Is Trump Eligible to Run Again?

[Methais]

What list?

[Seran]

Dear Welfare loser:

You are wrong. You are retarded. You have never been right.


In his appeal in the federal election theft case, Trump makes two arguments. The first is that he has permanent absolute immunity from criminal prosecution

Trump is not arguing that he has "total immunity from everything"... he is saying he has immunity from when he was President.

"Trump is not arguing he has total immunity, he is arguing he has ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY. It's different because I say so." ~PB.

It's obvious you don't even read your posts, you contradict yourself everytime. There is no Constitutional immunity for Presidents, period. Thus there is no legal argument. You want to argue there is? Cite it. We'll wait a decade or two for you to figure out it doesn't exist if needed.

[Suppressed Poet]

What list?

The list. The ones we know that traveled to the island. Yeah I read the same Vox article. Don’t minimize it.

[Seran]

The very reason the Founders didn't want to grant absolutely immunity to the office of the President was they did not want to create a Monarch. What you're arguing, without Constitutional citation is the very thing the Founders designed the Constitution to avoid.

[ClydeR]

The list.

I'm not going to engage in guilt by association. A lot of people are pointing to this video of Trump at a party with young cheerleaders, where Trump is desperately trying to win Epstein's approval by pointing out to Esptein which cheerleaders are, in Trump's words, "hot." I won't be a part of that. Nor will you ever catch me taking cheap shots at Trump for his 2002 statement when Trump said, "I've known Jeff for fifteen years. Terrific guy. He's a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side. No doubt about it—Jeffrey enjoys his social life."

[Parkbandit]

"Trump is not arguing he has total immunity, he is arguing he has ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY. It's different because I say so." ~PB.

It's obvious you don't even read your posts, you contradict yourself everytime. There is no Constitutional immunity for Presidents, period. Thus there is no legal argument. You want to argue there is? Cite it. We'll wait a decade or two for you to figure out it doesn't exist if needed.

There's no contradiction in my post at all.. you just have to have an IQ above 12... which leaves you out.

Trump is arguing that while he was President, he has immunity. This totals 4 years.

Trump is not arguing that because he was once President, he has immunity from everything. This totals 77 years.

77 is not the same as 4. You know this because you can count (with some help) to 4 on your fingers. You will never be able to count to 77.

[Parkbandit]

I'm not going to engage in guilt by association. A lot of people are pointing to this video of Trump at a party with young cheerleaders, where Trump is desperately trying to win Epstein's approval by pointing out to Esptein which cheerleaders are, in Trump's words, "hot." I won't be a part of that. Nor will you ever catch me taking cheap shots at Trump for his 2002 statement when Trump said, "I've known Jeff for fifteen years. Terrific guy. He's a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side. No doubt about it—Jeffrey enjoys his social life."

"I'm not going to engage in guilt by association" and then proceeds to engage in guilt by association.

You sniveling little pussy you.

[Parkbandit]

The very reason the Founders didn't want to grant absolutely immunity to the office of the President was they did not want to create a Monarch. What you're arguing, without Constitutional citation is the very thing the Founders designed the Constitution to avoid.

I'm not arguing anything. I'm stating a fact.

Try counting to 77. That's a monumental task for you.

Now try counting to 4. With some assistance, it's probably not too hard for you.

See how they are different?

Please don't turn this into digging in your high heels and defending a stupid position.

[Suppressed Poet]

I'm not going to engage in guilt by association. A lot of people are pointing to this video of Trump at a party with young cheerleaders, where Trump is desperately trying to win Epstein's approval by pointing out to Esptein which cheerleaders are, in Trump's words, "hot." I won't be a part of that. Nor will you ever catch me taking cheap shots at Trump for his 2002 statement when Trump said, "I've known Jeff for fifteen years. Terrific guy. He's a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side. No doubt about it—Jeffrey enjoys his social life."

Sounds like you just did.

If there is clear evidence of a person visiting Epstein’s island, there is a very high probability they had sex with minors. What you suggested isn’t quite at the same level of damnation. That’s slightly below Biden’s repeated involuntary sniffing of little girl’s hair on live TV.

Anyways, I’m not here for a political pissing match on the topic of pedophilia. We shouldn’t tolerate it as a society. That’s my point.

[Parkbandit]

Sounds like you just did.

If there is clear evidence of a person visiting Epstein’s island, there is a very high probability they had sex with minors. What you suggested isn’t quite at the same level of damnation. That’s slightly below Biden’s repeated involuntary sniffing of little girl’s hair on live TV.

Anyways, I’m not here for a political pissing match on the topic of pedophilia. We shouldn’t tolerate it as a society. That’s my point.

I saw an Instagram video last night about how Epstein's little black book has been in the hands of the Director of the FBI now for 4-5 years... he has wielded that power for that entire time.

Imagine how many politicians and celebrities he has coerced to do whatever he wants them to do.