.
In wake of SCOTUS ruling, Maine secretary of state withdraws Trump disqualification

Freakin' commie. You should have stayed out of it, stupid.

Meanwhile:



If this isn't treason, the word has lost all meaning.

Really? We're flying them in now!??!?!?!

quote:

Really? We're flying them in now!??!?!?!

Well yeah, makes the border numbers look better.
What the actual fuck??!!
How can this not be prima facie grounds for impeachment?

Regarding the SCOTUS decision: the five white men (Justice Thomas obviously qualifies as a white man) could see a flood of cases coming without limit, put their foot down to say "Stop this crap!" just as they should.

Too bad about widdew Amy Bawwett.

Wow, I knew Olbermann was an unhinged leftist loony toon but this is marvelous!

Fani Willis warned Nathan Wade’s lawyer to stay quiet about affair, court filing claims: ‘They are coming after us’

https://nypost.com/2024/03/04/...ack&utm_medium=email

A new witness could testify Fani Willis warned lover Nathan Wade’s former business partner to stay quiet about their affair, an explosive new court filing claims.

“They are coming after us. You don’t need to talk to them about anything about us,” Willis is alleged to have warned Terrence Bradley in a September 2023 phone call.

The call was overheard by Cobb County, Georgia, prosecutor Cindi Lee Yeager, according to court papers filed Monday by David Schafer, a co-defendant of former President Donald Trump.

Willis and Wade have said under oath they were only romantic between 2022 and 2023, long after the case started.

At a hearing over whether to disqualify Willis last week, Bradley claimed on the stand that he had no “knowledge” of when the two prosecutors started dating.

But the filing says Yeager would swear under oath that that was at odds with what Bradley told Yeager in person — that the romance began in 2019, during Willis’ DA campaign.

Yeager is willing to testify that Bradley told her Wade “had definitively begun a romantic relationship with Ms. Willis during the time that Ms. Willis was running for District Attorney in 2019 through 2020,” Monday’s filing says.

It was not immediately clear Monday whether the court would reopen the hearing to receive additional evidence.

Reps for Willis’ office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

More at link

Super Tuesday!

I voted.

I figured stupid leftys were at least sane about the SC Colorado ballot case being a stretch, and were only preemptively complaining about the SC as a setup for the immunity case. After listening to the whackos at the cable dem operative propaganda stations react about the Colorado case yesterday, they are either all nuts, or are squeezing every drop to motivate all the crazies that listen.

An interesting take by Kurt Schlichter on the Presidential immunity case.

https://twitter.com/KurtSchlic.../1764894584428228981



"Interesting thought on the presidential immunity issue. I’ve been pretty clear that I think the Supreme Court is going to find that there is no absolute presidential immunity and that an impeachment is not a prerequisite, but also that presidential immunity does exist for official acts. It is then going to send the case back to the lower court to determine whether specific acts that form the basis of the criminal charges are official acts. Those that are official acts cannot be the basis of a criminal charge because of presidential immunity, probably gutting the ridiculous DC case.

But here’s where it gets interesting. Some of his actions were apparently tweets. I haven’t researched it, but wasn’t there a lawsuit to keep him from blocking people on Twitter? And wasn’t one of the reasons he could not block people that tweeting and communicating with the citizens is an official act? I haven’t gone back and read the case, but I think it would be hilarious if eventually the obnoxious resistance cases against Donald Trump for blocking people on Twitter were cited by his team as precedent showing that tweeting to the American people is an official act. Just a thought."

I saw that Kurt Schlichter post last night and was intrigued by the possibilities.

quote:

I’ve been pretty clear that I think the Supreme Court is going to find that there is no absolute presidential immunity and that an impeachment is not a prerequisite, but also that presidential immunity does exist for official acts. It is then going to send the case back to the lower court to determine whether specific acts that form the basis of the criminal charges are official acts.

So, what is an "official act"?
Clearly, signing legislation or issuing an executive order would be an "official act".
But what about speaking at a campaign-style rally?

quote:

Originally posted by PASig:
Wow, I knew Olbermann was an unhinged leftist loony toon but this is marvelous!

That Olbermann Tweet is from a Parody account.

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

quote:

Originally posted by chellim1:

Clearly, signing legislation or issuing an executive order would be an "official act".
But what about speaking at a campaign-style rally?

There would be a big grey zone between private vs official act, imho. Speaking as a candidate would be private. "Vote for me, the other guy is terrible" is campaigning. Promoting policy and advocating citizens tell Congress what they think? Presidents do that all the time as President.

It seems dangerous to me to try to have courts involved in the grey zone between clearly private vs clearly official.

Not a lawyer but it seems obvious to me that “official act” as President is not only extremely broad but also a case of if there is doubt then the tendency would be to label it an official act. Ie, to label it non official would be a high bar and easily articulated. Or it defaults to official. Ie again, dinner is an official act and anything that happens at dinner unless you can easily articulate why it wasn’t. Obvious campaigning or fund raising are the obvious non official moments. Most everything else is protected in my mind.

You don’t want the President not ordering the fish because he thinks it can come back on him. Lol

Joey D
3/4/24

Fani

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/...gh-merchant-n2636040

long article

Sources have confirmed that the GA Senate committee looking into the Fulton DA have subpoenaed Attorney Ashleigh Merchant to testify Wednesday, 3-6-24

The hearing will be live streamed and is open to the public

I think this is the live stream link for tomorrow:

https://www.legis.ga.gov/sched...GMLsQcWZ8gAAAlpiAAAA

And the defense keeps digging up more and more witnesses. Fani may even be found to have tried to influence a witness. Sing little birdies, sing.

https://twitter.com/PhilHollow.../1765000050340446292

Do enough Californians dislike Newsome enough to vote for his opposition or stay at home if he runs for president?

https://twitter.com/charliekir.../1765163691945996543

Democrats missed their window to remove Joe Biden and are probably stuck with him as their candidate.

Had 10 Democrat Governors and Schumer pressured Joe to drop out last summer, it could have severely damaged his position. But no one wanted to split the Democrat Party or cause division.

They knew Biden was weak, and they knew Kamala was even worse than Joe himself, but they "hoped" something else would come through instead:

Fani Willis in Fulton
Alvin Bragg in NYC
Jack Smith in DC
Letitia James in New York
14th Amendment challenges

They hoped lawfare would bankrupt Trump, or send him to prison, or stigmatize him in the minds of voters. None of it has worked.

The only remaining hope for Democrats looking to draft another candidate is post convention, but Biden would have to willingly bow out given DNC delegate rules, or his health would have to fail.

Trump vs Biden is by far the most likely scenario.

^^^^^^

And I agree with Kirk- Biden is in it for the long haul. And if not, it will be Harris. No secret agent shit, no Big Mike inserting herself into the race, no diabolical plan for a surprise candidate that will blow everyone away.