I can't imagine a ruling in his favor that doesn't give Biden the power to also commit whatever crimes he wants, but then again I'm not creative enough in the "moral degeneracy" department to qualify as a Republican supreme court justice.
They'll probably rule something asinine like "using a phone isn't treason" and, blinders firmly in place, blow right by the actual question.
That's a win win for the SC.
He wins the election, they can say "Whelp, makes no sense to rule on this until he's out of office again" and hope he dies before dick tatering his way into a third term.
He loses the election, they can decide to rule either way depending on how much grease he's got left in his pockets with no worries about repercussions while they also hope he dies.
something something Nazis at a table.
This was in June 2020, where he was meeting (local) leaders in a church. So, at worst, he was respecting their beliefs by joining in a moment of prayer.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/biden-meets-with-black-leaders-at-local-church-amid-unrest
The post's picture is Trump allowing himself to be the object of worship for a bunch of crazy cultists. Sure, you could say he's just respecting their beliefs (in him as some kind of sub deity/prophet?) but the whole thing is so transparent that it's obviously just a picture of a grifter doing his grift on a bunch of rubes.
Notice the blue curtains and stage lights. The purpose of that meeting was to "promote the brand".
Does William Travis or Davey Crocket count?
Fruit Stripe Gum mascot commits suicide via Fruit Stripe Gum overdose, colorized (c1998)
Xenophobia and racism.
balance to the force? They're both tales about maintaining, then restoring light in the darkness, they both end up being enemies of their own 'side'.
The man has a crippling spatula habit, he needs the income.
no idea, but the name is excellent.
I'm naming my mid Iron Python and there's nothing you can do to stop me.
I changed it because I was actually confused if this was about Jan 6th or about the Georgia case. Either way, they're going to have to argue that what he did isn't a crime because (whatever nonsense reason). There's no way they can argue a president is immune to prosecution for crimes, and for that reason alone, the kkkonservative justices are absolutely going to skirt the actual question and dismiss the case based on "not a crime".