Comments by "terike" (@terike9738) on "Trump immunity: Expert explains Supreme Court decision" video.

  1. What do you call "campaigning"? Everything you don't like?
    16
  2. Duh. Presidential immunity act. Educate yourself.
    2
  3. @vapx0075  What about it? I am not sure what your point is, but what I can say is that it certainly IS within the remit of the Executive branch to ensure free and fair elections, that there were thousands of cases presented on video and sworn to in affidavits of election fraud (which when challenged in court were dismissed NOT on the merits but for "lack of stsnding"), and that there was a means in the CONSTITUTION of presenting alternate slates of electors, which was about to be discussed when the planned instigation of 6 Jan took place (at least 50 undercover Federal agents as per the government's admission in one of the court cases, Police and disguised persons opening the doors for the crowd and urging them to enter, the murder of an unarmed, small woman protester and others dying in the crush after tear gas and bullets were fired into the peaceful crowd, the fake pipe bomb distraction, and more). All of that has been proven and is indisputable, and was obviously not a result of a president urging citizens to rally for fair elections, which is indeed his responsibility to ensure as commander in chief.
    1
  4.  @WorksopGimp  Not at all. Obama should be charged with droning American citizens once he's out of office, as that's murder. But he has presidential immunity, even though he had no right to do it.
    1
  5. What cretins say: muh democracy. It's a great ruling for the corrupt, treasonous, criminals like Obama and Biden.
    1
  6. They were NOT "false electirs", they were ALTERNATE ELECTORS and absolutely allowed under the Constitution.
    1