We will see if the SCOTUS is fair or Bias On Jan 6th Decision.

[Cody69]

Donald Trump's lawyers have hung their defense of his role in the Jan. 6 insurrection on a line from his speech at the "Stop the Steal" rally at the Ellipse, but a trio of legal experts say the broader record of his statements and actions undermines that argument.

"We expect prosecutors will explain to the jurors why the sentence in the Ellipse speech is, in actuality, more incriminating than exculpatory when understood in context," they wrote. "Indeed, evidence uncovered by the January 6th Select Committee shows that Trump deliberately and repeatedly implored his followers to 'fight' – and was reticent to use the word 'peaceful' at all. Recent revelations of evidence gathered by Special Counsel Jack Smith will also help prove the case."

So we will see if they do the right thing, or let him get away with another Treason Act.

[Cody69]

How many trips and gifts will Clearance Thomas be promised with this case that Trump is involved in?

I wonder what the other MAGA's will get? John G. Roberts, Jr. is more of a straight shooter. He can go both ways. He is more about the law then gifts.

[Salty Again]

... I, for one - surely believe that the Supreme Court
will be very fair, mate...

#### Salty

[Jacuzzme]

Judgements aren’t biased because you don’t like them. The true biased justices are all on the left, they march in lockstep like good little commies. Every vote from them is 100% predictable, one doesn’t even have to read their opinions to know what’s in them. The same can’t be said Republican appointees, who are actually free thinkers and make decisions based on their interpretation of the law, not the prevailing political winds.

[bambino]

All of the bogus cases against Trump will fail. Because they’re bogus. Always have, always will be.

[tommy156]

Originally Posted by Jacuzzme

Judgements aren’t biased because you don’t like them. The true biased justices are all on the left

aka How To Contradict Yourself In Just 17 Words

[tommy156]

Originally Posted by bambino

All of the bogus cases against Trump will fail. Because they’re bogus. Always have, always will be.

He's facing 91 felony indictments and the DOJ has a 98% conviction rate. Good luck with that

[Jacuzzme]

Originally Posted by tommy156

aka How To Contradict Yourself In Just 17 Words

Show me a politically charged case where one of the dem appointed judges crossed over and voted with the more conservative justices. I can show you many the other way.

[bambino]

Originally Posted by tommy156

He's facing 91 felony indictments and the DOJ has a 98% conviction rate. Good luck with that

No luck needed. Haven’t you learned your lesson from Mueller and Impeachments? I guess you haven’t. But I’m not surprised. You just can’t figure out what’s going on. Maybe someday you will.

[tommy156]

Originally Posted by Jacuzzme

Show me a politically charged case where one of the dem appointed judges crossed over and voted with the more conservative justices. I can show you many the other way.

It's easy for the occasional conservative justice to cross over when they have a 6-3 majority and they know it won't tip the scales. Any time they do that with this majority, it's all for show.

Besides, there's not a chance in hell of Alito of Thomas ever crossing over anyway. They are just as biased as anyone you claim is on the left. When's the last time either of them crossed over? They never have. They leave it to the show ponies. It's all a rouse to give the illusion of bipartisanship.

[DNinja69]

Trump incited a riot. It is not hard math to do and while I don't support the idea of prosecuting him for it I do feel the courtroom of public opinion will remember it correctly.

I do feel the questions around the events of Jan 6 should be put to some legal tests and examination it should not be on an election timeline and if voters decide Trump is our next President then the people whose voice matters most have spoken.

[tommy156]

Originally Posted by DNinja69

Trump incited a riot. It is not hard math to do and while I don't support the idea of prosecuting him for it I do feel the courtroom of public opinion will remember it correctly.

I do feel the questions around the events of Jan 6 should be put to some legal tests and examination it should not be on an election timeline and if voters decide Trump is our next President then the people whose voice matters most have spoken.

The POTUS incites a riot, attempts to overthrow the government and overturn a free and fair election, thus robbing millions of American citizens of their votes ... and you don't think he should be prosecuted for it?? So, he truly is above the law, in your opinion?

[DNinja69]

Originally Posted by tommy156

The POTUS incites a riot, attempts to overthrow the government and overturn a free and fair election, thus robbing millions of American citizens of their votes ... and you don't think he should be prosecuted for it?? So, he truly is above the law, in your opinion?

I think we agree on the facts of what Trump attempted and no I do not believe he was above the law but sometimes justice takes different forms. On some level Trump had a duty to investigate election fraud and his powers as sitting President provided a vast network and authority to do that and if he is guilty of the tampering included in the Georgia indictments deserves to be convicted though jail time won't happen people on his level of influence seldom see those consequences.

At the end of the day he only attempted to deny the peaceful transfer of power and history will remember him for it though the deniers are going to try to write that history in ways that will be seen as him getting off so I understand what you are saying but in this circumstance I tend to lean on the idea that a sitting President should only be subject to legal consequences in a select few situations.

If there was a functional Democrat running for re-election right now Trump would have no chance. But that is what what we are facing so the shitshow is going be very real and quite unfortunate no matter how it plays out in my opinion

[tommy156]

Originally Posted by DNinja69

At the end of the day he only attempted to deny the peaceful transfer of power and history will remember him for it though the deniers are going to try to write that history in ways that will be seen as him getting off so I understand what you are saying but in this circumstance I tend to lean on the idea that a sitting President should only be subject to legal consequences in a select few situations.

He did a lot more than simply attempting "to deny the peaceful transfer of power", but even that is enough to never allow him near the White House again.

The peaceful transfer of power is literally a cornerstone of American values. It's one of the 4 or 5 things that truly makes America great. And on Jan 6, that fucktard couldn't even do that right.

He's a traitor, through and through. The "greatness" of this country has taken a major hit by even allowing him to run again.

[DNinja69]

You are not wrong and I agree that he cannot be trusted in a position of power within our government. He shows no remorse and has only learned through the process that he can talk and buy his way out of most things in ways the average American will never be in a position to do.

Unfortunately many of the legal tests involved needed to have been initiated years sooner but that is not how it went down. He is entitled due process and I continue to try and stay in realistic terms with regard to what can be done in the effort to hold him accountable. He certainly has not paid nearly enough for his bad deeds.