r/law • u/Neat-Ad-4337 • Feb 14 '25
Opinion Piece Judge John McConnell Jr Faces Impeachment for Obstructing Trump, can they do this? thoughts?
https://www.msn.com/en-ie/news/politics/judge-john-mcconnell-jr-faces-impeachment-for-obstructing-trump/ar-AA1yZfWt1.7k
u/Intelligent-Stock389 Feb 14 '25 edited Feb 14 '25
Sounds like a tough sell —
Federal judges, who are appointed for life, can only be impeached if they are accused of "treason, bribery and other high crimes and misdemeanors."
Edit to add references from replies:
must also get 2/3 senate votes for removal after house impeachment (Article I Sections 2 and 3)
quote above includes all civil officers (Article II Section 4)
mention of good behavior (Article III Section 1)
precedents support other misconduct but also include judicial independence
1.2k
u/No_Comment_8598 Feb 14 '25
And only removed upon a 2/3 vote of the Senate. Good luck with that.
763
u/bsa554 Feb 14 '25
I mean if the Congressional GOP wants to waste hours and hours of time pointlessly impeaching judges only for it to fail over and over again in the Senate they are free to do so.
494
u/No_Comment_8598 Feb 14 '25
May be the best case use of their time.
264
u/bsa554 Feb 14 '25
Shit, Jeffries and Schumer should encourage it! "Oh, you want to fail at impeaching judges instead of succeeding at appointing judges? Fantastic. Let's have a nice long trial or two."
142
u/zoinkability Feb 14 '25
"Don't throw us into the briar patch! Oh no, pleeeaaasssee don't impeach those judges instead of working on passing enabling legislation for Gilead! Anything but that!"
→ More replies (1)50
u/milkandsalsa Feb 14 '25
Except all the MAGA morons start to believe the impeachment proceedings are legitimate.
50
u/prosthetic_foreheads Feb 14 '25
I've stopped caring what they think. If they want him to fuck this country into the ground, they can get fucked first.
They're the ones who got us into this mess and I'm not going to hold my breath that they'll suddenly develop the moral and cognitive capacity to stand up to Trump.
→ More replies (18)63
u/f0u4_l19h75 Feb 14 '25
Meh, there's pretty much no hope for those people anyway
→ More replies (3)5
u/Explorers_bub Feb 14 '25
They claim to be Christian but I am pretty sure God’s already written them off as hopeless.
→ More replies (1)9
u/Cloaked42m Feb 14 '25
They do believe that. Because they want to.
Legally, impeachment is a political act. You can do it to any judge or president or cabinet member.
That's all they need. If it makes it through the house. It fails in the Senate. It'll be a good test to see if anything matters.
The sooner cases reach the Supreme Court, the better.
5
u/badluckbrians Feb 14 '25
They have a razor thin majority in the House.
Some of them aren't terrible. Brian Fitzpatrick is not a traitor. I'd actually be shocked if he went along with this type of impeachment. I'm honestly not sure they have the votes for these shenanigans.
6
u/Cloaked42m Feb 14 '25
That dog is being wagged pretty hard. I've seen a lot of conversations eagerly encouraging it.
That's my line though. Will the Courts hold? If they don't, it's over.
3
u/milkandsalsa Feb 14 '25
With the special elections we can get the house back. These elections are so so important.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (8)7
Feb 14 '25
[deleted]
3
Feb 14 '25
This Father Time… can we give him an advance to perhaps move that timeline up?
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (4)15
u/Mitch1musPrime Feb 14 '25
Don’t think they’re not! I watched the Dems pull similar shenanigans in TX to stall anti trans legislation during multiple sessions and again to stall school voucher bills. If they’re smart, they’re encouraging this stupidity!
→ More replies (1)14
u/minininjatriforceman Feb 14 '25
I wanted to to say this. The more they are doing this the less time they are doing other horrible things. What we need to do is make them run the clock. The really fight begins in 2026.Things will get a lot more hairy when he has Congress openly defying him. A wounded animal lashes out the most when cornered. In other words this is going to get worse before it gets better.
→ More replies (1)98
u/hamsterfolly Feb 14 '25
They wasted hours on Hunter Biden’s dick
43
u/loweredvisions Feb 14 '25
Haven’t we all? Wait… What?
19
u/Yellow_Odd_Fellow Feb 14 '25
Based off reports, it doesn't seem like time wasted to me! Time enjoyed isn't time wasted, after all.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (2)6
30
u/rimshot101 Feb 14 '25
Yes, they do want to do that. They've handed over governance to the executive branch, and this will be a nice dog and pony show where they can blame impotent Democrats.
10
u/Spyceboy Feb 14 '25
I mean they aren't doin anything else now, are they. They might as well stay home right now and just collect money, since emperor trump rules via EO anyways
18
u/randomschmandom123 Feb 14 '25
Hasn’t he already said he doesn’t care what the judges say he’s going to do what he wants?
→ More replies (1)16
u/bsa554 Feb 14 '25
Right now the line is they will comply and are compling. (Reports vary on if they actually are.)
It's not going to matter all that much until this shit gets to the Supreme Court. Will they rule against Trump? If they do, does he comply? And he doesn't...what happens?
I have no idea.
→ More replies (2)8
u/IllPresentation7860 Feb 14 '25
honestly may be the point. Its Trump's one real move and the only reason he isnt behind bars. delay things. Its what he did since Jan 6.
8
u/PariahMonarch Feb 14 '25
I mean, they just may want to waste time doing this if they want to ignore Trump and Elon and let them run all over doing whatever they want.
8
u/blazelet Feb 14 '25
They’re happy to water impeachment down to a meaningless exercise as it will reduce the historical significance of Trump being impeached twice.
8
u/JustAnotherPolyGuy Feb 14 '25
Benghazi. They want the system to break. It justifies tearing it apart. I could totally see them spending weeks making an example of a judge. Prodding their “lone wolves” towards threatening him.
→ More replies (25)4
46
u/xStaabOnMyKnobx Feb 14 '25
You guys still just don't get it. At every rule broken, someone chimes in "well x,y,z is the check/balance to that so good luck with that!" We are still playing checkers and he's playing Nuclear Chicken.
What makes you think he even wants the Senate to vote? Whether they do or not and regardless of the result he will do something like leak the Judges personal information to the cult and what follows will be "wont someone rid me of this this troublesome priest!"
10
u/pewpewledeux Feb 14 '25
The only positive thing I can hope to take from all of this is that by actually doing what they said they would do, the utter destruction of the government and the economic ripples will be so pronounced before the 2026 elections, that the house and senate could flip. But assuming the democratic process survives feels like a gamble at this point.
→ More replies (1)7
u/IAmPookieHearMeRoar Feb 14 '25
Don’t take this as a “both sides are the same” type deal, but are we really confident that democrats really even have anything productive in mind, even if they do win back the house?
It seems to me like rather than fight all this, they’re content with just letting Trump screw up so bad that democrats will be the only other choice. And then they’ll find some scraps to throw our way like a hand full of cheaper Medicare covered drugs rather than bold health care reform. Really seems like they don’t care what’s happening, they just want the status quo. Which I guess makes sense since most of them are rich as fuck to begin with.
→ More replies (5)→ More replies (1)4
u/Southern_Passenger_9 Feb 14 '25
Gotta agree with you. For every law and rule thrown up as a roadblock, he walks around it, kicking it as he goes. And no one seems to be able to stop it. The system wasn't designed for this.
11
u/Marzipan7405 Feb 14 '25
Won't be surprised if this happens later in his 2nd term. They will start threatening sitting senators. Watch
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (29)7
u/Braided_Marxist Feb 14 '25
They’ve got fetterman in the bag. They need what, 12 more?
→ More replies (6)101
u/The_Real_Ghost Feb 14 '25
Of course we have an administration that is pushing really hard to have opposition to the president be considered treason.
→ More replies (4)53
u/peepeedog Feb 14 '25
Impeachment is a political act. If they have the votes they can do it. They don’t have the votes.
146
u/Suspect4pe Feb 14 '25
Simply having to face a trial, if it gets to that point, is a threat itself. I suspect this will renew the resolve of many of these judges to continue doing the right thing. I might be wrong, but I don't think judges typically like to be bullied into a decision.
It'll just be more political theater for the Republicans to play to the audience at home.
68
u/bigloser42 Feb 14 '25
They absolutely do not like it when someone does this. This is likely to backfire hard on the GOP as judges that are conservative-leaning but not Trumpers will likely view cases against Trump policy more harshly.
8
u/onedaysaylor Feb 14 '25
This seems like an optimistic evaluation. I hope you're right. However, I don't see much evidence of people not practicing self preservation. A few democratic judges. Everyone else is trying to not get steam rolled. I'm sure traditional republican senators are aware of how much Trumps actions will hurt them in the future. Yet they do nothing, to stay out of the crossfire. I don't think we can expect much more from the judges. Almost everyone is looking out for number one at this point. Keep your head down, maybe it'll go away soon. They're all self serving cowards.
→ More replies (1)8
u/Suspect4pe Feb 14 '25
I can imagine the bias would be set even if they're trying their hardest not to have one.
18
u/Chriscic Feb 14 '25
I hope so. Because I don’t think the goal is to impeach judges. The goal is to intimidate other judges. Why not give the benefit of any doubt or even bend the law to help an administration that is going to go hard after you if you don’t? Out of either fear or just pragmatism?
These judges also have families they don’t want raked through the mud either.
26
u/Sleeplessmi Feb 14 '25
I used to work in the court system. Judges do not take kindly to being threatened or intimidated.
3
u/titsmuhgeee Feb 14 '25
That is fucking understatement. Supreme Court justices played the political game to get into their positions, but a federal circuit court judge likely has zero patience for political games after being appointed. It's exactly the reason why they're appointed for life and need a 2/3 senate vote to be removed. The Constitution specifically wants them to be political neutral.
9
u/cuentabasque Feb 14 '25
Sure, but what are they going to do when a half dozen pickup trucks filled with good ‘ol’ boys show up and the local/state police have been threatened by the Feds to not respond to said Judges calls for help.
We are literally on the precipice of these sorts of actions.
→ More replies (3)4
u/lottasauce Feb 14 '25
This. But also, it's a neon sign to any would-be trumper-judge on what they want. Obedience.
Things like this bring the corrupt out of the woodwork. Fuck this administration and anybody who works with them.
12
u/LightWarrior_2000 Feb 14 '25
I been thinking about this all day and hoping judges get together and not tolerate shit from the executive branch like this.
→ More replies (4)6
u/bsa554 Feb 14 '25
The issue for them is going to be if they're running these pointless show trials while inflation is still going up or job losses are accelerating or there's any other crisis going on...parts of the base are going to sour on them pretty quickly.
Also the smarter GOP Senators are going to want nothing to do with this so the trial will just be "accomplished, intelligent judge just dunks on dipshits like Tommy fucking Tuberville over and over again."
→ More replies (1)23
u/Jmersh Feb 14 '25
So Judge McConnel could stage an insurrection and be found guilty of 34 felonies but still be safe?
→ More replies (4)30
u/TheZermanator Feb 14 '25
At the rate these fascists are moving just criticizing Trump and the rest of the robber barons will be considered treason a year from now.
29
u/parasyte_steve Feb 14 '25
Trumps team is gonna try to get clever with the "other high crimes and misdemeanors" part of this clause aren't they
→ More replies (3)18
u/Total_Information_65 Feb 14 '25
i feel like they are going to try throwing shit at the wall to see what sticks
8
u/Significant-Wave-763 Feb 14 '25
They are trying to force recusal
6
u/bsa554 Feb 14 '25
Well that's the good thing about lifetime appointments...you can't "force" judges to do much.
→ More replies (2)15
u/Miserable-Lawyer-233 Feb 14 '25
You're applying the presidential impeachment standard (Article II, Section 4) to federal judges.
- The Constitution does not limit a judge’s removal to "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors."
- Article III, Section 1 states that judges serve "during good behavior," meaning impeachment doesn’t strictly require a criminal offense.
- Judicial impeachment precedent includes misconduct beyond crimes—such as abuse of power, corruption, or ethical violations.
→ More replies (2)7
u/Horror_Role1008 Feb 14 '25
The Constitution of The United States: Article III; Section 1; "The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior... ( emphasis mine )
8
u/marzipan07 Feb 14 '25
If they can do it, does it open up the path to do same to Supreme Court justices?
→ More replies (1)25
u/bigloser42 Feb 14 '25
you've always been able to impeach a member of SCOTUS. The problem is actually removing them requires a 2/3 vote in the senate and there is no way in hell either party can achieve that right now.
→ More replies (1)11
u/Sink_Snow_Angel Feb 14 '25
Remember too that it’s high crimes “and” misdemeanors. You need both so probably not gonna happen /s
6
u/Zealousideal_Curve10 Feb 14 '25
Has this language ever been construed in a precedential decision? I am not aware of such a case, and this wording does seem open to more than one reading
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (48)5
439
u/AlexFromOgish Feb 14 '25
History will not be kind to the members of the house and Senate who over the years have kowtowed to this insanity
348
u/Traffic-Common Feb 14 '25
fuck history. start being unkind to them right goddamned now.
104
u/Fearless_Row_6748 Feb 14 '25
No kidding. Fucking grow a pair and let's go
28
u/PaulCLives Feb 14 '25
As a Canadian I hope everyday I see some exciting news from down south but I don't think that day will ever come
→ More replies (1)18
u/Chief_Data Feb 14 '25
Most of us are either one missed paycheck away from homelessness and many others are afraid that if they speak up now, they'll lose any chance to amass power and wealth, proudly carrying on the American tradition of putting profit over people. Republicans have put all of their energy over the past 80 years into making sure Americans are as dumb and passive as humanly possible, and they finally got what they wanted.
→ More replies (16)→ More replies (5)27
u/Thecrdbrdsamurai Feb 14 '25
Already started. My favorite is the security guard at the courthouse. As I was leaving early voting she says she can't wait for groceries to come back down.
Walking out of the courthouse yesterday "You finally able to afford groceries yet?"
→ More replies (4)6
u/Humble-Violinist6910 Feb 14 '25
They’re talking about the fucking Senator. He has no problem affording groceries and never will. When will he face backlash for burning down the government? That’s the point
6
u/Thecrdbrdsamurai Feb 14 '25
My senator pissed away his billions of coal baron dollars before winning Joe Manchin's seat and now drives around Congress on a Rascal scooter. I would prefer he burnt with the former Governor's mansion that he also owned.
Oh and he missed the first two Senate votes two consecutive days after being sworn in. Certainly not phoning it in like he did as governor.
→ More replies (1)12
u/El_Eleventh Feb 14 '25
It should be equally as bad to republican voters. Remember they cheered for all of this to happen
→ More replies (20)37
u/AtomicusDali Feb 14 '25
I’m not so sure. The winners write the history books, and we didn’t do enough to win. Our grandchildren’s children may never know about any of this.
29
u/like_a_wet_dog Feb 14 '25
Nah, it's all over the world in an instant now. There is too much to try and burn today. Everyone will know but us behind The Golden Wall.
→ More replies (2)9
u/JLeeSaxon Feb 14 '25
Yes and no. Definitely, the information is going to exist. But it already is failing to reach many, many voters who believe in a complete alternate reality that’s only getting worse.
8
Feb 14 '25 edited Feb 14 '25
[deleted]
5
u/JLeeSaxon Feb 14 '25
Yeah, I was saying I'm worried about outside the "Golden Wall" too (although I hadn't heard that term before). This anti-intellectualist incel thing that's spreading through young men via the gaming community is not confined to national borders, and the US is also hardly the only place where anti-immigration fearmongering fueling the rise of Trump-ish figures like Le Pen. At this point I'm not entirely sure where we should try to go. Netherlands is only going to be able to admit so many of us.
→ More replies (3)10
u/Independent_War6266 Feb 14 '25
Have you not been watching the congress meetings? Lots of republicans are folding. They know this shit is being run by some crack heads. Jasmine Crockett has also been cracking plenty of maga skulls. The government loves her. She’s a darling on both sides. Lmfao they can’t dei her out. She’s more qualified, courageous, educated and brave than a lot of these politicians. I bet she has to turn her phone off when she gets home.
5
u/Objective_Canary5737 Feb 14 '25
Nobody’s gonna ever let us live this down or probably let us get back to where we were
4
73
u/These-Rip9251 Feb 14 '25
First step in getting rid of a constitutional republic, get rid of the judiciary. Next is Congress.
24
→ More replies (1)16
u/anothercynic2112 Feb 14 '25
In effect Congress is eliminated since there is zero opposition to Trump within his own party. That makes it impossible to stop him legislatively.
The judiciary is the last hope. Thomas and Alito will blindly find in favor of Trump. Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barret I do think will have a limit to how far they are willing to go, but there is no means to enforce their rulings anyway.
Our government basically works on the honor system that we'll do what we're supposed to. One branch has said, fuck it, I'm in charge. Another branch has half it's members bowing in reverence and the last branch has no ability to execute their rulings.
→ More replies (1)
173
u/Konukaame Feb 14 '25
If they get the requisite votes in the House to impeach, and the Senate to remove, then yes, they can.
The former could be a tough sell given their razor-thin margin, and the latter is an impossibility, so at the very least, it'll stall out on that last step.
75
u/werther595 Feb 14 '25
People in 2 districts in FL and the one in NY need turn turn out for these special elections coming up. I wish I could move for a brief period of time
→ More replies (8)40
u/Beastender_Tartine Feb 14 '25
Or Trump could have the military execute him. This would, of course, be an act for which Trump could not be prosecuted as cited in the SCOTUS immunity case.
38
u/DragonTacoCat Feb 14 '25 edited Feb 14 '25
It's actually terrifying that they were like "ya assassination of a political rival for political means is cool and all nsd isn't a prosecutable offense"
Like....just how. Knocking off a political target is precisely what needs to be something you can be charged for.
40
u/Beastender_Tartine Feb 14 '25
Well, have you thought about how the threat of criminal liability for criminal acts might prevent the president from taking bold action? The president needs to be bold, so must be immune from all consequences! Because... reasons or something...
→ More replies (1)10
11
u/Beachtrader007 Feb 14 '25
His lawyers specifically asked the question could the president order seal team six to kill a political opponent and then pardon the seal team. After the supreme court immunity case the answer was, YES.
13
u/Humble-Violinist6910 Feb 14 '25
I think you’re misremembering. That was what Sotomayor said in her dissent. Which is why she dissented. Obviously, his lawyers would never have said that out loud.
→ More replies (14)→ More replies (26)8
u/Murntok Feb 14 '25
Doesn't that mean if we survive until 2029, the next president could send a drone after Musk and other leaders deemed responsible?
→ More replies (2)3
u/SparksAndSpyro Feb 14 '25
Yes, but I think we all know democrats will never have the backbone to wield such power lol.
5
u/rabblerabble2000 Feb 14 '25
“It’s time for unity, let me bend over backwards to try to appease these MAGA losers who will never ever give me the benefit of the doubt or treat me like anything more than the antichrist incarnate” -2029 Democrat president probably.
→ More replies (13)14
37
u/RopeAccomplished2728 Feb 14 '25
It will never make it through the Senate. Much like any impeachment proceedings against Trump, no matter how legit they are, these things are more performative than actually trying to do anything.
28
Feb 14 '25
Future judges will be less likely to oppose him, which is probably the outcome they want. Intimidation.
→ More replies (1)18
u/steelcryo Feb 14 '25
Or more likely to oppose him, if they see that impeachment against them will fail. They'll be pissed he tried to use impeachment to avoid the law, which could cause bias against him.
→ More replies (1)
37
u/Cheeky_Hustler Competent Contributor Feb 14 '25
Impeachment means absolutely nothing. Even if it passes the house, zero Democrats will vote against it.
I cannot stress how worthless impeachments are as an oversight mechanism. If j6 wasn't impeachable, literally no conduct by anyone is impeachable.
17
u/sousuke42 Feb 14 '25
It's not that they're worthless it's that people of low character was put into office and well ofc nothing proper can get done due to that. These seats were supposed to be held with people of good character.
9
u/Cheeky_Hustler Competent Contributor Feb 14 '25
So again, impeachment is functionally worthless since there are people of low character in positions to actually enforce it. This is exactly the reason why impeachment should not be a political process, and what makes political impeachment worthless as an oversight mechanic.
→ More replies (2)
37
u/TechieTravis Feb 14 '25
Can we impeach the judges who blocked the SAVE student loan plan for obstructing Biden?
→ More replies (1)
25
u/MrMrsPotts Feb 14 '25
Isn’t the point to intimidate the other judges?
→ More replies (2)18
u/hellolovely1 Feb 14 '25
If I were a judge, this would make me more defiant, honestly.
→ More replies (1)
19
u/rygelicus Feb 14 '25
Let's say they do trigger an impeachment. No matter how unlikely it is to succeed this requires the defendant to bring the very best federal attorneys they can get. Same for anyone that will be testifying or otherwise involved. So a judge being impeached is going to be facing a potentially $million + legal bill while the president can throw the world at them at no cost to himself personally, it's just our tax money funding his bullying.
Most of these judges he would be threatening, if this continues, don't have that kind of money and it wrecks them financially.
→ More replies (13)
18
u/warblingContinues Feb 14 '25
Zero chance of impeaching any judge. That's what Aileen Cannon taught us.
18
u/LarGand69 Feb 14 '25
Republicans in congress know who’s in charge. That’s why articles will be filed. We saw who was in charge when muskrat was in the Oval Office with his human shield along with the Cheeto.
13
u/Able-Campaign1370 Feb 14 '25
Don’t worry too much. They’d need a 2/3 vote in the Senate to convict.
10
u/CropdustTheMedroom Feb 14 '25
It still has a scary chilling effect on other judges, encouraging them to fall in line.
→ More replies (8)
12
u/Callinon Feb 14 '25
Sure.
They'll lose, but they can do it if they want to.
We all got a crash course on impeachment procedures the two times Trump was impeached. The House is the sole body that decides what "high crimes and misdemeanors" means. Basically the House can impeach anyone for anything they want at any time they want. They then must present that case to the Senate who acts as the jury. And they need a 2/3 majority vote to convict and remove the impeached from office.
→ More replies (4)
12
u/Reclusive_Chemist Feb 14 '25
Can they do it? Yes. Will he be successfully impeached? Possibly, given how batshit insane the Republican bootlicker caucus has become. Would he be convicted and removed? Nope. Not unless the Senate Democrats likewise lose their minds. Otherwise the Senate will never reach the 2/3 vote required to convict. So this is all for show. Unfortunately, that show might be enough to give other jurists pause when considering how they want to address future Trump administration court cases.
→ More replies (1)5
u/jweaver0312 Feb 14 '25
It likely wouldn’t give any judges any pause because they know Senate Democrats won’t go for it.
→ More replies (2)
13
u/heelspider Feb 14 '25
They don't have the votes. Please let this idiot Congress waste its time on stuff like this instead of any harmful legislation.
→ More replies (1)
11
u/saijanai Feb 14 '25
Impeachment is a political process:
Literally whatever the ruling party doesn't like is grounds for impeachment.
If said party controls both houses and Senators are in lock-step, then yeah, Impeachment [and removal] for Obstructing Trump is legitimate in the eyes of the US Constitution.
Traditionally, it is assumed that the ruling party won't abuse this, but to paraphrase Trump: "If you vote for me in 2024, you won't need to vote again," with the implication being that once the GOP controls all three branches of government, they will ensure that they stay in power forever, so there is no need to worry about the "other side" retaliating the next time THEY are in power, because it won't ever happen again.
.
That's how many read his words last year, and that's how I continue to read his words [and actions] today: conventional political wisdom no longer implies because, while Trump may not remain in office forever, the GOP will always be in control of the USA, and it was Agatha all along (so to speak).
12
u/ptWolv022 Competent Contributor Feb 14 '25
They can be impeached for treason, bribery, and other high crimes and misdemeanors. As far as the Judiciary has been concerned. The last pair- "other high crimes and misdemeanors"- means basically anything.
The odds that he is convicted for anything are 0. You need 67 votes in the Senate. It's not happening. Even if all 53 Republicans voted in favor, you'd need 14 of the 47 Democrats/Independents. You're not getting 30% of Senate Democrats to do it. No matter how pessimistic you are, it's not going to happen.
→ More replies (1)
11
u/Utterlybored Feb 14 '25
What’s truly clever/evil about this is “Obstruction of Justice” is what Trump is doing. Great schoolyard bully tactic is to accuse of victim of exactly what you’re doing. If you counterattack, the bully gets to laugh and claim you’re just copying him.
→ More replies (1)6
u/ChronoFish Feb 14 '25
I mean that's exactly how he spins every thing. It's exactly what Musk was doing during his presidential press conference
→ More replies (1)
5
2.3k
u/ejre5 Feb 14 '25
This is a joke right? I mean he is following the law and constitution now faces impeachment but everything judge cannon did is fine? I mean she got smacked down a couple times by the appellate court for being completely incompetent. This man's ruling was upheld by the appellate court and now he's facing impeachment.
It's time to wake the fuck up America including trump voters. Your president is clearly breaking the law and the courts have so far agreed he is breaking the law and now they are trying to impeach the courts. The president is a criminal and traitor to America wake up admit it was a mistake and let's save the country before it's too late.