The Thread of Court Cases Trump Is Winning

POSTED BY: JEWELSTAITEFAN
UPDATED: Thursday, September 3, 2026 03:01
VIEWED: 5857
PAGE 4 of 11

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN (on May 8th):

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
I was not aware that folk buying DJT were making financial investment choices. I had not heard of this being the case.

---

Oh really?

Quote:

---

If Blackrock invests solely in all of the garbage social media, then why would not reasonable folk put their money into the opposite?

---

Knock yourself out. Let us know how it goes.

Right now it's worth $26.55. Just a couple cents more than it was worth on January 19th.

I hope you didn't buy it on day one of the IPO. You're not getting that money back.

---

Looks like DJT has been hanging around $50.

---

https://www.marketwatch.com/inve
sting/stock/djt?mod=mw_quote_switch

Today DJT closed over $53. On the 9th it closed over $54. I thought it bounced up to $58 one of those days.

Yup, quite the loser. $26 to $54.

---

Sell it now and make a few bucks then.
Or completely disregard the facts in my last post and hold it until it's worthless.
It ain't my money. You do whatever you feel is right.
And I see that there was zero attempt on your part to enlighten us just as to how a company like DJT is actually making money and legitimately propping up the stock price beyond it being just another gambling site for stock speculators.

---

You don't seem to be listening. Even though you just quoted the answers.

---

Those aren't answers. Those are just bullshit disguised as sentences.

Explain to me how DJT makes actual tangible profits. What service does it provide and how does it monetize this service? How is it profitable? How much Gross profit does it make from quarter to quarter? How much are their expenses in those same quarters? How much net revenue do they expect next quarter? What do they project for the same quarter five years from now?

You won't answer one of those questions because you CAN'T answer any of those questions.

Have fun gambling.

---

https://ca.video.search.yahoo.com/search/video?fr=fp-tts&p=Donald+
Trump+campaign+donations#id=5&vid=301d9c188f54c32f6d23d99348d28cb3

https://ca.finance.yahoo.com/news/trump-fundraising-crashes-guilty-ver
dict-125835717.html

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-campaign-hauls-in-53m-in
-donations-post-verdict/vi-BB1nrXLv

I was not aware that folk buying DJT were making financial investment choices. I had not heard of this being the case.If Blackrock invests solely in all of the garbage social media, then why would not reasonable folk put their money into the opposite?

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
I was not aware that folk buying DJT were making financial investment choices. I had not heard of this being the case.If Blackrock invests solely in all of the garbage social media, then why would not reasonable folk put their money into the opposite?

---

That still doesn't explain how this "product" makes any money. Elon Musk spent over $40 Billion on Twitter and he's not making any money. That purchase on his part will never pay for itself, financially, on paper. Never. But it's a powerful social tool with a very wide reach. Arguably the most powerful tool with the widest reach in the history of mankind.

Trump Social will never be Twitter, nor will it ever be a realistic competitor with Twitter, which means that its capability of making any money is less than zero.



You can either tell me now how Trump Social is going to make money, or you can shut the fuck up about your thoughts on this investor trap that is going to end up fleecing people of their wealth when the bottom falls out just like those people who were buying NFTs and AMC and Game Stop stock at the peak already did.

You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about here, and you have zero understanding of social media.

--------------------------------------------------

Trump will be fine.
He will also be your next President.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

NeoCons, the Bohemian Grove homosexual Deep state with their pagan babylon robes and the cuckservative label in particular gets under their skin because it gets at a basic truth that Trump will be bent over and whipped by foreign powers including Israel

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
None of that means anything or matters.

---

they are ruthless and winning, next step is to ban him on ballot access from certain states as they have done with RFK

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Fla case on hold, Judge Cannon to hear arguments that Jack Smith appointment is Unconstitutional. Scheduled to hear in mid-October.


GA case on hold until after election, Appeals Court to hear arguments from Trump's defense team.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

SCOTUS threw out 2 of the Fake Charges against Trump for Jan 6, along with most of the Jan 6 defendants.

"Obstruction of Official Proceeding"

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Yeah. I mentioned that about the political prisoners in another thread the other day.

He just got the big one today though.


Democrats only have 2 choices now. Run with Biden* or replace him. None of their plotting and efforts to keep an election from happening in 2024 were successful.

--------------------------------------------------

Trump will be fine.
He will also be your next President.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

6 Takeaways From the Supreme Court’s Decision on Trump and Presidential Immunity
By Elie Honig, a former federal and state prosecutor and a contributor to CAFE
Supreme Court

We now have the Supreme Court’s immunity decision and — wow.

In large part, it’s what we expected and forecast in this space. But the Court’s opinion expands presidential power (and bolsters Trump’s legal defenses) substantially more than anybody reasonably predicted.

There’s a lot here, so let’s break down today’s decision. Here are the biggest takeaways.

Criminal immunity exists. This is, in itself, a headline. We’ve recognized civil immunity — protecting federal officials from lawsuits for their official, on-the-job actions — since the 1982 Supreme Court decision Nixon v. Fitzgerald. But, until today, it remained an open question whether there even was such a thing as criminal immunity. Now we know: There is.

Criminal immunity is not “blanket” or “absolute” — but it’s pretty darn broad. This has mostly been a problem of nomenclature. It’s easy to scoff at a claim that a president is immune (absolutely!) for everything he does from the moment he takes the oath of office at noon on January 20 until his term ends four years later. But, in reality, Trump’s team made no such argument to the Supreme Court, though it did (unwisely) float it below. Rather, his team argued for a more limited form of criminal immunity, which the Supreme Court has now accepted and then some. He’s immune, in many circumstances (more on this in a moment) — but no president or former president has all-encompassing, “blanket” coverage.

It all depends on whether the president’s actions were official or unofficial. As expected, and roughly parallel with civil immunity, a president is criminally immune for official acts taken within the scope of the job. But there are two crucial kickers here.

First, the Court will construe the job description quite broadly in the president’s favor. According to the decision, the boss is immune for anything within “the ‘outer perimeter’ of the President’s official responsibilities, covering actions so long as they are ‘not manifestly or palpably beyond his authority.”

Second, while a president cannot be indicted for his official acts, a prosecutor cannot even introduce evidence of any official act as part of a prosecution. So, for example, in DOJ special counsel Jack Smith’s 2020 election subversion case, the Court made clear that Trump’s contacts with the Justice Department (to try to arm-twist prosecutors to investigate and find election fraud) are within the scope of the job and cannot play any part in Smith’s presentation of evidence of the jury, even if necessary to explain the entire sequence of events in a coherent manner.

A president (probably) cannot order SEAL Team Six to assassinate a political rival and get away with it. As we discussed in a recent column, the SEAL Team Six hypothetical — and Trump’s claim that he could be indicted only if he was first impeached by the House and convicted by the Senate — oversimplified and distorted the actual legal issue at hand. I wrote then, “Count on the Supreme Court blowing past the impeachment argument and rejecting it out of hand. But that won’t end the inquiry. Look for the Court to consider, and potentially to create, a criminal-immunity test based roughly on whether conduct falls within or beyond the president’s official job responsibilities.” That’s essentially what has now happened.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor argues that the Court’s ruling would permit a president to order an assassination without consequences, but I respectfully dissent from that dissent. I don’t see any way a court concludes that such a plot would be an “official act” within the scope of the job. I might be wrong; we don’t know. Justice Sotomayor is right to at least highlight the dilemma.

This trial will not happen before the election. It’s over, folks. The chances of a pre-election trial on Smith’s 2020 election indictment have now slipped from “unlikely

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME