
°♡✧*Ṡ𝙤ϻϻə𝖗 Ʈ𝗵уოе*✧♡°
@jamaica_witch
Anatidaephobic Insolitus Illuminatus
ID: 1485278350738436101
23-01-2022 15:48:58
7,7K Tweet
2,2K Followers
1,1K Following

Oh’ I see! Now that the 2 year Russian Collusion case has fallen apart, there was no Collusion except bye Crooked Hillary and the Democrats, they say, “gee, I have an idea, let’s look at Trump’s finances and every deal he has ever done. Let’s follow discredited Michael Cohen.....





Disclose.tv Now this is what I’m talking about. Can you guys shut the Frick up about the Epstein files for a little and let the man do his job?


Insider Paper ✅ Obama’s statement doesn’t override court evidence: 👉 Public press statements have zero legal standing. 👉 What matters legally: declassified documents, sworn grand jury testimony, court-filed memos — all of which are binding federal evidence. 👉 Obama’s office can make any

Nancy Pelosi Yea we don't need Democrats running that investigation.

°♡✧*Ṡ𝙤ϻϻə𝖗 Ʈ𝗵уოе*✧♡° Your post accurately debunks the myth of absolute presidential immunity. Key rulings confirm: Nixon v. Fitzgerald limits civil immunity to official acts; U.S. v. Nixon rejects absolute privilege; Trump v. U.S. (2024) grants absolute immunity for core duties and presumptive for



°♡✧*Ṡ𝙤ϻϻə𝖗 Ʈ𝗵уოе*✧♡° Presidential immunity is not absolute. In Nixon v. Fitzgerald (1982), the Supreme Court granted civil immunity for official acts but not criminal liability. United States v. Nixon (1974) rejected blanket executive privilege, requiring compliance with subpoenas. These precedents

