Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

Hope22

(1,913 posts)

5. They saw what we saw!

Reply to bigtree (Original post)

Thu Apr 25, 2024, 04:40 PM

Apr 25

Yet it was a weird description of a bloody insurrection that was given by a judge today! Thomas was particularly disgusting all while having a paid insurrectionist for a wife. I don’t think most of the justices would know a traitor if they saw one! So nice they can prejudge the case. Unbelievable!

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

11 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

We're waiting for the SC to decide whether there are 'official acts' in the indictment which deserve immunity [View all] bigtree Apr 25 OP

I don't think that's quite right Fiendish Thingy Apr 25 #1

that's pretty much what I said bigtree Apr 25 #4

Ultimately I don't think they can shield Trump without exposing themselves to personal risks Fiendish Thingy Apr 25 #6

Your headline said "official acts in the indictment" Fiendish Thingy Apr 25 #7

Beginning to think the fix is in bucolic_frolic Apr 25 #2

As Lincoln said, "You can call the horse's tail a leg, but that doesn't make it so." kentuck Apr 25 #3

They saw what we saw! Hope22 Apr 25 #5

Again, it's all about delay budkin Apr 25 #8

Trying not to get depressed senseandsensibility Apr 25 #9

I think the 'liberal' justices' point was that there are myriad protections in place to prevent an unjust prosecution bigtree Apr 25 #10

i hope you're right senseandsensibility Apr 25 #11