Serious Trump was just indicted again! (3 Viewers)

[D.O.A.]

For cutting the tags off a mattress!

tl;dr eat a dick you leftist fags

Clarence Thomas swipes at Special Counsel Jack Smith's appointment in SCOTUS immunity case

In a concurring opinion in former President Trump's immunity case, one Supreme Court justice questioned whether Jack Smith was constitutionally appointed.

www.foxnews.com

Democrats Warn: Immunity Decision Will Let Presidents Go After Political Opponents

Democrats implied Monday that former President Donald Trump could pursue his political opponents, legally, if he returns to the White House.

www.breitbart.com

Democrats Hint At Assassination In Response To Supreme Court Immunity Decision | ZeroHedge

ZeroHedge - On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero

www.zerohedge.com

 

[deviant2]

He was not constitutionally appointed.

In case some folks don't know... Rep. Thomas Massie just recently lost his wife. She allegedly died suddenly, she was in her mid fifty's.

 

[dudebroseph]

Mid fiddy's

 

[deviant2]

Judge Cannon has been criticized for considering a threshold challenge to Jack Smith's appointment.

Justice Thomas just supported that challenge in his concurrence, writing...

" I am not sure that any office for the Special Counsel has been ‘established by Law,’ as the Constitution requires. By requiring that Congress create federal offices ‘by Law,’ the Constitution imposes an important check against the President – he cannot create offices at his pleasure...If there is no law establishing the office that the Special Counsel occupies, then he cannot proceed with this prosecution."


ALSO President Trump has been granted immunity, add to that the SCOTUS rulings, the indictments pertaining to incitement, of which he was not specifically charged, requires ALL J6 prisoners released immediately.
_________________________________
"Chevron is overruled. Courts must exercise their independent judgment in deciding whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority, as the [Administrative Procedure Act] requires", Roberts wrote. The chief justice called the earlier decision a "judicial invention that required judges to disregard their statutory duties."

" This one is clear as can be..."within its statutory authority".

"Statutory authority only applies to commerce.
They cannot regulate private activity only commerce."

Statutory only applies to the PERSON OF...

" The PERSON OF is a MECHANISM they created to commercialize people so that they can circumvent your rights. "

______________________________

Next one: J6

“Nothing in the text or statutory history suggests that (the law) is designed to impose up to 20 years’ imprisonment on essentially all defendants who commit obstruction of justice in any way and who might be subject to lesser penalties under more specific obstruction statutes,” Roberts wrote.

_________________________________11:35p

**Thank goodness for these SCOTUS rulings, even though not unanimous.
If they had gone the other way, there's no court to appeal too and our rights as we know them would have been lost forever. Took them long enough, but alas moving through this much shit in under 4 years, following the chain of command is how it must be done. They followed the constitution and the bill of rights and ruled accordingly. FINALLY!!!**
~dev

 

[deviant2]