First, a somewhat snarky quibble: "corrupt Chicago" is redundant! :P
The part that is amazing is that, with two other states having already crossed this particular Rubicon, and with the matter now before the Supreme Court (and SCOTUS watchers who observed oral arguments noted that even the liberal wing of the Court seemed none too impress…
First, a somewhat snarky quibble: "corrupt Chicago" is redundant! :P
The part that is amazing is that, with two other states having already crossed this particular Rubicon, and with the matter now before the Supreme Court (and SCOTUS watchers who observed oral arguments noted that even the liberal wing of the Court seemed none too impressed with the "insurrectionist" argument), how it is that Judge Porter thinks this is even a proper ruling to make at this time.
Is this virtue-signaling or is it desperation? Frankly, I can't tell and I don't think it matters. It's lunacy either way.
If the case is so obvious against Trump then swear out an indictment and hold a trial.
If the case for insurrection is so obvious against the J6 protesters/rioters then charge them and try them and secure whatever convictions can be had.
Yet that is the one thing no Democrat is willing to do. They want to pass these unconstitutional bills of attainder--something explicitly forbidden by the text of the Constitution--but they do not want to honor Donald Trump's inalienable civil liberties and give him due process of law.
I do not, as many do, accuse Joe Biden of treason for his actions, for the simple reason that, according to the Constitution, Joe Biden's numerous malfeasances are corrupt and venal and vicious, but they are not treasonous.. I do not say that because I am a fan of Dementia Joe, but because I am a fan of the Constitution.
First, a somewhat snarky quibble: "corrupt Chicago" is redundant! :P
The part that is amazing is that, with two other states having already crossed this particular Rubicon, and with the matter now before the Supreme Court (and SCOTUS watchers who observed oral arguments noted that even the liberal wing of the Court seemed none too impressed with the "insurrectionist" argument), how it is that Judge Porter thinks this is even a proper ruling to make at this time.
Is this virtue-signaling or is it desperation? Frankly, I can't tell and I don't think it matters. It's lunacy either way.
If the case is so obvious against Trump then swear out an indictment and hold a trial.
If the case for insurrection is so obvious against the J6 protesters/rioters then charge them and try them and secure whatever convictions can be had.
Yet that is the one thing no Democrat is willing to do. They want to pass these unconstitutional bills of attainder--something explicitly forbidden by the text of the Constitution--but they do not want to honor Donald Trump's inalienable civil liberties and give him due process of law.
I do not, as many do, accuse Joe Biden of treason for his actions, for the simple reason that, according to the Constitution, Joe Biden's numerous malfeasances are corrupt and venal and vicious, but they are not treasonous.. I do not say that because I am a fan of Dementia Joe, but because I am a fan of the Constitution.
You are magnificent, Peter.