I despise Donald John Trump
and his Dysentery Dynasty. In opportunity, I would never risk my life to act as
a “Good Samaritan”, for any members of his Marjorie Soylent Greene machine. In
fact in Dylan’s “Masters of WAR” sermon “And I hope that you die - And
your death will come soon - I'll follow your casket - By the pale afternoon - And
I'll watch while you're lowered - Down to your deathbed - And I'll stand over
your grave - 'Til I'm sure that you're dead”…same damn sentiment - piss
on your grave and spit on your tombstone Mr. Trump! And when he was the
Commander-in-Thief, had that Oval Awful Office call came for “all able bodied”
men the militia is at attention to come to the “aid of the Country” by virtue
of the Founding Fathers’ “Inherent Intent” found throughout the framework of
the mighty Constitution, I would have claimed “bone spurs”. As why in hell take
to arms for Melania, as she had to be a Russian spy. Yet in allegiance with “My
Country ‘Tis of Thee in Liberty” I am all for some “amnesty” for those that
went nuts for the Fucking Moron during that January 6th “Domestic Terrorist
Attack” on the U.S. Capitol. I would be against any such “amnesty” towards
freedom the organized “Militia”, the choke-seekers, deep-throat seekers, whatever
they call themselves. And maybe holding back on those that thought Auschwitz
was a rock’n roll festival - we learned it all in kindergarten NOT! As for the
most part there are innocent “victims” that should be heard. They were henchmen
duped into that destruction and are not totally responsible for what started
out as a friendly assembly and was swept into a “riot” like frenzy by Trump’s rhetoric.
OK, let me be clear, these still “Americans” are not guilty, can be pardoned
with conditions, with a similar sworn statement as was found with the
“Confederate Soldiers”, as those men and women thought the same calling with
that Robert E. Lee calling race card. Amnesty through an oath is worth the
merits in this case. Yes, give some of the “rioters” one last clear chance,
that they must denounce Satan, loose the privilege to vote for the next
election and must abide by the Constitution and maintain a job and thus
contribute to “Taxation”. If the conditions are violated, the gallows would
make sense - take it or leave it is love it or leave it! Now this is my take on
my amnesty intentions, but first if and only if this Nation’s leaders have the
wherewithal to take Donald John Trump to task in unlimited liability in
responsibility that “riot” and hold him accountable. Yes, put away for good the
Kingpin I don’t give a rat’s ass about any other fromunderling…wow, hold that
thought, as the recent Supreme Court’s decision in Trump v. Thompson in verdict
even before the High Court Jesters ruled against Roe, well they tested and
teased the wherewithal of the Constitution and gave Donald John Trump
“amnesty”! Yes-siree bubba, in an avalanche “opine”, it allows Donald John
Trump a humongous victory lap, wherein he can know litigate again and some more
his right to exert “Executive Privilege” even when considered a former White
House circuit court jerk. And with that Supreme “gavel” crash, more like a MAGA
dildo shoved up Miss Liberty, Trump can now claim that anything that meets the
threshold of “may be used against you in a court of law” is moot, in exercise
that “Privilege”. That said, wiping his ass no longer concerned about all those
“Select Committee” subpoenas or “friendly fire invites” requesting Trump’s
minions to spill the beans, motions to compel served while Congress
investigates a nothing - thanks to the 9-0 Supreme Court “Constitutional” death
wish. As in the end when push comes to shove any “criminal referrals” it will
be just another “riot” as Trump sits back consuming cheeseburgers and laughing out
loud his “immunity” while innocent victims see what life behind bars is all
about, for thinking they were being Patriotic for a Turncoat! And that is the
State of the Union Eunuch, when we see the “High Court” suffering from
“Erectile Dysfunction” because someone allowed Trump to stack the jesters with
imposters, wherein the men and menstrual in black robes are “black widows” and
like the stupidity of the January 6th rioters, did not learn it all
in that Harvard Yard kindergarten. So watchtower, as Trump will cash in on that
SCOTUS verdict, even though he lost the “stay” and some limited documents are
headed to the Bennie Thompson memorial, any future arguments for or against
“Executive Privilege” has now the potential for extended and time consuming
litigation back to the “lower courts”, exactly what will get Trump off the hook
as the “High Court” for the first time in the history of “binding” and “precedence
set” jurisprudence, the Robert’s Court balked and ruled against that as a
deliverable and case NOT closed, in a 9-0 reckoning more in tune to a “Mutiny”(Gini
Thomas actually voted NO, insisting that she would have allowed for the “stay”
in demand Trump has “Executive Privilege”, the only reason she voted outside
the majority, so it was a unanimous decision unheard of in this day and age
with such a court). So it gives Trump the highway to heaven, as anything moving
forward with the “Select Committee”, it will be met with “Executive Privilege”
challenges and the way the “High Court” ruled in unanimity, it was basically a
shot-across-the-bow for the “lower court” ruling in appeal, that is best mind
its P’s & Q’s which gives Mr. Trump a “Get Out of Jail Free” card. Stay
tuned! And usually an “opine” issued by the “High Court” is many pages long,
written in a legal lingo that is designed so that the non-legal citizens have
no idea what was said, not to forget boring beyond ridiculousness. And then the
“opine” lists thousands of similar cases wherein the “precedence set” rules the
future some more, and then the verdict “binds” future trials and errors, a
road-block so that litigants can make a conscious decision frivolous
undertaking or not. See, if there is enough “precedence set” and binding, then
you may think you have a case but don’t, and the courts will let you know early on and then tell you to pay up the other party for “reasonable legal fees”.
It is like a penance, for not researching this “precedence” criteria. But in
this latest verdict from the “High Court”, besides that 9 to zero all in favor
say Aye, the “opine” penned by Brett Kavanaugh for all the other jesters on the
same page, it is only 4-pages long! Why, because it is a new day a brand-new
deal as there is no “precedence set” in the way the “High Court” ruled for Trump as well
it is not a “binding decision” by the “lower courts”. So, it is a must read not
in difficulty and below find some of the pertinent highlights. And then ask
yourself, why such a humongous win for the individual-of-interest that planned
and executed that “Domestic Terrorist Attack” - because he had friends in high
places, juxtaposition maybe?
Statement of
JUSTICE KAVANAUGH respecting denial of “Privilege”.
The Court of Appeals suggested that a former President
may not successfully invoke the Presidential communications privilege for
communications that occurred during his Presidency, at least if the current
President does not support the privilege claim. As this Court’s order today
makes clear, those portions of the Court of Appeals’ opinion were DICTA and should not be considered binding precedent going forward.
Moreover, I respectfully disagree with the Court of Appeals
on that point. A former President must be able to successfully invoke the
Presidential communications privilege for communications that occurred during
his Presidency, even if the current President does not support the privilege
claim. Concluding otherwise would eviscerate the executive privilege for
Presidential communications.
By protecting the confidentiality of those internal
communications, the Presidential communications privilege facilitates candid
advice and deliberations, and it leads to more informed and better Presidential
decision making. If Presidents and their advisers thought that the privilege’s
protections would terminate at the end of the Presidency and that their
privileged communications could be disclosed when the President left office (or were subject to the absolute control of a subsequent
President who could be a political opponent of a former President), the
consequences for the Presidency would be severe. Without sufficient
assurances of continuing confidentiality, Presidents and their advisers would
be chilled from engaging in the full and frank deliberations upon which effective
discharge of the President’s duties depends.
To be clear, to say that a former President can invoke
the privilege for Presidential communications that occurred during his
Presidency does not mean that the privilege is absolute or cannot be overcome.
The Court of Appeals concluded that the privilege
claim at issue here would not succeed even under the Nixon and Senate Select
Committee tests. Therefore, as this Court’s order today
makes clear, the Court of Appeals’ broader statements questioning whether a
former President may successfully invoke the Presidential communications privilege
if the current President does not support the claim were DICTA and should
not be considered binding precedent going forward.
~~~~~
No comments:
Post a Comment