Viva Frei

in the middle acts and no immunity for personal acts, but you cannot adduce as evidence, evidence that was adduced as presidential conduct, which correspondence with chief of staff and press secretary obviously was on its face. And so what they basically said is we have no respect for our rulings either.

Go ahead, Marshall, and take a judicial dump on our ruling and go ahead with your sentencing because you've undertaken not to jail him. We'll let you do it. They have discredited themselves. And we see, unfortunately, the true colors of Amy Coney Barrett.

Go ahead, Marshall, and take a judicial dump on our ruling and go ahead with your sentencing because you've undertaken not to jail him. We'll let you do it. They have discredited themselves. And we see, unfortunately, the true colors of Amy Coney Barrett.

Go ahead, Marshall, and take a judicial dump on our ruling and go ahead with your sentencing because you've undertaken not to jail him. We'll let you do it. They have discredited themselves. And we see, unfortunately, the true colors of Amy Coney Barrett.

Roberts is squishy as well, so who knows how he identifies. But the bottom line, and she's also, she's young, she's there for a long time. But you imagine the rationale, they said, yeah, we issued this ruling that the evidence was inadmissible if, but because the judge announced his intention not to jail, we'll let him go through with sentencing? No. The judge desecrated.

Roberts is squishy as well, so who knows how he identifies. But the bottom line, and she's also, she's young, she's there for a long time. But you imagine the rationale, they said, yeah, we issued this ruling that the evidence was inadmissible if, but because the judge announced his intention not to jail, we'll let him go through with sentencing? No. The judge desecrated.

Roberts is squishy as well, so who knows how he identifies. But the bottom line, and she's also, she's young, she's there for a long time. But you imagine the rationale, they said, yeah, we issued this ruling that the evidence was inadmissible if, but because the judge announced his intention not to jail, we'll let him go through with sentencing? No. The judge desecrated.

Yeah, the judge desecrated the ruling of the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court said, we don't really care. That's what it's worth. And now you get your convicted felon title so you can do Lord knows what with. I do wonder if that's an interesting.

Yeah, the judge desecrated the ruling of the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court said, we don't really care. That's what it's worth. And now you get your convicted felon title so you can do Lord knows what with. I do wonder if that's an interesting.

Yeah, the judge desecrated the ruling of the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court said, we don't really care. That's what it's worth. And now you get your convicted felon title so you can do Lord knows what with. I do wonder if that's an interesting.

Well, Megan, remember the legal gymnastics back in impeachment 1.0, that was the quid pro quo where a Democrat left-leaning lawless lawyers and members of Congress said, we don't even need a crime to impeach. It's a purely political process. We can impeach him for the color of his tie. Uh, And that was to get around the fact that there was no crime committed with that quid pro quo conversation.

Well, Megan, remember the legal gymnastics back in impeachment 1.0, that was the quid pro quo where a Democrat left-leaning lawless lawyers and members of Congress said, we don't even need a crime to impeach. It's a purely political process. We can impeach him for the color of his tie. Uh, And that was to get around the fact that there was no crime committed with that quid pro quo conversation.

Well, Megan, remember the legal gymnastics back in impeachment 1.0, that was the quid pro quo where a Democrat left-leaning lawless lawyers and members of Congress said, we don't even need a crime to impeach. It's a purely political process. We can impeach him for the color of his tie. Uh, And that was to get around the fact that there was no crime committed with that quid pro quo conversation.

Second time, yeah, the perfect phone call. There was no crime there. And so they had to say, well, impeachment, sure, it says for other high crimes and misdemeanors, but it's a political process. He doesn't actually have to commit a crime. That's what they said in 1.0. In 2.0, for the insurrection, they then had at least on its face on paper a crime.

Second time, yeah, the perfect phone call. There was no crime there. And so they had to say, well, impeachment, sure, it says for other high crimes and misdemeanors, but it's a political process. He doesn't actually have to commit a crime. That's what they said in 1.0. In 2.0, for the insurrection, they then had at least on its face on paper a crime.

Second time, yeah, the perfect phone call. There was no crime there. And so they had to say, well, impeachment, sure, it says for other high crimes and misdemeanors, but it's a political process. He doesn't actually have to commit a crime. That's what they said in 1.0. In 2.0, for the insurrection, they then had at least on its face on paper a crime.

Now they have a confirmed crime, a convicted felon. So now they don't have to make the argument, oh, it's not a political process. This is now a judicial one. We've got the convicted felon status. So we can go for impeachment 3.0 because we can now point to the actual crime upon which this impeachment 3.0 might be based.

Now they have a confirmed crime, a convicted felon. So now they don't have to make the argument, oh, it's not a political process. This is now a judicial one. We've got the convicted felon status. So we can go for impeachment 3.0 because we can now point to the actual crime upon which this impeachment 3.0 might be based.

Now they have a confirmed crime, a convicted felon. So now they don't have to make the argument, oh, it's not a political process. This is now a judicial one. We've got the convicted felon status. So we can go for impeachment 3.0 because we can now point to the actual crime upon which this impeachment 3.0 might be based.

They are that stupid and that kamikaze reckless in their pursuit of opposing Trump. Jamie Raskin, who was infamously caught on that mic saying, you know, we might have to declare civil war conditions when we disqualify Trump because of the insurrection clause. Well, Supreme Court came down and said, no, you can't do that. So let's find another way to do it.