Continuing the discussion from The Trump Presidency 2.0 (Part 1) - #10104 by TT.
Previous discussions:
Breaking news: Suckers voted for conman, got conned
1 Like
Continuing the discussion from The Trump Presidency 2.0 (Part 1):
Definitely has big blackmailâŚit is painfully obvious.
From the Wall Street Journal:
Trump Demeans Himself as He Attacks the Supreme Court
President Trump owes the Supreme Court an apologyâto the individual Justices he smeared on Friday and the institution itself. Mr. Trump doubtless wonât offer one, but his rant in response to his tariff defeat at the Court was arguably the worst moment of his Presidency.
This is ugly even by Mr. Trumpâs standards. Heâs accusing them of betraying the U.S. at the behest of nefarious interests he didnât identify, no doubt because they donât exist. Asked about Justices Gorsuch and Barrett, whom he appointed, Mr. Trump called them âan embarrassment to their families.
Mr. Trump shouldnât have been surprised by the Court. We warned from the start that this would be the result of his unlawful resort to IEEPA. The fault doesnât lie with the Justices but with his own tariff obsessions.
He called them âfoolsâ. That seems unwise
Thatâs the entire Trump presidency. Where every accusation is an admission
The Courtâs decision was not just about tariffs. Supreme Court Justice Gorsuch is clearly directing this missive at the entire Trump Presidency.
2 Likes
IMO, thatâs a grossly overly [generous?] interpretation of this ruling. This court has enabled Trump repeatedly even when it goes against clear legislative intent and authority. This case is a little different given the ridiculously clear constitutional lines and clearly limited authority; it wouldâve taken some seriously convoluted rationalizing (not that it would have surprised me) to rule in trumps favor. And the cynical side in me wouldnât be shocked if the âconservativesâ who went against trump did so for the benefit of corporate interests.
Overly what? Just curious.
I was thinking itâs well in the realm of âthings that donât need to be saidâ. I donât see what the relevance is in a legal context. If you were trying to explain democracy to a bunch of clowns, itâs perfect. Someone needs to do that obviously but I donât see why a Supreme Court justice needs to think it in reference to a legal decision much less say it.
Haha, meant to come back to it when I found the right word but forgot to. Put in âgenerous,â but thatâs not quite right. This court clearly is willing to bend its own logic (not just precedent, but the conservative majorityâs own arguments) to back the heritage agenda .
So what happens if these corporations apply for refunds from the tariffs but the cost burden they put on consumers never goes back into their pockets? What if that was the great plan here all along?
Spicy theory I heard recently at least.
If it plays out like this, I can imagine MAGA is either going to be too vapid to realize the scam, or not believe that it affects them. Maybe they will be so blinded with admiration by how clever the scheme was, they donât care that they were swindled, such is the level of cuckery they have lately.
JPMC finally admitted they de-banked the President of the United States. If they can do it to POTUS, theyâll do it to you,â Guest wrote.
Jason Miller, a longtime strategist to Trump, also weighed in, simply writing: âI mean, what the f***.â
Documents released Friday as part of the discovery process showed that Chase sent Trump two letters on February 19, 2021, informing him that they were closing dozens of his accounts.
++++++
Infowars wuz ryt!!!
This sounds like the right thing to do, only wish they never unfroze them!
