"Judge Cannon and JD Vance Are on the Same Team"

By Jesse Wegman

July 23, 2024, 5:02 a.m. ET

In the days since Judge Aileen Cannon issued her inexplicable 93-page dismissal
of the classified-documents case against Donald Trump, I’ve been coming back to
something JD Vance said on a podcast in 2021.

Mr. Vance, the Ohio senator and now Mr. Trump’s running mate, predicted on the
podcast that the former president, who had been recently disgraced by his
insurrectionary attempt to overturn the 2020 election, would nevertheless run
again in 2024. Should Mr. Trump win, Mr. Vance said, he had some advice: “Fire
every single midlevel bureaucrat, every civil servant in the administrative
state, replace them with our people.” And if the courts ruled against him? No
problem, Mr. Vance said: Just blow them off.

“We are in a late republican period,” he added, alluding to weakness in the
ancient Roman Republic. “If we’re going to push back against it, we have to get
pretty wild, and pretty far out there, and go in directions that a lot of
conservatives right now are uncomfortable with.”

His interviewer, Jack Murphy, prominent in the right-wing pro-masculinity world,
agreed and said, “Among some of my circle, the phrase ‘extra-constitutional’ has
come up quite a bit.” Mr. Murphy said it was necessary “to become a little more
robust in our behavior” in order to “refound the country,” and Mr. Vance
responded, “That’s exactly right.”

In the days since Judge Aileen Cannon issued her inexplicable 93-page dismissal
of the classified-documents case against Donald Trump, I’ve been coming back to
something JD Vance said on a podcast in 2021.

Mr. Vance, the Ohio senator and now Mr. Trump’s running mate, predicted on the
podcast that the former president, who had been recently disgraced by his
insurrectionary attempt to overturn the 2020 election, would nevertheless run
again in 2024. Should Mr. Trump win, Mr. Vance said, he had some advice: “Fire
every single midlevel bureaucrat, every civil servant in the administrative
state, replace them with our people.” And if the courts ruled against him? No
problem, Mr. Vance said: Just blow them off.

“We are in a late republican period,” he added, alluding to weakness in the
ancient Roman Republic. “If we’re going to push back against it, we have to get
pretty wild, and pretty far out there, and go in directions that a lot of
conservatives right now are uncomfortable with.”

His interviewer, Jack Murphy, prominent in the right-wing pro-masculinity world,
agreed and said, “Among some of my circle, the phrase ‘extra-constitutional’ has
come up quite a bit.” Mr. Murphy said it was necessary “to become a little more
robust in our behavior” in order to “refound the country,” and Mr. Vance
responded, “That’s exactly right.”

This exchange — with its disregard for the rule of law, its mockery of expertise
and its elevation of outcome over process — gets to the heart of what is so
alarming about the dismissal of the documents case, which had been widely
regarded as the most airtight of the prosecutions of Mr. Trump. (As a reminder:
He removed large quantities of classified national security documents from the
White House without authorization, he refused to return them when asked
politely, and he lied to the officials who tried to collect them.)

Judge Cannon’s rationale for tossing the case was that Jack Smith, the special
prosecutor who brought the charges, was not validly appointed to his post
because no federal law authorizes the appointment of someone from outside the
Justice Department to perform that task. “Mr. Smith is a private citizen
exercising the full power of a United States attorney, and with very little
oversight or supervision,” she wrote.

To support this argument, she relied heavily on a concurrence in Trump v. United
States, a two-week old Supreme Court ruling that, without an ounce of
constitutional support, effectively immunized Mr. Trump and future presidents
from criminal prosecution. The concurrence, by Justice Clarence Thomas,
questioned the constitutionality of Mr. Smith’s appointment — an issue that was
not even before the court in that case. “If there is no law establishing the
office that the special counsel occupies, then he cannot proceed with this
prosecution,” Justice Thomas wrote.

As a matter of law and fact, this is not merely wrong, it is flagrantly,
embarrassingly wrong. Federal law explicitly authorizes the attorney general to
appoint prosecutors like Mr. Smith, which makes him not a private citizen but an
official of the Justice Department, subject to the same oversight as every other
prosecutor. It is not a close or complicated legal question.

The Supreme Court itself blessed the arrangement in a 1974 case that unanimously
upheld a subpoena issued to President Richard Nixon by Leon Jaworski, the
special counsel investigating the Watergate break-in. In the decades since,
lower courts, including the influential federal appeals court in Washington,
have reaffirmed the principle, and presidential administrations of both parties
have appointed special counsels without issue.

Judge Cannon vaulted over all of this inconvenient history. The court’s
reference to the special counsel in the Nixon case was “dicta,” she argued, a
legal term meaning it was not part of the official holding in the case and thus
not binding law. She managed to reach this conclusion even though courts have
long understood the reference to be essential to that ruling; after all, if
Jaworski had not been properly appointed, he would not have the authority to
issue any subpoenas.

At the same time as she was effectively rewriting a unanimous Supreme Court
decision, Judge Cannon treated Justice Thomas’s concurrence in the Trump
immunity case, which no other justice joined, as though it carried the force of
law. This is not how it’s supposed to work. District court judges are free to
disagree with precedents, but they aren’t free to disregard them. You might call
it extra-constitutional.

“If district judges have as much authority as Supreme Court justices and a
concurring opinion has as much authority as a unanimous opinion of the court,
we’re in uncharted territory in terms of what the rules of the game look like,”
Kate Shaw, a law professor at the University of Pennsylvania and a contributor
to Times Opinion, told me.

Judge Cannon’s reasoning takes a page “right out of the authoritarian playbook,
which is to denigrate most traditional sources of authority in favor of this
narrow and quite radical conception of the law,” Ms. Shaw added. “In disparaging
or minimizing the conclusions reached by previous Supreme Courts and the D.C.
Circuit on this same question, she’s essentially making a similar rhetorical
move: ‘You cannot trust them, you can just trust me.’”

Why did Judge Cannon act in this way? Was she simply doing the bidding of the
president who nominated her to the bench? Many of her critics think so, but I’m
not sure it’s that simple. Plenty of Trump appointees have shown no similar
solicitousness to the former president when given the chance. Perhaps she sees
herself as part of the “extra-constitutional” movement that includes Mr. Vance
and Justice Thomas, dedicated to tossing aside precedents that impede the
conservative project.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/23/opinion/cannon-trump-documents-vance.html

Judge Cannon, an insurrectionist in black robes, *will* be removed from the bench.

Meanwhile, it is beyond obvious that Vance, and Trump, intend simply to ignore
the Constitution and the courts.

In article <_2RnO.21734$dnl5.15507@fx48.iad>, rudy@phil.hendrie.con
says...
>
> "Judge Cannon and JD Vance Are on the Same Team"
>
> By Jesse Wegman
>
> July 23, 2024, 5:02 a.m. ET
>
> In the days since Judge Aileen Cannon issued her inexplicable 93-page dismissal
> of the classified-documents case against Donald Trump, I?ve been coming back to
> something JD Vance said on a podcast in 2021.
>
> Mr. Vance, the Ohio senator and now Mr. Trump?s running mate, predicted on the
> podcast that the former president, who had been recently disgraced by his
> insurrectionary attempt to overturn the 2020 election, would nevertheless run
> again in 2024. Should Mr. Trump win, Mr. Vance said, he had some advice: ?Fire
> every single midlevel bureaucrat, every civil servant in the administrative
> state, replace them with our people.? And if the courts ruled against him? No
> problem, Mr. Vance said: Just blow them off.
>
> ?We are in a late republican period,? he added, alluding to weakness in the
> ancient Roman Republic. ?If we?re going to push back against it, we have to get
> pretty wild, and pretty far out there, and go in directions that a lot of
> conservatives right now are uncomfortable with.?
>
> His interviewer, Jack Murphy, prominent in the right-wing pro-masculinity world,
> agreed and said, ?Among some of my circle, the phrase ?extra-constitutional? has
> come up quite a bit.? Mr. Murphy said it was necessary ?to become a little more
> robust in our behavior? in order to ?refound the country,? and Mr. Vance
> responded, ?That?s exactly right.?
>
> In the days since Judge Aileen Cannon issued her inexplicable 93-page dismissal
> of the classified-documents case against Donald Trump, I?ve been coming back to
> something JD Vance said on a podcast in 2021.
>
> Mr. Vance, the Ohio senator and now Mr. Trump?s running mate, predicted on the
> podcast that the former president, who had been recently disgraced by his
> insurrectionary attempt to overturn the 2020 election, would nevertheless run
> again in 2024. Should Mr. Trump win, Mr. Vance said, he had some advice: ?Fire
> every single midlevel bureaucrat, every civil servant in the administrative
> state, replace them with our people.? And if the courts ruled against him? No
> problem, Mr. Vance said: Just blow them off.
>
> ?We are in a late republican period,? he added, alluding to weakness in the
> ancient Roman Republic. ?If we?re going to push back against it, we have to get
> pretty wild, and pretty far out there, and go in directions that a lot of
> conservatives right now are uncomfortable with.?
>
> His interviewer, Jack Murphy, prominent in the right-wing pro-masculinity world,
> agreed and said, ?Among some of my circle, the phrase ?extra-constitutional? has
> come up quite a bit.? Mr. Murphy said it was necessary ?to become a little more
> robust in our behavior? in order to ?refound the country,? and Mr. Vance
> responded, ?That?s exactly right.?
>
> This exchange ? with its disregard for the rule of law, its mockery of expertise
> and its elevation of outcome over process ? gets to the heart of what is so
> alarming about the dismissal of the documents case, which had been widely
> regarded as the most airtight of the prosecutions of Mr. Trump. (As a reminder:
> He removed large quantities of classified national security documents from the
> White House without authorization, he refused to return them when asked
> politely, and he lied to the officials who tried to collect them.)
>
> Judge Cannon?s rationale for tossing the case was that Jack Smith, the special
> prosecutor who brought the charges, was not validly appointed to his post
> because no federal law authorizes the appointment of someone from outside the
> Justice Department to perform that task. ?Mr. Smith is a private citizen
> exercising the full power of a United States attorney, and with very little
> oversight or supervision,? she wrote.
>
> To support this argument, she relied heavily on a concurrence in Trump v. United
> States, a two-week old Supreme Court ruling that, without an ounce of
> constitutional support, effectively immunized Mr. Trump and future presidents
> from criminal prosecution. The concurrence, by Justice Clarence Thomas,
> questioned the constitutionality of Mr. Smith?s appointment ? an issue that was
> not even before the court in that case. ?If there is no law establishing the
> office that the special counsel occupies, then he cannot proceed with this
> prosecution,? Justice Thomas wrote.
>
> As a matter of law and fact, this is not merely wrong, it is flagrantly,
> embarrassingly wrong. Federal law explicitly authorizes the attorney general to
> appoint prosecutors like Mr. Smith, which makes him not a private citizen but an
> official of the Justice Department, subject to the same oversight as every other
> prosecutor. It is not a close or complicated legal question.
>
> The Supreme Court itself blessed the arrangement in a 1974 case that unanimously
> upheld a subpoena issued to President Richard Nixon by Leon Jaworski, the
> special counsel investigating the Watergate break-in. In the decades since,
> lower courts, including the influential federal appeals court in Washington,
> have reaffirmed the principle, and presidential administrations of both parties
> have appointed special counsels without issue.
>
> Judge Cannon vaulted over all of this inconvenient history. The court?s
> reference to the special counsel in the Nixon case was ?dicta,? she argued, a
> legal term meaning it was not part of the official holding in the case and thus
> not binding law. She managed to reach this conclusion even though courts have
> long understood the reference to be essential to that ruling; after all, if
> Jaworski had not been properly appointed, he would not have the authority to
> issue any subpoenas.
>
> At the same time as she was effectively rewriting a unanimous Supreme Court
> decision, Judge Cannon treated Justice Thomas?s concurrence in the Trump
> immunity case, which no other justice joined, as though it carried the force of
> law. This is not how it?s supposed to work. District court judges are free to
> disagree with precedents, but they aren?t free to disregard them. You might call
> it extra-constitutional.
>
> ?If district judges have as much authority as Supreme Court justices and a
> concurring opinion has as much authority as a unanimous opinion of the court,
> we?re in uncharted territory in terms of what the rules of the game look like,?
> Kate Shaw, a law professor at the University of Pennsylvania and a contributor
> to Times Opinion, told me.
>
> Judge Cannon?s reasoning takes a page ?right out of the authoritarian playbook,
> which is to denigrate most traditional sources of authority in favor of this
> narrow and quite radical conception of the law,? Ms. Shaw added. ?In disparaging
> or minimizing the conclusions reached by previous Supreme Courts and the D.C.
> Circuit on this same question, she?s essentially making a similar rhetorical
> move: ?You cannot trust them, you can just trust me.??
>
> Why did Judge Cannon act in this way? Was she simply doing the bidding of the
> president who nominated her to the bench? Many of her critics think so, but I?m
> not sure it?s that simple. Plenty of Trump appointees have shown no similar
> solicitousness to the former president when given the chance. Perhaps she sees
> herself as part of the ?extra-constitutional? movement that includes Mr. Vance
> and Justice Thomas, dedicated to tossing aside precedents that impede the
> conservative project.
>
> https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/23/opinion/cannon-trump-documents-vance.html
>
> Judge Cannon, an insurrectionist in black robes, *will* be removed from the bench.
>
> Meanwhile, it is beyond obvious that Vance, and Trump, intend simply to ignore
> the Constitution and the courts.

Like the way the whitehouse is doing right now?

--

BITCH! YOU MISSED!

On 7/23/2024 3:37 PM, Skeeter-Shit Jack-Off Shit-4-Braincell, convicted child
molester and another fucking do-nothing, lied:

> In article <_2RnO.21734$dnl5.15507@fx48.iad>, rudy@phil.hendrie.con
> says...
>>
>> "Judge Cannon and JD Vance Are on the Same Team"
>>
>> By Jesse Wegman
>>
>> July 23, 2024, 5:02 a.m. ET
>>
>> In the days since Judge Aileen Cannon issued her inexplicable 93-page dismissal
>> of the classified-documents case against Donald Trump, I?ve been coming back to
>> something JD Vance said on a podcast in 2021.
>>
>> Mr. Vance, the Ohio senator and now Mr. Trump?s running mate, predicted on the
>> podcast that the former president, who had been recently disgraced by his
>> insurrectionary attempt to overturn the 2020 election, would nevertheless run
>> again in 2024. Should Mr. Trump win, Mr. Vance said, he had some advice: ?Fire
>> every single midlevel bureaucrat, every civil servant in the administrative
>> state, replace them with our people.? And if the courts ruled against him? No
>> problem, Mr. Vance said: Just blow them off.
>>
>> ?We are in a late republican period,? he added, alluding to weakness in the
>> ancient Roman Republic. ?If we?re going to push back against it, we have to get
>> pretty wild, and pretty far out there, and go in directions that a lot of
>> conservatives right now are uncomfortable with.?
>>
>> His interviewer, Jack Murphy, prominent in the right-wing pro-masculinity world,
>> agreed and said, ?Among some of my circle, the phrase ?extra-constitutional? has
>> come up quite a bit.? Mr. Murphy said it was necessary ?to become a little more
>> robust in our behavior? in order to ?refound the country,? and Mr. Vance
>> responded, ?That?s exactly right.?
>>
>> In the days since Judge Aileen Cannon issued her inexplicable 93-page dismissal
>> of the classified-documents case against Donald Trump, I?ve been coming back to
>> something JD Vance said on a podcast in 2021.
>>
>> Mr. Vance, the Ohio senator and now Mr. Trump?s running mate, predicted on the
>> podcast that the former president, who had been recently disgraced by his
>> insurrectionary attempt to overturn the 2020 election, would nevertheless run
>> again in 2024. Should Mr. Trump win, Mr. Vance said, he had some advice: ?Fire
>> every single midlevel bureaucrat, every civil servant in the administrative
>> state, replace them with our people.? And if the courts ruled against him? No
>> problem, Mr. Vance said: Just blow them off.
>>
>> ?We are in a late republican period,? he added, alluding to weakness in the
>> ancient Roman Republic. ?If we?re going to push back against it, we have to get
>> pretty wild, and pretty far out there, and go in directions that a lot of
>> conservatives right now are uncomfortable with.?
>>
>> His interviewer, Jack Murphy, prominent in the right-wing pro-masculinity world,
>> agreed and said, ?Among some of my circle, the phrase ?extra-constitutional? has
>> come up quite a bit.? Mr. Murphy said it was necessary ?to become a little more
>> robust in our behavior? in order to ?refound the country,? and Mr. Vance
>> responded, ?That?s exactly right.?
>>
>> This exchange ? with its disregard for the rule of law, its mockery of expertise
>> and its elevation of outcome over process ? gets to the heart of what is so
>> alarming about the dismissal of the documents case, which had been widely
>> regarded as the most airtight of the prosecutions of Mr. Trump. (As a reminder:
>> He removed large quantities of classified national security documents from the
>> White House without authorization, he refused to return them when asked
>> politely, and he lied to the officials who tried to collect them.)
>>
>> Judge Cannon?s rationale for tossing the case was that Jack Smith, the special
>> prosecutor who brought the charges, was not validly appointed to his post
>> because no federal law authorizes the appointment of someone from outside the
>> Justice Department to perform that task. ?Mr. Smith is a private citizen
>> exercising the full power of a United States attorney, and with very little
>> oversight or supervision,? she wrote.
>>
>> To support this argument, she relied heavily on a concurrence in Trump v. United
>> States, a two-week old Supreme Court ruling that, without an ounce of
>> constitutional support, effectively immunized Mr. Trump and future presidents
>> from criminal prosecution. The concurrence, by Justice Clarence Thomas,
>> questioned the constitutionality of Mr. Smith?s appointment ? an issue that was
>> not even before the court in that case. ?If there is no law establishing the
>> office that the special counsel occupies, then he cannot proceed with this
>> prosecution,? Justice Thomas wrote.
>>
>> As a matter of law and fact, this is not merely wrong, it is flagrantly,
>> embarrassingly wrong. Federal law explicitly authorizes the attorney general to
>> appoint prosecutors like Mr. Smith, which makes him not a private citizen but an
>> official of the Justice Department, subject to the same oversight as every other
>> prosecutor. It is not a close or complicated legal question.
>>
>> The Supreme Court itself blessed the arrangement in a 1974 case that unanimously
>> upheld a subpoena issued to President Richard Nixon by Leon Jaworski, the
>> special counsel investigating the Watergate break-in. In the decades since,
>> lower courts, including the influential federal appeals court in Washington,
>> have reaffirmed the principle, and presidential administrations of both parties
>> have appointed special counsels without issue.
>>
>> Judge Cannon vaulted over all of this inconvenient history. The court?s
>> reference to the special counsel in the Nixon case was ?dicta,? she argued, a
>> legal term meaning it was not part of the official holding in the case and thus
>> not binding law. She managed to reach this conclusion even though courts have
>> long understood the reference to be essential to that ruling; after all, if
>> Jaworski had not been properly appointed, he would not have the authority to
>> issue any subpoenas.
>>
>> At the same time as she was effectively rewriting a unanimous Supreme Court
>> decision, Judge Cannon treated Justice Thomas?s concurrence in the Trump
>> immunity case, which no other justice joined, as though it carried the force of
>> law. This is not how it?s supposed to work. District court judges are free to
>> disagree with precedents, but they aren?t free to disregard them. You might call
>> it extra-constitutional.
>>
>> ?If district judges have as much authority as Supreme Court justices and a
>> concurring opinion has as much authority as a unanimous opinion of the court,
>> we?re in uncharted territory in terms of what the rules of the game look like,?
>> Kate Shaw, a law professor at the University of Pennsylvania and a contributor
>> to Times Opinion, told me.
>>
>> Judge Cannon?s reasoning takes a page ?right out of the authoritarian playbook,
>> which is to denigrate most traditional sources of authority in favor of this
>> narrow and quite radical conception of the law,? Ms. Shaw added. ?In disparaging
>> or minimizing the conclusions reached by previous Supreme Courts and the D.C.
>> Circuit on this same question, she?s essentially making a similar rhetorical
>> move: ?You cannot trust them, you can just trust me.??
>>
>> Why did Judge Cannon act in this way? Was she simply doing the bidding of the
>> president who nominated her to the bench? Many of her critics think so, but I?m
>> not sure it?s that simple. Plenty of Trump appointees have shown no similar
>> solicitousness to the former president when given the chance. Perhaps she sees
>> herself as part of the ?extra-constitutional? movement that includes Mr. Vance
>> and Justice Thomas, dedicated to tossing aside precedents that impede the
>> conservative project.
>>
>> https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/23/opinion/cannon-trump-documents-vance.html
>>
>> Judge Cannon, an insurrectionist in black robes, *will* be removed from the bench.
>>
>> Meanwhile, it is beyond obvious that Vance, and Trump, intend simply to ignore
>> the Constitution and the courts.
>
> Like the way the whitehouse is doing right now?

Biden's administration has never done that.

On Tue, 23 Jul 2024 16:37:55 -0600, Skeeter <skeeterweed@photonmail.com> wrote:

>> Meanwhile, it is beyond obvious that Vance, and Trump, intend simply to ignore
>> the Constitution and the courts.
>
>Like the way the whitehouse is doing right now?

How is the whitehouse[sic] ignoring the Constitution and the courts?

Swill

In article <igu1ajht03acednjd6tbvdsviet5bte4pp@4ax.com>,
governor.swill@gmail.com says...
>
> On Tue, 23 Jul 2024 16:37:55 -0600, Skeeter <skeeterweed@photonmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> Meanwhile, it is beyond obvious that Vance, and Trump, intend simply to ignore
> >> the Constitution and the courts.
> >
> >Like the way the whitehouse is doing right now?
>
> How is the whitehouse[sic] ignoring the Constitution and the courts?
>
> Swill

They can't just decide to boot Joe and put in whoever they want.

--

BITCH! YOU MISSED!

On Wed, 24 Jul 2024 08:50:26 -0600, Skeeter <skeeterweed@photonmail.com> wrote:

>In article <igu1ajht03acednjd6tbvdsviet5bte4pp@4ax.com>,
>governor.swill@gmail.com says...
>>
>> On Tue, 23 Jul 2024 16:37:55 -0600, Skeeter <skeeterweed@photonmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> Meanwhile, it is beyond obvious that Vance, and Trump, intend simply to ignore
>> >> the Constitution and the courts.
>> >
>> >Like the way the whitehouse is doing right now?
>>
>> How is the whitehouse[sic] ignoring the Constitution and the courts?

>They can't just decide to boot Joe and put in whoever they want.

Sure they can. Political parties can do as they please. Right up into middle of the 20th
century, nominees were selected by the political machine. Primaries came along later.

You're just pissed off because you know the Dems' chances just got a whole lot better.

Swill
NP: Led Zeppelin - Immigrant Song

On 7/24/2024 5:53 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Jul 2024 08:50:26 -0600, Skeeter <skeeterweed@photonmail.com> wrote:
>
>> In article <igu1ajht03acednjd6tbvdsviet5bte4pp@4ax.com>,
>> governor.swill@gmail.com says...
>>>
>>> On Tue, 23 Jul 2024 16:37:55 -0600, Skeeter <skeeterweed@photonmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Meanwhile, it is beyond obvious that Vance, and Trump, intend simply to ignore
>>>>> the Constitution and the courts.
>>>>
>>>> Like the way the whitehouse is doing right now?
>>>
>>> How is the whitehouse[sic] ignoring the Constitution and the courts?
>
>> They can't just decide to boot Joe and put in whoever they want.
>
> Sure they can. Political parties can do as they please. Right up into middle of the 20th
> century, nominees were selected by the political machine. Primaries came along later.
>
> You're just pissed off because you know the Dems' chances just got a whole lot better.

I'd hardly call Kamala Harris as president 'getting better.'

> Swill
> NP: Led Zeppelin - Immigrant Song

On 7/24/2024 2:57 PM, Gak, fucked up the ass by priests hundreds of times — and
*admits* it — lied:

> On 7/24/2024 5:53 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
>> On Wed, 24 Jul 2024 08:50:26 -0600, Skeeter <skeeterweed@photonmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> In article <igu1ajht03acednjd6tbvdsviet5bte4pp@4ax.com>,
>>> governor.swill@gmail.com says...
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, 23 Jul 2024 16:37:55 -0600, Skeeter <skeeterweed@photonmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Meanwhile, it is beyond obvious that Vance, and Trump, intend simply to
>>>>>> ignore
>>>>>> the Constitution and the courts.
>>>>>
>>>>> Like the way the whitehouse is doing right now?
>>>>
>>>> How is the whitehouse[sic] ignoring the Constitution and the courts?
>>
>>> They can't just decide to boot Joe and put in whoever they want.
>>
>> Sure they can.  Political parties can do as they please.  Right up into middle
>> of the 20th
>> century, nominees were selected by the political machine.  Primaries came
>> along later.
>>
>> You're just pissed off because you know the Dems' chances just got a whole lot
>> better.
>
> I'd hardly call Kamala Harris as president 'getting better.'

It's about the Democrats' chance of winning. It got better with Harris over Biden.

Harris would unquestionably be a better president than the felon and would-be
dictator Trump. She isn't a crook, and she isn't out to subvert the Constitution
and the rule of law. She doesn't own a hotel where corrupt foreign lobbyists
stay while seeking goodies from the government. If she wins this time and loses
in 2028, she'll just go — no violent insurrection to overturn the election.

Rudy Canoza wrote:
> no violent insurrection

/Governor Swill/Lou Bricano/J Carlson and a dozen other socks wrote:

Multiple death threats against Trump:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Path:
eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!border-1.nntp.ord.giganews.com!border-2.nntp.ord.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news-out.netnews.com!netnews.com!s1-4.netnews.com!peer01.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx10.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com>
Newsgroups:
talk.politics.misc,alt.politics,alt.politics.usa,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.elections
Subject: Re: Triumphant Trump Photo After Assassination Attempt
Message-ID: <emo79jh20rlasuask9094vtlepuu5ui0av@4ax.com>
References: <1oKdnTc9CYmJlg77nZ2dnZfqnPednZ2d@earthlink.com>
<XnsB1AED5FEA65AA629555@185.151.15.160>
<ONIkO.102541$dFU1.83026@fx11.ams4> <XnsB1AF52A9CDF3B629555@185.151.15.190>
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 3.3/32.846
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 55
X-Complaints-To: abuse@easynews.com
Organization: Easynews - www.easynews.com
X-Complaints-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly.
Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2024 10:38:43 -0400

Oh poor me I got shot at ...

Swill
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Path:
eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!border-3.nntp.ord.giganews.com!border-2.nntp.ord.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news-out.netnews.com!s1-3.netnews.com!peer01.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx10.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com>
Newsgroups:
talk.politics.misc,alt.politics,alt.politics.usa,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.elections
Subject: Re: Triumphant Trump Photo After Assassination Attempt
Message-ID: <4ln79j914cpespbrssonesbciii33ess3m@4ax.com>
References: <1oKdnTc9CYmJlg77nZ2dnZfqnPednZ2d@earthlink.com>
<XnsB1AED5FEA65AA629555@185.151.15.160>
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 3.3/32.846
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 31
X-Complaints-To: abuse@easynews.com
Organization: Easynews - www.easynews.com
X-Complaints-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly.
Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2024 10:37:51 -0400

Cheer up, maybe someone else will try.

Swill

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: J Carlson <j_carlson@gmx.com>
Newsgroups:
alt.politics.immigration,alt.politics.nationalism.white,talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: AP Lies by Ommission About Identity of Invaders Charged with
Rape, Murder of 12-Year-Old
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2024 12:35:52 -0700
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 25
Message-ID: <v5f66o$1mps9$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v54h6j$39cuk$1@dont-email.me> <v54hrs$38mfs$18@dont-email.me>
<moKcnZP3dbqUm-r7nZ2dnZfqnPcAAAAA@giganews.com>
<v58c4f$6squ$8@dont-email.me>
<v5df1n$1caue$1@dont-email.me> <v5edju$1hv3p$3@dont-email.me>
<tgrl7j14lbg6f9csput4jca09qqujgd9d5@4ax.com>
<v5erpf$1jkrf$20@dont-email.me>
<O9acnRiefIZol-b7nZ2dnZfqn_adnZ2d@giganews.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2024 21:35:53 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me;
posting-host="f3de9d0c1e618b255237332494133eec";
logging-data="1795977";
mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";
posting-account="U2FsdGVkX195k8uMNmZfnyDG9tQmsu21WqljX3bfQxM="
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:PNoPW9d+9gKJj0fX+YCk+YFslQg=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <O9acnRiefIZol-b7nZ2dnZfqn_adnZ2d@giganews.com>
Xref: news.eternal-september.org alt.politics.immigration:383549
alt.politics.nationalism.white:10913 talk.politics.misc:1295918
alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:3024985

> No. I am a patriotic American who wants the country and its people to
thrive. Getting rid of Trump permanently
> is an important step to getting there.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That constitutes a DEATH THREAT against a former President, Rudey:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/871
18 U.S. Code § 871 - Threats against President and successors to the
Presidency
U.S. Code
Notes
prev | next
(a)Whoever knowingly and willfully deposits for conveyance in the mail
or for a delivery from any post office or by any letter carrier any
letter, paper, writing, print, missive, or document containing any
threat to take the life of, to kidnap, or to inflict bodily harm upon
the President of the United States, the President-elect, the Vice
President or other officer next in the order of succession to the office
of President of the United States, or the Vice President-elect, or
knowingly and willfully otherwise makes any such threat against the
President, President-elect, Vice President or other officer next in the
order of succession to the office of President, or Vice President-elect,
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years,
or both.
(b)The terms “President-elect” and “Vice President-elect” as used in
this section shall mean such persons as are the apparent successful
candidates for the offices of President and Vice President,
respectively, as ascertained from the results of the general elections
held to determine the electors of President and Vice President in
accordance with title 3, United States Code, sections 1 and 2. The
phrase “other officer next in the order of succession to the office of
President” as used in this section shall mean the person next in the
order of succession to act as President in accordance with title 3,
United States Code, sections 19 and 20.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 740; June 1, 1955, ch. 115, § 1, 69
Stat. 80; Pub. L. 87–829, § 1, Oct. 15, 1962, 76 Stat. 956; Pub. L.
97–297, § 2, Oct. 12, 1982, 96 Stat. 1318; Pub. L. 103–322, title
XXXIII, § 330016(1)(H), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.)

9-65.200 - Threats Against the President and Successors to the
Presidency; Threats Against Former Presidents; and Certain Other Secret
Service Protectees
The Counterterrorism Section of the National Security Division has
supervisory authority over 18 U.S.C. §§ 871 and 879 cases. As great
caution must be taken in matters relating to the security of the persons
protected by 18 U.S.C. § 871, United States Attorneys are encouraged to
consult with the Counterterrorism Section (CTS) of the National Security
Division when they have doubts on the prosecutive merit of a case. For
the same reason, dismissal of complaints under 18 U.S.C. § 871, when the
defendant is in custody under the Mental Incompetency Statutes (18
U.S.C. §§ 4244, 4246), requires approval from CTS. In other cases,
United States Attorneys must consult prior to dismissing a count
involving, or entering into any sentence commitment or other case
settlement involving a § 871 charge.

https://www.secretservice.gov/newsroom/releases/2024/01/phoenix-man-arrested-making-online-death-threats-against-president-and

PHOENIX –David Michael Hanson, 41, of Phoenix, was arrested on Wednesday
for making online threats against the President and Vice-President.
Hanson was charged by Federal criminal complaint on Tuesday with five
counts of Threats Against the President and Successors to the Presidency
and five counts of Interstate Communication of Threats.

The complaint alleges that in November and December of 2023, while
living in Arizona, Hanson used a social media platform to post threats
to murder the President and Vice President of the United States. On
November 19, 2023, Hanson posted online a series of threatening
statements including one that stated, “#joeAndKamala I’m asking you to
resign on Monday your alternative is death brutally murdered.” After the
U.S. Secret Service spoke to Hanson and warned him that it was a Federal
crime to post such threats, on December 23, 2023, Hanson posted another
series of similar threats aimed at the President and Vice-President.

Each count of Threats Against the President and Successors to the
Presidency carries a maximum sentence of five years in prison, a fine of
up to $250,000, and up to three years of supervised release. Each count
of Interstate Communication of Threats carries a maximum sentence of
five years in prison, a fine of up to $250,000, and up to three years of
supervised release.

A complaint is simply a method by which a person is charged with
criminal activity and raises no inference of guilt. An individual is
presumed innocent until evidence is presented to a jury that establishes
guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

In article <rqt2aj597f1a80kgjmc3u75380j72d26q5@4ax.com>,
governor.swill@gmail.com says...
>
> On Wed, 24 Jul 2024 08:50:26 -0600, Skeeter <skeeterweed@photonmail.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <igu1ajht03acednjd6tbvdsviet5bte4pp@4ax.com>,
> >governor.swill@gmail.com says...
> >>
> >> On Tue, 23 Jul 2024 16:37:55 -0600, Skeeter <skeeterweed@photonmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >> Meanwhile, it is beyond obvious that Vance, and Trump, intend simply to ignore
> >> >> the Constitution and the courts.
> >> >
> >> >Like the way the whitehouse is doing right now?
> >>
> >> How is the whitehouse[sic] ignoring the Constitution and the courts?
>
> >They can't just decide to boot Joe and put in whoever they want.
>
> Sure they can. Political parties can do as they please. Right up into middle of the 20th
> century, nominees were selected by the political machine. Primaries came along later.
>
> You're just pissed off because you know the Dems' chances just got a whole lot better.
>
Sad to see it that way. I mean if that's the best they have? I''t
matter.m done. The fix is in and I can only watch the demise of this
place. I'm old anyway,won't matter.

--

BITCH! YOU MISSED!

In article <v7rtcs$1tnvl$4@dont-email.me>, yak@inbox.com says...
>
> On 7/24/2024 5:53 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
> > On Wed, 24 Jul 2024 08:50:26 -0600, Skeeter <skeeterweed@photonmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> In article <igu1ajht03acednjd6tbvdsviet5bte4pp@4ax.com>,
> >> governor.swill@gmail.com says...
> >>>
> >>> On Tue, 23 Jul 2024 16:37:55 -0600, Skeeter <skeeterweed@photonmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>> Meanwhile, it is beyond obvious that Vance, and Trump, intend simply to ignore
> >>>>> the Constitution and the courts.
> >>>>
> >>>> Like the way the whitehouse is doing right now?
> >>>
> >>> How is the whitehouse[sic] ignoring the Constitution and the courts?
> >
> >> They can't just decide to boot Joe and put in whoever they want.
> >
> > Sure they can. Political parties can do as they please. Right up into middle of the 20th
> > century, nominees were selected by the political machine. Primaries came along later.
> >
> > You're just pissed off because you know the Dems' chances just got a whole lot better.
>
> I'd hardly call Kamala Harris as president 'getting better.'

IAWTP
>
> > Swill
> > NP: Led Zeppelin - Immigrant Song

--

BITCH! YOU MISSED!

"Governor Swill" <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:rqt2aj597f1a80kgjmc3u75380j72d26q5@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 24 Jul 2024 08:50:26 -0600, Skeeter <skeeterweed@photonmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>In article <igu1ajht03acednjd6tbvdsviet5bte4pp@4ax.com>,
>>governor.swill@gmail.com says...
>>>
>>> On Tue, 23 Jul 2024 16:37:55 -0600, Skeeter <skeeterweed@photonmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> >> Meanwhile, it is beyond obvious that Vance, and Trump, intend simply
>>> >> to ignore
>>> >> the Constitution and the courts.
>>> >
>>> >Like the way the whitehouse is doing right now?
>>>
>>> How is the whitehouse[sic] ignoring the Constitution and the courts?
>
>>They can't just decide to boot Joe and put in whoever they want.
>
> Sure they can. Political parties can do as they please. Right up into
> middle of the 20th
> century, nominees were selected by the political machine. Primaries came
> along later.
>
> You're just pissed off because you know the Dems' chances just got a whole
> lot better.

Not looking at her approval rating.. She polled lower than Biden.

However, next up will be how Democrats start displaying their racism/sexism
in promoting that her race/sex should somehow be relevant to your choice in
the election.

Shortly followed by the assertion that if you do NOT vote based on race/sex
you are somehow a racist and/or sexist for not making race/sex a primary
factor in why you voted for someone.

I mean we saw half of that with Hillary.. I don't expect Democrats have
changed their racist/sexist views since.

"Governor Swill" <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:rqt2aj597f1a80kgjmc3u75380j72d26q5@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 24 Jul 2024 08:50:26 -0600, Skeeter <skeeterweed@photonmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>In article <igu1ajht03acednjd6tbvdsviet5bte4pp@4ax.com>,
>>governor.swill@gmail.com says...
>>>
>>> On Tue, 23 Jul 2024 16:37:55 -0600, Skeeter <skeeterweed@photonmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> >> Meanwhile, it is beyond obvious that Vance, and Trump, intend simply
>>> >> to ignore
>>> >> the Constitution and the courts.
>>> >
>>> >Like the way the whitehouse is doing right now?
>>>
>>> How is the whitehouse[sic] ignoring the Constitution and the courts?
>
>>They can't just decide to boot Joe and put in whoever they want.
>
> Sure they can. Political parties can do as they please. Right up into
> middle of the 20th
> century, nominees were selected by the political machine. Primaries came
> along later.
>
> You're just pissed off because you know the Dems' chances just got a whole
> lot better.

Well, at least you're at the stage you can admit Biden sucked.

"Yak" <yak@inbox.com> wrote in message news:v7rtcs$1tnvl$4@dont-email.me...
> On 7/24/2024 5:53 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
>> On Wed, 24 Jul 2024 08:50:26 -0600, Skeeter <skeeterweed@photonmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> In article <igu1ajht03acednjd6tbvdsviet5bte4pp@4ax.com>,
>>> governor.swill@gmail.com says...
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, 23 Jul 2024 16:37:55 -0600, Skeeter
>>>> <skeeterweed@photonmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Meanwhile, it is beyond obvious that Vance, and Trump, intend simply
>>>>>> to ignore
>>>>>> the Constitution and the courts.
>>>>>
>>>>> Like the way the whitehouse is doing right now?
>>>>
>>>> How is the whitehouse[sic] ignoring the Constitution and the courts?
>>
>>> They can't just decide to boot Joe and put in whoever they want.
>>
>> Sure they can. Political parties can do as they please. Right up into
>> middle of the 20th
>> century, nominees were selected by the political machine. Primaries came
>> along later.
>>
>> You're just pissed off because you know the Dems' chances just got a
>> whole lot better.
>
> I'd hardly call Kamala Harris as president 'getting better.'

No, he's saying even Democrats hated brain dead Biden..

On Wed, 24 Jul 2024 17:57:48 -0400, Yak <yak@inbox.com> wrote:

>On 7/24/2024 5:53 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
>> On Wed, 24 Jul 2024 08:50:26 -0600, Skeeter <skeeterweed@photonmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> In article <igu1ajht03acednjd6tbvdsviet5bte4pp@4ax.com>,
>>> governor.swill@gmail.com says...
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, 23 Jul 2024 16:37:55 -0600, Skeeter <skeeterweed@photonmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Meanwhile, it is beyond obvious that Vance, and Trump, intend simply to ignore
>>>>>> the Constitution and the courts.
>>>>>
>>>>> Like the way the whitehouse is doing right now?
>>>>
>>>> How is the whitehouse[sic] ignoring the Constitution and the courts?
>>
>>> They can't just decide to boot Joe and put in whoever they want.
>>
>> Sure they can. Political parties can do as they please. Right up into middle of the 20th
>> century, nominees were selected by the political machine. Primaries came along later.
>>
>> You're just pissed off because you know the Dems' chances just got a whole lot better.
>
>I'd hardly call Kamala Harris as president 'getting better.'

Methinks you doth protest too much.

Swill
NP: Led Zeppelin - Down by the Seaside

On Wed, 24 Jul 2024 18:16:28 -0600, Skeeter wrote:
>governor.swill@gmail.com says...
>> On Wed, 24 Jul 2024 08:50:26 -0600, Skeeter wrote:
>> >governor.swill@gmail.com says...
>> >> On Tue, 23 Jul 2024 16:37:55 -0600, Skeeter wrote:
>> >> >> Meanwhile, it is beyond obvious that Vance, and Trump, intend simply to ignore
>> >> >> the Constitution and the courts.
>> >> >Like the way the whitehouse is doing right now?
>> >> How is the whitehouse[sic] ignoring the Constitution and the courts?
>> >They can't just decide to boot Joe and put in whoever they want.
>> Sure they can. Political parties can do as they please. Right up into middle of the 20th
>> century, nominees were selected by the political machine. Primaries came along later.
>> You're just pissed off because you know the Dems' chances just got a whole lot better.

>Sad to see it that way. I mean if that's the best they have?

Trump is the best YOU'VE got? LOL!

>I''t matter.m done.

It shows in your typing.

>The fix is in and I can only watch the demise of this
>place.

The "fix" is that the Dems pulled a rabbit out of their hat and you can tell by the timing
that they did it on purpose to screw up Trump's campaign strategy.

>I'm old anyway,won't matter.

Trump on the debt: "I won't be here so it doesn't matter."

How many suburban women will Vance bring to the ticket?
How many young people?
How many times will his shockingly vitriolic complaints about Trump be aired on TV?
How much doublespeak will the GOP utter down ticket trying to salvage whatever they can?

Trump just "Palinned" himself.

Swill
NP: Led Zeppelin - Ten Years Gone

On 7/24/2024 5:16 PM, Skeeter wrote:
> In article <rqt2aj597f1a80kgjmc3u75380j72d26q5@4ax.com>,
> governor.swill@gmail.com says...
>>
>> On Wed, 24 Jul 2024 08:50:26 -0600, Skeeter <skeeterweed@photonmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> In article <igu1ajht03acednjd6tbvdsviet5bte4pp@4ax.com>,
>>> governor.swill@gmail.com says...
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, 23 Jul 2024 16:37:55 -0600, Skeeter <skeeterweed@photonmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Meanwhile, it is beyond obvious that Vance, and Trump, intend simply to ignore
>>>>>> the Constitution and the courts.
>>>>>
>>>>> Like the way the whitehouse is doing right now?
>>>>
>>>> How is the whitehouse[sic] ignoring the Constitution and the courts?
>>
>>> They can't just decide to boot Joe and put in whoever they want.
>>
>> Sure they can. Political parties can do as they please. Right up into middle of the 20th
>> century, nominees were selected by the political machine. Primaries came along later.
>>
>> You're just pissed off because you know the Dems' chances just got a whole lot better.
>>
> Sad to see it that way. I mean if that's the best they have? I''t
> matter.m done. The fix is in and

There is no "fix" in.

In article <qao4aj1jol1rdl23j83b6gdais9bhactgt@4ax.com>,
governor.swill@gmail.com says...
>
> On Wed, 24 Jul 2024 17:57:48 -0400, Yak <yak@inbox.com> wrote:
>
> >On 7/24/2024 5:53 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
> >> On Wed, 24 Jul 2024 08:50:26 -0600, Skeeter <skeeterweed@photonmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> In article <igu1ajht03acednjd6tbvdsviet5bte4pp@4ax.com>,
> >>> governor.swill@gmail.com says...
> >>>>
> >>>> On Tue, 23 Jul 2024 16:37:55 -0600, Skeeter <skeeterweed@photonmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>> Meanwhile, it is beyond obvious that Vance, and Trump, intend simply to ignore
> >>>>>> the Constitution and the courts.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Like the way the whitehouse is doing right now?
> >>>>
> >>>> How is the whitehouse[sic] ignoring the Constitution and the courts?
> >>
> >>> They can't just decide to boot Joe and put in whoever they want.
> >>
> >> Sure they can. Political parties can do as they please. Right up into middle of the 20th
> >> century, nominees were selected by the political machine. Primaries came along later.
> >>
> >> You're just pissed off because you know the Dems' chances just got a whole lot better.
> >
> >I'd hardly call Kamala Harris as president 'getting better.'
>
> Methinks you doth protest too much.
>
> Swill
> NP: Led Zeppelin - Down by the Seaside

Oh the irony.

--

BITCH! YOU MISSED!

In article <gdo4ajtronlofn4o58p8g3nav1j7t9gbqr@4ax.com>,
governor.swill@gmail.com says...
>
> On Wed, 24 Jul 2024 18:16:28 -0600, Skeeter wrote:
> >governor.swill@gmail.com says...
> >> On Wed, 24 Jul 2024 08:50:26 -0600, Skeeter wrote:
> >> >governor.swill@gmail.com says...
> >> >> On Tue, 23 Jul 2024 16:37:55 -0600, Skeeter wrote:
> >> >> >> Meanwhile, it is beyond obvious that Vance, and Trump, intend simply to ignore
> >> >> >> the Constitution and the courts.
> >> >> >Like the way the whitehouse is doing right now?
> >> >> How is the whitehouse[sic] ignoring the Constitution and the courts?
> >> >They can't just decide to boot Joe and put in whoever they want.
> >> Sure they can. Political parties can do as they please. Right up into middle of the 20th
> >> century, nominees were selected by the political machine. Primaries came along later.
> >> You're just pissed off because you know the Dems' chances just got a whole lot better.
>
> >Sad to see it that way. I mean if that's the best they have?
>
> Trump is the best YOU'VE got? LOL!

BUTWHATABIUT
>
> >I''t matter.m done.
>
> It shows in your typing.
>
> >The fix is in and I can only watch the demise of this
> >place.
>
> The "fix" is that the Dems pulled a rabbit out of their hat and you can tell by the timing
> that they did it on purpose to screw up Trump's campaign strategy.

A fix is a fix.
>
> >I'm old anyway,won't matter.
>
> Trump on the debt: "I won't be here so it doesn't matter."
>
> How many suburban women will Vance bring to the ticket?
> How many young people?
> How many times will his shockingly vitriolic complaints about Trump be aired on TV?
> How much doublespeak will the GOP utter down ticket trying to salvage whatever they can?
>

The fix is in. I'm done. Enjoy your shithole.
--

BITCH! YOU MISSED!

In article <RAtoO.19083$S0Ne.7377@fx39.iad>,
mike.am.surreal@earthlink.nut says...
>
> On 7/24/2024 5:16 PM, Skeeter wrote:
> > In article <rqt2aj597f1a80kgjmc3u75380j72d26q5@4ax.com>,
> > governor.swill@gmail.com says...
> >>
> >> On Wed, 24 Jul 2024 08:50:26 -0600, Skeeter <skeeterweed@photonmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> In article <igu1ajht03acednjd6tbvdsviet5bte4pp@4ax.com>,
> >>> governor.swill@gmail.com says...
> >>>>
> >>>> On Tue, 23 Jul 2024 16:37:55 -0600, Skeeter <skeeterweed@photonmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>> Meanwhile, it is beyond obvious that Vance, and Trump, intend simply to ignore
> >>>>>> the Constitution and the courts.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Like the way the whitehouse is doing right now?
> >>>>
> >>>> How is the whitehouse[sic] ignoring the Constitution and the courts?
> >>
> >>> They can't just decide to boot Joe and put in whoever they want.
> >>
> >> Sure they can. Political parties can do as they please. Right up into middle of the 20th
> >> century, nominees were selected by the political machine. Primaries came along later.
> >>
> >> You're just pissed off because you know the Dems' chances just got a whole lot better.
> >>
> > Sad to see it that way. I mean if that's the best they have? I''t
> > matter.m done. The fix is in and
>
> There is no "fix" in.

There is and if you can't see it they own you.

--

BITCH! YOU MISSED!

>"Judge Cannon and JD Vance Are on the Same Team"
>
>By Jesse Wegman
>
>July 23, 2024, 5:02 a.m. ET
>
>In the days since Judge Aileen Cannon issued her inexplicable 93-page
>dismissal of the classified-documents case against Donald Trump, I� Tve
>been coming back to something JD Vance said on a podcast in 2021.

Trump needs to create a Gestapo! The people want a Gestapo!

>
> That explains why so many Trump "best
>and brightest" appointees got indicted and
>prosecuted, often by Trump himself. Because
>his administraion was so honest. Right.
>
> And the number of indicted and prosecuted
>Biden or Obama appointees? Zero............
>
>
>

Not when Trump is finished with them. He plans to go back and prosecute
every last one of the Obama and Clinton administrations.

The never ending Inquisition will begin January 7.

On 7/25/2024 1:59 PM, Dr. Jordan Peterson wrote:
>> "Judge Cannon and JD Vance Are on the Same Team"
>>
>> By Jesse Wegman
>>
>> July 23, 2024, 5:02 a.m. ET
>>
>> In the days since Judge Aileen Cannon issued her inexplicable 93-page
>> dismissal of the classified-documents case against Donald Trump, Iƒ Tve
>> been coming back to something JD Vance said on a podcast in 2021.
>
> Trump needs to create a Gestapo! The people want a Gestapo!

Trump needs to be Gestapoed...

In article <v7ueb5$bsrh$1@solani.org>, docphd@excite.com says...
>
> >"Judge Cannon and JD Vance Are on the Same Team"
> >
> >By Jesse Wegman
> >
> >July 23, 2024, 5:02 a.m. ET
> >
> >In the days since Judge Aileen Cannon issued her inexplicable 93-page
> >dismissal of the classified-documents case against Donald Trump, I? Tve
> >been coming back to something JD Vance said on a podcast in 2021.
>
> Trump needs to create a Gestapo! The people want a Gestapo!

This is how indoctrinated sheep speak.

--

?Politics is supposed to be the second oldest profession. I have come to
realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first.?

In article <KezoO.120404$q2da.47423@fx18.iad>, junk@LCMS_shitbags.org
says...
>
> On 7/25/2024 1:59 PM, Dr. Jordan Peterson wrote:
> >> "Judge Cannon and JD Vance Are on the Same Team"
> >>
> >> By Jesse Wegman
> >>
> >> July 23, 2024, 5:02 a.m. ET
> >>
> >> In the days since Judge Aileen Cannon issued her inexplicable 93-page
> >> dismissal of the classified-documents case against Donald Trump, I? Tve
> >> been coming back to something JD Vance said on a podcast in 2021.
> >
> > Trump needs to create a Gestapo! The people want a Gestapo!
>
> Trump needs to be Gestapoed...

Try it while we laugh. They tried to kill him and failed.

--

?Politics is supposed to be the second oldest profession. I have come to
realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first.?