9 hours ago, candide said:

 

"Do you have the stat sheet and graph for the amount of Biden’s FBI agents/informants who infiltrated the crowds?"

 

Lol!

 

The 2024 IG report, and Kash Patel recently, have confirmed that there were no undercover FBI agent prior to the assault! 🤣

 

And it was Trump's FBI! 🤣

Can you name the Director of the FBI during that time?

9 hours ago, candide said:

 

"Do you have the stat sheet and graph for the amount of Biden’s FBI agents/informants who infiltrated the crowds?"

 

Lol!

 

The 2024 IG report, and Kash Patel recently, have confirmed that there were no undercover FBI agent prior to the assault! 🤣

 

And it was Trump's FBI! 🤣

Nancy appears irritated when challenged.  Just like all leftists.

 

 

On 10/31/2025 at 2:15 PM, jerrymahoney said:

The SCOTUS receives the opinion from whom on what is a valid pardon issued by the President which is a constitutional issue.

I assume that is a question?  After the investigation is completed by the White House and/or DOJ the matter is referred to SCOTUS for their decision as to whether the method and practice under which the pardons were issued and also the use of the Biden Autopen without his written or verbal statement, is in compliance with the Constitution.  Lower Courts dont have jurisdiction to hear cases about the Constitution but perhaps there is a process that has to be undertaken through Federal Court before getting to SCOTUS?  

On 10/31/2025 at 5:09 PM, jerrymahoney said:

The legal theory that laws cannot be retroactive is known as the principle of non-retroactivity, based on the maxim lex prospicit, non respicit (the law looks forward, not backward). 

That does not apply in this case - this is whether a procedure meets the Constitutional requirements of a President. What you are referring to, is in regards to someone being charged 20 years later with a crime, that was not illegal 20 years ago - cannot happen. 

On 10/31/2025 at 9:00 AM, Alan Zweibel said:

Sure. Prosecutors being suspended for telling the truth tells us nothing about how the DOJ  is corrupting the system of justice.? Really?

Telling the truth doesn't fare well for any in the Trump Admin.  They are required to repeat his lies.

On 10/31/2025 at 9:11 AM, Harrisfan said:

You need to get over it. You lost.

It's not about winning an election.  It's about not being able to get ANY truth from the Trump admin.

1 hour ago, TroubleandGrumpy said:

I assume that is a question?  After the investigation is completed by the White House and/or DOJ the matter is referred to SCOTUS for their decision as to whether the method and practice under which the pardons were issued and also the use of the Biden Autopen without his written or verbal statemen

No.

1 hour ago, TroubleandGrumpy said:

That does not apply in this case - this is whether a procedure meets the Constitutional requirements of a President

No.

As posted page 5 this topic:

 

Thank you. As far as the Supreme Court goes, I am just getting started.

 

Trump v VOS Supreme Court tariff case SET FOR ARGUMENT on Wednesday, November 5, 2025

___________________________

 

Some on here may choose to follow and see how the US Supreme Court actually works.

On 11/2/2025 at 12:29 AM, Rocky Sullivan said:

Nancy appears irritated when challenged.  Just like all leftists.

 

 

 

Quick! Can some lefty post a similar YouTube of a repugnican getting their panties in a bunch after they're caught short of a truth or two? I reckon MTG, Ted Cruz and Jim Jordan have had a few of their 'episodes' recorded for internet posterity.

On 10/30/2025 at 7:23 PM, transam said:

And you are ThreeCardMonte........🤠

I’m clutching my pearls.

On 10/31/2025 at 10:32 AM, Yagoda said:

Yeah! Hes a commie! Get him! Go MAGA go 

Yagoda you must be aware that all that 60's commie stuff went out of the window

 

In the .......70's !

1 hour ago, Jim Blue said:

Yagoda you must be aware that all that 60's commie stuff went out of the window

 

In the .......70's !

Im not the one that tosses the word around..Capitalized.

On 10/31/2025 at 12:19 PM, stevenl said:

LOL, due process with pardons. Not a very good argument, looking at Trump's paid for pardons.

Which of Trumps pardons were paid for? Thats a US Federal crime. You have information on that? Failure to provide that is a felony.

 

Or is it just your usual putrid nonsense?. You must be trying to cause difficulties for this forum.

2 hours ago, NanLaew said:

 

Quick! Can some lefty post a similar YouTube of a repugnican getting their panties in a bunch after they're caught short of a truth or two? I reckon MTG, Ted Cruz and Jim Jordan have had a few of their 'episodes' recorded for internet posterity.

Look at the one with Brennan. Fabulous

16 hours ago, TroubleandGrumpy said:

I assume that is a question?  After the investigation is completed by the White House and/or DOJ the matter is referred to SCOTUS for their decision as to whether the method and practice under which the pardons were issued and also the use of the Biden Autopen without his written or verbal statement, is in compliance with the Constitution.  Lower Courts dont have jurisdiction to hear cases about the Constitution but perhaps there is a process that has to be undertaken through Federal Court before getting to SCOTUS?  

This is how the pardon issue could work:

 

DOJ indicts a pardon holder. He moves to dismiss based on the pardon that HE must demonstrate exists. Appeals go from there.

 

32 minutes ago, Yagoda said:

This is how the pardon issue could work:

 

DOJ indicts a pardon holder. He moves to dismiss based on the pardon that HE must demonstrate exists. Appeals go from there.

 

I will mostly agree except I would think, even at the federal district court level, the onus would be on the admin to prove the pardon DOESN'T exist or is valid or cover the federal crime as in the indictment.

 

From the pardon text:

 

FOR ANY OFFENSES against the United States which they may have committed or taken
part in arising from or in any manner related to the activities or subject matter of the Select
Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol.

 

So any indictments as relates to the Jan6 pardon would most likely have to come from a WashDC grand jury.

Truth is not allowed in Trump's USA.

9 minutes ago, jerrymahoney said:

I will mostly agree except I would think, even at the federal district court level, the onus would be on the admin to prove the pardon DOESN'T exist or is valid or cover the federal crime as in the indictment.

Here is the procedure:

 

Indictment.

Motion to dismiss based on pardon.

Response to Motion alleges pardon is a "fraud" (used here only as a descriptive).

Hearing:

Movant goes first as he is the moving party and the proponent of the argument, pardon marked as evidence. 

Pardon document subject to the same chain of custody arguments as any other evidence.

Govt goes next. Joe Biden could be forced to testify

Then the appeals.

 

Simplified but you get the idea.

 

1 minute ago, Yagoda said:

Here is the procedure:

 

Indictment.

Motion to dismiss based on pardon.

Response to Motion alleges pardon is a "fraud" (used here only as a descriptive).

Hearing:

Movant goes first as he is the moving party and the proponent of the argument, pardon marked as evidence. 

Pardon document subject to the same chain of custody arguments as any other evidence.

Govt goes next. Joe Biden could be forced to testify

Then the appeals.

 

Simplified but you get the idea.

 

My idea is this -- Supreme Court has oral hearings this week on first Trump as original defendant case. The above is way in the future if ever.

Just now, jerrymahoney said:

The above is way in the future if ever.

Indictments of "pardoned" folks will come before the midterms, by the spring I reckon. Keep the pressure and distraction on.

3 minutes ago, Yagoda said:

Indictments of "pardoned" folks will come before the midterms, by the spring I reckon. Keep the pressure and distraction on.

As Trump said of NY AG James: She "is very guilty of something,"

8 minutes ago, jerrymahoney said:

As Trump said of NY AG James: She "is very guilty of something,"

He was just channeling her. Those who start cant complain when it keeps going.

On 10/30/2025 at 7:58 PM, transam said:

"We"...........😂

As in "we" from the USA. 

3 hours ago, Rocky Sullivan said:

I’m clutching my pearls.

Oh, more girlie stuff.............😘

7 minutes ago, EVENKEEL said:

As in "we" from the USA. 

As in "was", from the USA, now a CPP follower...................😬

On 10/31/2025 at 10:21 AM, Alan Zweibel said:

It's clear that you are a graduate of the University of pulling it out of your a** Not surprising that Trump supporters are incapable of coping with data. 

Anyone that bases their statements on polls is putting their feet in their mouth, polls are designed by the polsters own requirements for a favourable result for their preferred party/outcome or have you forgotten  the same polls that showed trump wasnt going to win the election.  All the approval ratings I have read online are saying that trump is getting majority approval for what he is doing and that the dems are gettng their butts kicked, for me polls are  a laugh as none can be believed as they are based on a very small collection of people and not the whole country, makes a big difference when the ones being asked live in certain states/electorates to get a desired result and not a genuine one

3 minutes ago, seajae said:

Anyone that bases their statements on polls is putting their feet in their mouth, polls are designed by the polsters own requirements for a favourable result for their preferred party/outcome

 

So show us just 2 polls that show a positive job approval.

19 hours ago, jerrymahoney said:

No.

 

19 hours ago, jerrymahoney said:

No.

 

Yes Yes 

1 minute ago, TroubleandGrumpy said:

 

 

Yes Yes 

You're welcome.

This week's SCOTUS agenda:

 

QUESTIONS PRESENTED
1. Whether the International Emergency Economic
Powers Act (IEEPA), Pub. L. No. 95-223, Tit. II, 91
Stat. 1626, authorizes the tariffs imposed by President
Trump pursuant to the national emergencies declared
or continued in Proclamation 10,886 and Executive
Orders 14,157, 14,193, 14,194, 14,195, and 14,257, as
amended.

 

2. If IEEPA authorizes the tariffs, whether the
statute unconstitutionally delegates legislative
authority to the President.