^^^^ IL is next to fold!

I know this goes without saying and I'm preaching to the choir, but the damn MSM is not only complicit, but almost wholly to blame for the Trump hate in this country. Damn them for broadcasting the bullshit!

Just had to get that off my chest.....again!

The Supreme Court needs to be dissolved? No. Olbermann needs to be dissolved.

Not advocating for it though

Reminder: When the Colorado Supreme Court voted to disqualify Trump, it was a 4 to 3 decision .

4 to 3 to to take down the leading presidential candidate of the REP Party

back to Fani,

https://dailycaller.com/2024/0...icts-witness-claims/

Wade’s former law partner Terrence Bradley testified last week that he did “not recall” the answers to most questions posed by defense attorneys, including when the relationship between Willis and Wade began.

However, Trump co-defendant David Shafer’s attorneys informed the judge Monday that they planned to submit the testimony of a new witness that would seemingly contradict Bradley’s testimony, should the court re-open the evidence on the motion to disqualify Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis

The witness, Co-Chief Deputy for the Cobb County District Attorney’s Office Cindi Lee Yeager, says she spoke with Bradley on a number of occasions between August 2023 and January 2024 about Willis and Wade, according to a proposed testimony.

“Ms. Yeager watched Mr. Bradley’s testimony before the Court and became concerned as a result of the fact that what Mr. Bradley testified to on the witness stand was directly contrary to what Mr. Bradley had told Ms. Yeager in person,” the filing states.

Yeager claims Bradley told her Willis and Wade began their relationship around when they met at a 2019 Municipal Court Continuing Legal Education Conference and had “definitively begun” a relationship by the time Willis was running for district attorney.

“Mr. Bradley stated that he had personal knowledge of the relationship between Mr. Wade and District Attorney Willis, and included details regarding the use of Ms. Robin Yeartie’s apartment and other meetings prior to November 2021,” the filing states. She stated that Bradley did not begin representing Wade in his divorce until November 2021.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

and

https://news.yahoo.com/news/ge...ppear-185742878.html

Defense attorney Ashleigh Merchant has been subpoenaed to appear before a Georgia state Senate committee hearing on Wednesday as it investigates the actions of Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis.

Merchant confirmed to CNN that she had been subpoenaed for the hearing, which will be livestreamed.

The Georgia legislative committee, formed in January to investigate the Fulton County District Attorney, said they planned to issue subpoenas as they investigate Willis, the Democratic state prosecutor who brought the racketeering case against Donald Trump and his allies for their actions after the 2020 election.

Merchant, the defense attorney for a Trump co-defendant, is the first person to be issued a subpoena by the committee. She initially launched the allegations of an improper relationship against Willis and Nathan Wade, the lead prosecutor on the case. The controversy has threatened to undermine the case against Trump in Georgia.

The meltdown continues. This fool is the most immature, tantrum-prone, insane little leftist shit on the planet. He is happy about nothing, ever. All he does is bitch and piss and moan.

https://twitter.com/OlbermannO.../1764778231608053948

quote:

Originally posted by sdy:
Reminder: When the Colorado Supreme Court voted to disqualify Trump, it was a 4 to 3 decision .

4 to 3 to to take down the leading presidential candidate of the REP Party

And all were Dem appointees. That tells you how weak their ruling was. That even three that are on "their side" couldn't go along it.

^^^ He may regret saying that. It's forever recorded...

@para's post...

I can't believe I'm saying this but Keith Olbermann is making Steven Colbert look like the model of sanity. To be honest I haven't seen any of Colbert's remarks today so I might be a bit premature on this point.

Olbermann is the worst of the worst. There's not one bit of rationality in that nutcase.

I doubt Colbert has commented on this matter today. What in the world could he possibly say to a unanimous SCOTUS ruling? "At least it was close."?

The war may continue, but this battle is won. It's Time to celebrate. I'm thinking of a steak dinner. Or maybe I should save that for the Super Tuesday Victory.

Decisions, decisions...

^^^ Both!

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
Olbermann is the worst of the worst. There's not one bit of rationality in that nutcase.

Good assessment. Colbert is in the minor leagues compared to Olbermann. I am going to record Colbert's monologue tonight. It will provide some good entertainment when I get home from work tomorrow

^^^ Why give him the ratings?

quote:

Originally posted by Gustofer:
^^^ Why give him the ratings?

Do you really think my click will bring him out of the ratings cellar he's in? I guess I could watch highlights on a Rumble channel that only shows pieces of his schtick. I do want to see his meltdown(s).

Looks like there are three separate opinions from SCOTUS. The majority opinion from all the 5 men, and two separate concurring ones (one from the 3 lib women, and one from ACB).

Justice Amy Coney Barrett sides with liberal justices on Trump ballot decision going too far

By Natalia Mittelstadt
Published: March 4, 2024 4:15pm

In the unanimous U.S. Supreme Court decision on Monday that former President Donald Trump can remain on the 2024 presidential ballot in Colorado, Justice Amy Coney Barrett sided with liberal justices in her concurring opinion, saying that the majority's ruling went too far.

The Monday decision strikes down the Colorado Supreme Court ruling that found Trump ineligible for the ballot due to Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which contains a clause banning people who "engaged in insurrection" from holding office. The state high court said he violated the amendment through his alleged involvement in attempts to overturn the 2020 election and the subsequent Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the "responsibility for enforcing" the 14th Amendment's "insurrection" clause "against federal officeholders and candidates rests with Congress and not the States."

The court said that "the text of the Fourteenth Amendment, on its face, does not affirmatively delegate such a power to the States."

In the majority opinion, five of the conservative justices noted that they, unlike the other four justices, believe that only Congress has "the power to enforce" Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.

“These are not the only reasons the States lack power to enforce this particular constitutional provision with respect to federal offices,” the opinion continued. “But they are important ones, and it is the combination of all the reasons set forth in this opinion—not, as some of our colleagues would have it, just one particular rationale—that resolves this case. In our view, each of these reasons is necessary to provide a complete explanation for the judgment the Court unanimously reaches.”

The three liberal justices – Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson – agreed with the majority's judgment but offered a separate concurring opinion, writing, “Although we agree that Colorado cannot enforce Section 3, we protest the majority’s effort to use this case to define the limits of federal enforcement of that provision.”

Barrett wrote in her own separate concurring opinion that she thinks the court only needed to determine whether states lack the power to enforce the insurrection clause. "It does not require us to address the complicated question whether federal legislation is the exclusive vehicle through which Section 3 can be enforced," she wrote.

"For present purposes, our differences are far less important than our unanimity: All nine Justices agree on the outcome of this case. That is the message Americans should take home," she also said.

Barrett has sided with the liberal justices in prior cases before the court, the Washington Examiner reports. In some instances, she has been the sole conservative justice to join them, and other times has joined them with Chief Justice John Roberts, according to Slate.

quote:

Barrett wrote in her own separate concurring opinion that she thinks the court only needed to determine whether states lack the power to enforce the insurrection clause. "It does not require us to address the complicated question whether federal legislation is the exclusive vehicle through which Section 3 can be enforced," she wrote.

"For present purposes, our differences are far less important than our unanimity: All nine Justices agree on the outcome of this case. That is the message Americans should take home," she also said.

The problem with Barrett is that she has no balls.

She only wants to decide case on extremely narrow grounds, going no further than she absolutely has to. The problem with that is that not every case can reach the Supreme Court so being so narrowly focused only leads to further confusion and difficulty.

At least she made the right decision on this case

Also in today's news, the Illinois traffic court judge who ordered Donald Trump removed from the ballot issued a warrant for his arrest for three unpaid parking tickets from 1986.

Actually, the tickets were issued to a Ronald Stump, but in the words of the judge, "That's close enough."