polfags such as yourself should stay on their containment board but that's not going to happen either
>inb4 "pol is so popular"

>>1290435
/pol/ website. always has been, always will be. don't like it, reddit is that way

>>1290434
nice logical fallacy there bud. real convincing

>>1290428
>when I signed with my finger on a touch screen at the DMV
One of the many reasons I hate signature verification. It causes tons of VALID ballots to get thrown out in an attempt to catch fraud that virtually never happens. It is an overly aggressive process.

>>1290428
>you literally do not need an ID to vote
You're confusing ID and photo ID

>>1290428
>why didn't you lead with the fact you are a bong
Because I'm not, nutter

>>1290436
nobody likes you and you'll die alone unless you stop being a polfag, miserable faggot

>>1290431
You don't think? Sounds about right.

>>1290418
>political scientists have traditionally described the parties’ national committees as inconsequential

>>1290437
>muh fallacy
i accept your concession

>>1290442
>logical fallacies are actually good
/news/ is truly amateur hour

>>1290417
>Going back to the debunked claim that Biden is demented when Trump rambles incoherently every day and his brain and hands are being eaten away by syphilis

>>1290443
He's a /pol/ tourists, they have the fallacy chart pinned for good reason.

>>1290445
>schizoposting
every thread

>>1290446
>/pol/ppet bootyblasted that he's been exposed

>>1290447
>schizoposting

>>1290438
>One of the many reasons I hate signature verification. It causes tons of VALID ballots to get thrown out in an attempt to catch fraud that virtually never happens. It is an overly aggressive process.
there is a ton of voter fraud. no one should be allowed to vote except in person and with their drivers license
>You're confusing ID and photo ID
I am not. When I vote I do not need any documentation on me. I walk in, stand on a line based on where my address is, say my name, sign a screen (used to be paper) and then vote. I have never needed any proof of me being who I say I am to vote.
>Because I'm not, nutter
you are clearly nigel, the bong who is a democrat and cares about us politics too much where as I don't even know who your current queen is

>>1290450
>/pol/ppet raging still

>>1290452
>schizoposting

>>1290439
not an argument, tranny fag
>>1290441
it literally says the white house is controlling the committee. DNC runs the dems. plus its shorthand for communists

>>1290444
trump is in amazing shape physically and mentally. biden and sanders have dementia

>>1290454
If the white house controls the DNC, it means the white house runs the democratic party.
You just destroyed your own argument silly republican fascist,

>>1290451
>you are clearly nigel, the bong who is a democrat and cares about us politics too much where as I don't even know who your current queen is
lol.

>>1290457
republicans aren't fascists you retard. fascism hasn't existed since 1945. DNC is shorthand for dems

>>1290456
>trump is in amazing shape physically and mentally
https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/20/politics/nikki-haley-donald-trump-mental-fitness/index.html

>>1290462
>Republican fascist in damage control
>Still pushing Russian fascist propaganda

>>1290464
nikki haley is a russian plant
>>1290465
russia is communist . GOP has never been fascist, they are pro gun

>>1290467
Nah, Russia is fascist state under Putin, just like the Republicans and trump are fascists and fully supporting Russia.

>>1290451
>with their drivers license
You realize not everyone drives, right?

>say my name
That's an ID, m8. You literally have to produce an ID registered to vote at that polling place. You can't just cast an anonymous ballot or vote wherever the fuck you want. It won't be counted. God damn are you stupid.

Also
>I literally intentionally go to the polls without any ID on me
Driving without a license is illegal. So you're also criminal scum.

>>1290470
>say my name
>That's an ID, m8.
Lol are you faggot shills actually trying?

>>1290469
putin is a communist. trump and the GOP are antifascist. they are pro gun

>>1290471
you wouldn't be registered without having a valid id in the first place. you'd know if you were american

>>1290473
Wrong on all counts, Putin is a fascist and Republicans and Trump are fascist. also Trump had murdered a US citizen who was Anti fascist on US soil too.

>>1290474
>you'd know if you were american
Whatever you say britfag.

>>1290470
>You realize not everyone drives, right?
if you can't drive you shouldn't vote.
>That's an ID, m8.
saying a name isn't an id nigel. holy shit you are retarded
>You literally have to produce an ID registered to vote at that polling place. You can't just cast an anonymous ballot or vote wherever the fuck you want. It won't be counted. God damn are you stupid.
you literally don't know what you are talking about you retarded faggot, nigel. you don't register to vote at the polling place. you register to vote at the DMV or at high school. I have never had to bring my ID in with me to vote
>Driving without a license is illegal. So you're also criminal scum.
I can walk to my polling place, retard

>>1290476
are you hallucinating flags again, polfag?

>>1290474
you register at the dmv, not at the polls
>>1290475
trump never murdered any US citizen. obongo drone striked US citizens. putin and russia are communists. trump and the GOP are pro gun and therefore antiauthoritarian. also they are right wing and fascism is far left

>>1290479
are you trying to pass off your rudimentary understanding of voter registration as proof that you're not an obvious shill? the dmv is not the only place you register, nor is high school

>>1290479
Michael Reinoehl was a US citizen and was assassinated by the fascist regime of Trump. Interesting enough, Micheal was an actual ANTIFA and killed a fascist who attacked him in self defense. Yet, you're find with defending this and smearing Micheal.

>>1290480
you are british so you don't understand how the US works. I've never seen anyone register to vote at the fire station. I've never seen anyone show their IDs at the fire station

>>1290481
>Michael Reinoehl
pretty sure that was a communist terrorist who was trying to mass murder Americans

>>1290484
>Resorts to smearing Micheal, an Antifa who was forced to kill a fascist in self defense and justifying Trump assassinating him on US soil
Good job proving my point that Trump and the republicans are fascists.

>>1290485
antifa is literally a communist terrorist group

>>1290482
here you go arguing with voices in your head again

>>1290486
>Being against fascism means you're a communist.
This is your brain on fascism. Also I accept your concessions.

>>1290391
>I'll take shit that didn't happen for 500.
Suck my dick
https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2024-03-18/a-california-city-councilman-went-to-prison-for-voter-fraud-then-right-wing-election-conspiracies-took-over
>Former Lodi City Council member Shakir Khan pleaded “no contest” in January to felony charges, including election fraud, after the San Joaquin County Sheriff’s Office said it found 41 sealed, completed ballots in his home and about 70 people registered to vote using his address, phone number or email.
>Former Lodi City Council member Shakir Khan pleaded "no contest" in January to felony charges, including election fraud, after the San Joaquin County Sheriff's Office said it found 41 sealed, completed ballots in his home and about 70 people registered to vote using his address, phone number or email
This is why they raided his house. It was totally unrelated to voter fraud, he just happened to be yet another corrupt democrat politician and when they raided his home for financial fraud they found stacks of illegal ballots
>https://web.archive.org/web/20240406045143/https://www.recordnet.com/story/news/local/2021/09/28/lodi-official-shakir-khan-arraigned-money-laundering-tax-evasion-illegal-gambling-edd-fraud/5902184001/

>>1290488
antifa isn't against fascism. they are against democracy. they are communist agents
>>1290487
not an argument, nigel

>>1290489
so no widespread fraud

Once again, we'll probably have actual legal scholars -- left, right, and center -- explaining why presidential immunity needs to be a thing that's readily applied (can't be criminally prosecuted for actions during war, etc.), but people still won't be able to wrap their heads around it. The question is what Trump was or wasn't doing that's actually under the purview of the president of the United States. The people who are mad at the idea of any form of presidential immunity or mad because SCOTUS needs to carefully go over the ramifications here aren't thinking correctly.

>>1290489
1. That's election fraud
2.
>There were no “fake” voters or dead people registered to vote, according to San Joaquin County deputies, who said Khan’s focus was winning his own election to the nonpartisan Lodi City Council, which oversees a population of about 67,000.

>While running for City Council in 2020, Khan pressured people to vote for him, sometimes registering them to vote, filling out ballots for them, forging their signatures and collecting their information without their knowledge of his intent to illegally vote on their behalf, according to the San Joaquin County Sheriff’s Office, which conducted the investigation that led to his arraignment last year.
Fucking idiot.

>>1290492
>The people who are mad at the idea of any form of presidential immunity or mad because SCOTUS needs to carefully go over the ramifications here aren't thinking correctly.
Nobody believes presidents shouldn't have special exemptions; the libshits think only Democrat presidents should qualify. You can see it plainly here with the faggots that will excuse Obama drone striking a 16 year old US citizen without trial in Yemen, a country we shouldn't even be in.

But all is forgiven if you're a Democrat.

>>1290477
>if you can't drive you shouldn't vote.
If you can't think, you shouldn't vote

>saying a name isn't an id nigel
ID
/ˌīˈdē/
noun
noun: ID; plural noun: IDs
identification; identity.
"they weren't carrying any ID"

>you don't register to vote at the polling place
I didn't say you do, ESL.

>>1290493
...your entire argument is hinging on semantics and the idea that it wasn't fake people he registered to vote at his address, but real people?

Give me a fucking break retard

>>1290494
>Nobody believes presidents shouldn't have special exemptions
I believe that. No kings. Eat shit.

>>1290497
>but Obama did nothing wrong
Yeah, I know already faggot.

>>1290493
Well, whatever your cope is now I don't care.
The dude committed some flavor of fraud involving sending in illegal votes for himself and was caught by accident because he was raided for commiting democrat fraud in other areas of his life as well

Don't care what your cope is. Living people, fake people, it doesn't matter. The system was unable to proactively detect his fraud.

>>1290495
>If you can't think, you shouldn't vote
if you can't drive you cant think
>"they weren't carrying any ID"
yeah, I've never carried ID to vote
>I didn't say you do, ESL.
only ESL here is you nigel, you are from bongland, not the US

>>1290496
>...your entire argument is hinging on semantics and the idea that it wasn't fake people he registered to vote at his address, but real people?
Yes, my entire argument hinges on the fact that you need valid living breathing voters to be registered, for them not to vote, and for you to get your hands on those ballots. Making any large scale voter fraud attempt impossible and our elections secure enough to have confidence in their outcomes. Half of what you said happened, just flat out didn't happen.

The very idea that fake people were voting is ridiculous and would imply a radical weakness in our voting system. This motherfucker had to personally involve dozens of people in a small community in an amateurish scheme that ended up discovered.

Eat a dick.

>>1290498
>but Obama did nothing wrong
Can you articulate a crime he committed?

>>1290502
Yeah, in the first post you responded to.
>>1290494
>You can see it plainly here with the faggots that will excuse Obama drone striking a 16 year old US citizen without trial in Yemen, a country we shouldn't even be in.
You're welcome again, lying faggot.

>>1290499
>Living people, fake people, it doesn't matter.
I know. Because you don't care about what you're arguing because it's a false pretense.

>>1290500
i think your script is repeating by now

>>1290500
>if you can't drive you cant think
t. a person that can't drive to the polls

>>1290503
The government waging war isn't a crime. This is like treating a cop arresting you as assault.

>>1290506
>The government waging war isn't a crime.
When did we declare war on Yemen?
When did 16 year old noncombatants become fair game?
Oh, I remember. He's a nigger and a Democrat, so we're going to pretend.

>>1290506
I can drive to the polls. polling state in legit a 5 min walk from my house so why bother?

>>1290507
why are the new brown poltards such as yourself racist toward brown people, doesn't make much sense

>>1290501
>Half of what you said happened, just flat out didn't happen.
The half you made up? Because what I said happened exactly as I said it unless if your trying to split hairs between the terms voter fraud and election fraud

>>1290501
>Half of what you said happened, just flat out didn't happen.
>Eat a dick.
Let's be clear before you start eating a dick, anon
I said:
>The most recent I hear of was 2 months ago or so where the dude was literally only caught because he was raided for financial fraud and the FBI found stacks of mail in ballots at his house and found out that he had registered a bunch of fake people and voted for himself using their names. Wasn't ever caught in any routine audit because this sort of shit can't be caught in routine audits, which only statistically verify through random sampling that the submitted votes were properly counted
And literally the only word I had wrong in there when I typed it from memory was "fake" when I should have said "unknowing"

That literally makes 99% of what I said 100% accurate, the only thing that was "fake" was the addresses of the voters he registered to vote for him, not the people themselves

>>1290510
>why yes i am lying, but how dare you not let me lie

>>1290490
>The group called Anti Fascist aren't against fascism.
I see you English language eludes you. But that's expected from the Fascist Republicans who think God is in the US Constitution.

>>1290512
Go eat your dick. You deserve it already

It's pretty obvious all of these frivolous lawsuits will eventually get thrown out anyway, The only purpose of these fake charges and lawsuits is to stop him from being president. The SCOTUS is just putting their foot down to stop the clown show.

>>1290515
>Criminal charges
>Frivolous lawsuits
/pol/ ain't sending their best.

>>1290516
Tranny, I know you're arguing in bad faith, but it is possible to have fake and frivolous charges filed as criminal charges for political purposes. It doesn't matter if you file 100 fake criminal charges against a person if none of them are real and they all get thrown out in court.

>>1290517
>/pol/ brainrot projecting
You don't even need to bother reading past the the 8 words.

>>1290517
>>1290515
Imagine putting this much time and energy to simp for a corrupt New York real estate billionaire who gives absolutely zero shits about you.

>>1290519
Conservatives are naturally brainwashed, a lot of them actually think the word 'god' appears in the Constitution.
https://www.rawstory.com/trump-supporter-silent-cnn-god-constitution/

>>1290513
so you agree the nazis were far left socialists? cool.

>>1290527
Correct. Leftism is inherently authoritarian

>>1290527
>>1290532
>Republicans in charge of scapegoating others for their crimes.
A reminder that Nazis, Confederates and Loyalists are all under the conservative banner because they're all far right groups.

>>1290532
True, just look at the modern day liberal's priorities:
-imprisoning their political opponents
-disarming the people
-supporting Genocide in Gaza
The left are the new nazis

>>1290539
>he still thinks the american right wing is pro gaza
LOL

>>1290539
Good post

>>1290539
You mean conservatives based on how they're assaulting peaceful protestors, again.
https://thehill.com/homenews/education/4624778-state-student-protests-red-vs-blue-israel-gaza-hamas/

>>1290555
>pro-hamas protestors
Ftfy

>>1290556
>Conservatives in charge of a smear campaign too

>>1290556
Speaking of your mental disorders. Christian supremacists came out of their hole to make things worse.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/columbia-go-back-to-gaza-pro-israel-protest-sean-feucht-christian-nationalist_n_662be69fe4b0bd041d779f73

>>1290560
You mean Conservatives idolize terrorists with the boogaloo false flags and the Failed Trump Coup.

>>1290556
Liberals idolize Hamas and aspire to be like them. See: 20 killed by democrat voters in 2020 George Floyd terrorisr riots

>>1290561
>schizoposting

>>1290558
>Christian supremacists came out of their hole to make things worse.
Yes, and now we're entering politics.
You did this. This is your fault.

>>1290562
Liberals are just openly embracing anti-semitism and supporting hamas terrorists now. Scratch a liberal a nazi bleeds

>>1290567
don't you have alms to give to your super church

>>1290567
>Victim blaming
Fascism 101

>>1290539
>-imprisoning their political opponents
Trump wants to do that and murder everyone
https://www.thedailybeast.com/barr-trump-brought-up-things-like-executing-rivals-a-lot
Nice projection.

>>1290536
all of those were far, far left groups.
Nazis were the National Socialist German Workers' Party
confederates were democrats
loyalists loved paying taxes and giving up their guns to the king, where as patriots were pro gun and refused to pay taxes.

>>1290558
>>1290555
thats the dems. I live in an area by jews and when the muslims tried to do a palistinian protest the jewish dems sent half the cops in the state here to put them down and then the jewish mayor put on the front page of his newpaper that of course he owned that everyone should buy a gun for protection against muslims

>>1290579
>>1290580
no one believes you

>>1290580
>>1290579
The classic far right fascist big lie.

>>1290574
>Trump wants to do that and murder everyone
As evidenced by all the people he put in prison while he was president, like Hillary Clinton.

>>1290585
>>1290581
samefag

Repugnicans having a meltdown

>>1290587
No one said he was a competent fascist.

>another anti-drumpf temper tantrum thread dies to the sound of shills samefagging

I love knowing these cretins are forced to post on this board every day because they failed so spectacularly in life, this is the only way they can earn a meal ticket

Canada sure is economically fucked, eh

>>1290618
>/pol/ seething

>>1290622
>/news/ seething
>everyone I don't like is /pol/
How does it feel to have no control over this board?

>>1290579
True

>>1290624
Acknowledging you aren't a /news/ poster isn't gonna do much to dissuade the idea that you're a seething /pol/tard.

>>1290511
Accurate

>>1290647

>>1290005
retarded leftists didn't even watch the trial. Supreme court justices asked why trump is being trialed when previous presidents who did much worst weren't this was the procecutor's answer " it wasn't a crime then but it would be today"

Aka special rules by the leftists to prosecute a political opponent.

Also anyone following the prostitute payment trial knows its complete bullshit they're trying to say he influenced the election by paying off a prostitute because it would've led to female voters not liking him knowing he hired a prostitute. Tax evasion to pay a prostitute is just a misdemeanor not a felony so they tried to up it and it just looks pathetic

>>1290169
meanwhile you're going around trying to assault people with bikelocks and explosives claiming they're facists because of some mentally ill strawman perception.

>>1290754
>What is my headcannon

>>1290754
>>1290752
Good posts

Libcucks lose, cope, seethe and dilate once again over orange man rad NOT going to jail? I thought we had him this time Biden sisters?