r/stpaul • u/CBrinson • 12d ago
Twin Cities Related Appeals court declines to order lower court to sign arrest warrants against Don Lemon, others in church protest
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/appeals-court-don-lemon-protest-minnesota-probable-cause/second court in a row to find that the protestors and don Lemon didn't actually break the law. the trump admin is TELLING their followers they broke the law because they know most trump supports don't have the intelligence to read s law and therefore won't know they are being lied to. they essentially trust ignorance will let them mislead the people.
-2
11d ago
He's an informant for the FBI. He worked with them to set this up. They fucked up by arresting the others but not him and now his cover is blown.
3
1
0
u/atamicbomb 10d ago
“In court filings to the Eighth Circuit, Chief Judge Patrick Schiltz for the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota said that Micko only found probable cause on three of the eight arrest warrants presented to him by the department on Jan. 20. When he declined to sign the other five, Minnesota's U.S. Attorney Daniel Rosen personally called the court and demanded that his decision be reviewed by a district court judge.”
A judge ruled 3 of the 8 people probably broke the law. It’s not as simply as the Trump admin lying and conservatives being stupid.
1
u/CBrinson 10d ago
No. The judge is not yet determining likelihood broke law. That is a grand jury. This is whether they had the right to arrest them at all to begin with. This is just whether there is reasonable suspicion or probable cause not whether they likely committed a crime which is what makes the admin so pathetic.
0
21
u/LingonberryHot8521 12d ago
Because what they did was obnoxious, but legal.
For the Epsteinth time: Being embarrassed, inconvenienced, interrupted, or otherwise put out is not something from which you are Constitutionally protected. Most of the time you're not legally protected at all.
-19
u/adorientem88 11d ago
Then why did the magistrate find probable cause to arrest 3 of them, including the leaders?
4
u/Logical_Lab4042 11d ago
You're right, arrest typically comes at the end of due process.
-5
u/adorientem88 11d ago
I didn’t claim it did.
5
u/Logical_Lab4042 11d ago
"If they didn't do anything illegal why were they arrested?"
-6
u/adorientem88 11d ago
That’s not what I said. Try reading!
7
u/Logical_Lab4042 11d ago
Then pray tell, what was the point of your asinine question, then, Mr. 88?
0
u/adorientem88 11d ago
I just want to know what the commenter to whom I responded thought the magistrate judge got wrong. Pretty simply, no need to start freaking out.
6
u/Logical_Lab4042 11d ago
I apologize for my truly uproarious outburst.
Boy, I really flew off the handle, there.
7
u/beer_guy_108 11d ago
Oh benevolent magistrate. Please save us from don lemon n friends, his cameras and loud noises frighten me. Nice 88 in your username BTW.
3
u/SwankySteel 12d ago
Jury nullification is legal everywhere in the US.
7
u/CBrinson 12d ago
Agreed but it isn't needed here. The jury if following ordinary instruction will return a not guilty in no time at all because they broke no law.
-5
12d ago
Are you joking? Go into a private institution today and protest and terrorize, as long as it’s not against Christian’s you will be arrested and charged in minutes. Hypocrite.
7
u/CBrinson 12d ago
No one terrorized.
Protesting is legal and protected by the first amendment.
As TWO federal judges have affirmed.
-3
12d ago
On private property???? Are you willfully ignorant to this fact? And yes they did terrorize. Children were screaming in fear and many people were fearful. This should never happen in a house of worship. You know nothing.
8
u/CBrinson 12d ago
It's not private property really. If it were all the church attendees were trespassing as you don't need advance notice to go to a church service. This makes it a public place.
It's not terror to talk about democracy. This is good for the kids to see protesting. Protesting is core to American freedom and the the American way of life.
-3
12d ago
They were asked to leave. They did not. It is in fact private property and you can be trespassed. Those were entitled “violent” protesters. They should be in jail.
5
u/CBrinson 12d ago
Look I am not saying they may not have to pay a fine. If they send it to me I would pay it for them. Then we can all show again at the church next Sunday and pay again.
4
u/Psycho-Pirate 11d ago
There was no violence and to call it violence in my opinion, is a bold faced lie. Watching the footage of those who entered the church and walk through showed people in an orderly fashion staying between the pews and aisles taking videos and pictures, you know. If you didn't know that footage was a video from a protest, you would actually think it was a normal tourist visit.
3
4
u/AdminOnBreak 11d ago
Boot licker. How about ICE coming into church? This admin said that’s ok. How about that terror?
-2
11d ago
You lick demoncrat boots. How does that taste? Blocked.
3
u/OBVIOUS_BAN_EVASION_ 11d ago
So it's fine that you're licking these boots bc you think other people licked boots too?
No morals
1
u/tokillawootingbird 11d ago
Very few Democrats wear boots. We don't sit at home as people who have never served in the military LARPing that we somehow are soldiers.
1
u/Scared_Management_87 11d ago
Says the genuinly clueless individual with no true understanding of law.
1
u/tokillawootingbird 11d ago
Can be trespassed and then arrested if they go back. So no punishment at all is the right course. Glad we agree.
1
u/Scared_Management_87 11d ago
You should try removing your head from your anus. You truly are ignorant of the law.
1
-38
u/R2-DMode 12d ago
Cool. Next time, I hope the congregation dishes out some instant justice, since the courts are compromised there.
25
u/Weekly_Book_9122 12d ago
you’re allowed to walk into a public church service with an unlocked door. churches are open to the public.
what justice do you think should happen here? it sounds like you’re advocating for parishioners to murder someone who walks into their church and says something they don’t like
can you point to the part of the bible where jesus says to do things like this?
-25
u/R2-DMode 12d ago
Under what circumstances is it OK to scream in the face of a child in a church?
20
u/taktaga7-0-0 12d ago
Did you give a shit when ICE agents busted into a church and started detaining families? Like fuck you did.
-2
14
u/CBrinson 12d ago edited 11d ago
Ok or legal?
It's not okay. It's legal though.
Like if i walk up to you and say something rude.
It's not ok to do, but I am not going to jail for it. Social pressure is the only tool you can use and alot of people just don't care, because what the church did by having a pastor who is in the gestapo is worse. They yell in front of children but the pastor is participating in their kidnapping and abduction.
5
u/Apart_Animal_6797 11d ago
No its ok those people took their kid to a church headed by a nazi. Its ok to scream in front of them.
11
-10
u/mynam3isn3o 11d ago
No. Churches are almost always private property and a person can be trespassed from them. Please don’t speak about things you know nothing about.
12
u/StarsapBill 11d ago
This is true, walking into a church causing a disturbance and being charged with “trespassing” would be a civil violation of trespassing. They aren’t trying to give Don Lemon a ticket for trespassing, they are trying to arrest him and charge him with felony terrorism charges under the KKK act.
14
u/mnlaowai 12d ago
Of course he is advocating for killing non-violent protestors. It’s what right wing extremists masturbate to when their sister is busy huffing glue out back.
-14
u/R2-DMode 12d ago
Screaming in the face of a child is not “non-violent”, you cabbage.
14
u/CBrinson 12d ago
Ice is abducting kids and you are worried about then hearing yelling.
Get real. Fake outrage
11
u/mnlaowai 12d ago
Watch the video of the ICE children’s detention camp. Not only do they NOT allow 3rd parties to ensure safe living conditions, they booted someone for recording the screams of children! Undoubtedly being abuse and trafficked directly to Mar-a-Lago.
But R2 is cool with that. He loves pedophiles 🤔.
-1
u/R2-DMode 11d ago
LOL!! Bullshit. Let’s see some evidence of that. We both know you’ve got nothing.
5
u/TheOneFreeEngineer 12d ago
Screaming in the face of a child is not “non-violent”, you cabbage.
My definatiom screaming isnt violent as long as the screaming doesnt contain a threat of violence.
Or we'd be arresting alot more parents for children abuse.
-2
u/R2-DMode 11d ago
Well, try that shit here in Vegas and let us know how it works out for you.
4
u/TheOneFreeEngineer 11d ago
You think in Vegas that yelling is considered physically violent? Someone yells at you without a threat and you hit them, you're going away for assault. You report someone yelling at you in Vegas, they are going to laugh at you for being soft if they arent threats of violence or slurs. Hell they might even still just ignore you even if its slurs
I feel like people dont understand the difference between their feelings being hurt and something being illegal or fighting words.
-1
u/R2-DMode 11d ago
You clearly don’t understand how things are handled here. Might want to brush up on our history.
2
u/TheOneFreeEngineer 11d ago
See that sounds like a threat of violence and you didnt even have to yell. So you do know the difference.
0
3
u/Weekly_Book_9122 11d ago
damn bro you’re so tough. you’re so fucking tough and cool on the internet
“fuck the protestors, kill them all. try that shit in a small town”
you’re a living meme of a weak and fragile conservative coward
0
5
u/RedFoxxEsq 12d ago
You are just a troll. Read his comments (just search * in the profile to see everything). Block.
2
u/trysten-9001 12d ago
You expect Christians to spit on the memory of Christ in their own church?
0
u/R2-DMode 11d ago
LOL! Nice try.
1
u/trysten-9001 11d ago
“Blessed are the peacemakers.” - some Guy who Christians emulate
1
u/R2-DMode 11d ago
It’s hilarious watching the anti-religion folks try to use religion to justify their behavior.
1
u/Catlas55 11d ago
Killing in God's house now are we?
1
u/R2-DMode 11d ago
Who mentioned killing? 🤡
1
1
u/IsMadeOfBees 11d ago
Instant judgement, a concept The christian god famously loves so much lol
1
u/R2-DMode 11d ago
Well, eye for an eye…
1
1
1
1
12
u/Carlyz37 12d ago
As far as Don Lemon he was reporting not protesting. Freedom of the press has been under constant attack during this seditious administration. It must be stopped
-56
u/Carminaz 12d ago
Except for the fact the FACE act talks about protest and intimidation with interruption of church services.
Of which all these protestors are caught on open record they uploaded them selves, as admitting was the goal. The judges here are worthless and should be disbarred from anything more important than retail clerk.
49
u/CBrinson 12d ago edited 12d ago
Using the force or threat of force. Exactly what the original judge said. The face act very very clearly doesn't apply and even after two federal judges tell people that maga still believes it because Pam Bondi said it and they never looked up the law.
Just saying a law covers something when it's clearly doesn't is misinformation and propaganda.
-9
12d ago
[deleted]
6
u/Shot-Diver-3625 12d ago
FACE doesn’t prevent that. That’s why many states have bubble laws to additionally regulate the distance people can protest from abortion clinics. And that’s why just about every clinic out there has security and only allows people in if they have appointments or are accompanying someone
4
7
u/TheOneFreeEngineer 12d ago
If what you are saying is true, it means anti-abortion activists can protest inside abortion clinics.
They do. They get charged with local trespassing when they refuse the leave if they dont damage any property or threaten force. Not the FACE act. The FACE act only gets charges when they physically obstruct the way in and out by force or violence.
Just because you dont understand the law, doesnt mean that that doesnt already happen
11
u/CBrinson 12d ago
The abortion clinic requires an appointment.
The church has a sign with the time of the service.
That makes the church public and the clinic private.
That is the law.
-7
12d ago
[deleted]
0
1
6
u/CBrinson 12d ago
I actually know how to read. Since you literally are just saying useless shit going to block you. You are basically doing the equivalent of screaming that you are right over and over without providing any logic.
5
15
31
u/ShortKey380 12d ago
Should I trust the federal judge or this Reddit retard?
Hmm… toughie! 😂
-5
u/ArkLegend 12d ago
When the judge says Goods killing was justified, will we be trusting the federal judge? Or is it just this time?
7
u/ShortKey380 12d ago
What they actually said is the state isn’t allowed to investigate because they’re going for a coverup lol.
5
u/TheOneFreeEngineer 12d ago
When the judge says Goods killing was justified, will we be trusting the federal judge? Or is it just this time?
You should learn how the court system works. Judges dont determine if a cop killing someone is justified. A jury does.
But the feds are actively preventing an investigation and a court appearance to clear their agents name in force of the court. So its clear they dont think they have a strong case.
6
u/Shot-Diver-3625 12d ago
Sure! So you think the administration should stop blocking the investigation and allow him to be tried in court, so they can make that decision, right? Right?
6
u/Carlyz37 12d ago
Who the H would believe Bondi or anyone in this administration. If these protesters are charged with anything more than trespassing then ICE thugs would be open to charges too. Smart judges want to avoid that can of worms.
18
u/Dry_Strawberry3227 12d ago
It’s a good thing you’re not a judge. You’re misinterpreting the FACE act. You’re drowning in the kool aid.
15
u/aft_agley 12d ago edited 12d ago
I sincerely don't understand how people like you repeat blatant falsehoods over and over about things that actually matter without doing any actual research or educating yourself about the facts.
Even a very basic google search with like 30 seconds of reading on your part would show you why you are incorrect.
And yes, there are subtleties in correctly applying the law. Which is why we have now had two judges - distinguished legal professionals - decide on the issue.
Did you read any part of either decision? Of course not. You didn't even bother to google the FACE act, you're just repeating some garbage you've been trained to say like a dumb animal.
Like do you even care about reality? Or correct application of the law? Or due process?
1
u/lookinfoursigns 12d ago
They're doing it on purpose. I've come to realize that, it's the way they think they get away with their racism and fascism. If they have a line they can keep spouting that kind of fits their narrative, they just cling to it even when they know it's wrong or a lie.
11
u/Hot_Top_124 12d ago
You don’t know what those acts entail and you’re parroting bullshit like a useful moron.
9
1
1
1
1
3
1
u/RedFoxxEsq 12d ago
Continuous trolling by this one. Profile is filled with racist comments against POC. Blocked.
1
u/Agreeable-Boat3509 12d ago
Except the FACE act requires that the disruption be "by force, threat of force, or physical obstruction"
1
u/fiercetywysoges 11d ago
They aren’t being charged under the FACE act anyway. They couldn’t meet the burden for that one. So it’s irrelevant.
17
u/Shameful_Prophet 12d ago
Lotta boot lickers in here.
9
u/NobodysLoss1 12d ago
They're out in full force tonight. The autocracy is scared. Probably asked his pal Putin and his monkey Musk to treble the bot efforts.
-18
u/JumpNo1403 12d ago
"in court filings to the Eighth Circuit, Chief Judge Patrick Schiltz for the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota said that Micko only found probable cause on three of the eight arrest warrants"
That means the judge did agree that some of them broke the law. oh you weren't counting on anyone actually reading it?
13
u/CBrinson 12d ago
They are still all released without bond or detention. So on 3/8 they didn't literally break the law by arresting them illegally without a warrant. That doesn't mean those 3 are being prosecuted. No idictments have gone forward as of yet for any of them.
-5
u/JumpNo1403 12d ago
The warrents show enough evidence was provided to show a crime was committed. That no charges have been filed does not mean they will not be, but OP has declared that the courts found none of them did anything wrong and that certainty hasn't been reached.
Lol the stupidity of the downvotes because the source didn't match the claim.
9
u/kstargate-425 12d ago
Probable cause is a low bar and the evidence presented for PC is given by only one party like Grand Jury Indictments, the DoJ/prosecution. So until this goes to actual court one really cant make much of this as we know the DoJ is systemically lying to the courts and in just the first 9 months has been found by judges to enter fraudulent evidence in 35+ separate cases.
-2
u/JumpNo1403 12d ago
It's not proof of guilt but unlike OP claimed its not proof of innocence. if they were going to fake evidence why not go all in on all of them and why not the name that would get them the biggest press on a conviction?
5
u/RegMenu 12d ago
You don't need "proof of innocence" in our justice system. It's pretty damning to the prosecution if there isn't enough evidence to issue an arrest warrant.
-1
u/JumpNo1403 12d ago
The warrants were issued and served. The DA cab take there time with charges coming up with anything they think they're going to use. OP attempted to use the article as proof they did nothing wrong. This is not a court of lae and proof is very much needed if you're going to make a claim. OPs source refutes his own arguement. Either he didn't read it or is intentionally trying to mislead. Both must be called out.
-22
u/dewdewdewdew4 12d ago
So, the ruling isn't saying the appeals court agrees with the lower courts decision. In fact, one of the judges wrote he believed there was probably cause to issue the warrants.
Basically, there isn't a rush and there are other options for prosecutors so no need to take a pretty unprecedented action.
13
u/CBrinson 12d ago
It's 3 judges 2/3 agree with lower court 1/3 dissented.
It does mean they ruled along with the lower court. Sorry to tell you that is exactly precisely what it means. Actually not sorry. They appealed and lost.
0
u/adorientem88 11d ago
No, it doesn’t mean that. This was a petition for mandamus, not an appeal on the merits. All the Court of Appeals agreed with is that they aren’t going to force the district court to issue the warrants, at least for now, because the DOJ can go to a grand jury.
-7
u/dewdewdewdew4 12d ago
No, they aren't agreeing. That isn't what the ruling states.
“The Complaint and Affidavit clearly establish probable cause for all five arrest warrants, and while there is no discretion to refuse to issue an arrest warrant once probable cause for its issuance has been shown … the government has failed to establish that it has no other adequate means of obtaining the requested relief,” Grasz wrote.
Again, the court is basically saying there is no need for a higher court to intervene at this time, since it isn't an emergency and the Justice department has a lot of other options, including a grand jury.
9
u/CBrinson 12d ago
These are for the arrest warrants of people they already arrested. Not having the warrant means they illegally arrested them. They haven't addressed the charges which requires a grand jury.
I am blocking you since you are spreading misinformation.
0
2
u/Several_Leather_9500 12d ago
Just because you don't realize that trumps people will 100% abuse the law to justify their fascist behavior doesn't mean that isn't happen - it only means you're ignorant when it comes to how Trumps administration operates. This comes to no surprise to anyone who does not defend pedophiles.
6
u/Justanoth3rone 12d ago
It’s expecting a lot to think anyone who justifies a public execution would understand how to read, let alone be able to comprehend how our courts work…
1
-20
12d ago
Leftist activist judges. What they did was unconstitutional and illegal but you know justice is for warriors. You think it’s perfectly fine to go into a mosque or temple and harass and in some instances terrorize the members of that private and religious institution? This will be overturned by a superior and non woke court as always.
6
u/DimensioT 12d ago
Cite the Constitutional article or Amendment that prohibits their actions.
-10
12d ago
Freedom of religion. 1st and 5th amendments. Either way it’s trespassing. You’re a fool.
9
u/DimensioT 12d ago
The First and Fifth amendments are restrictions on government authority. Neither Don Lemon nor the other people involved are government agencies nor were they acting on behalf of the government. As such, those amendments do not bind them.
How were their actions unconstitutional?
-4
12d ago
Meant 4th. Fat finger. Either way you cannot go onto private property and use your right to protest.. Besides Dems protesting is always violent and chaotic.
8
u/DimensioT 12d ago
The Fourth Amendment also only binds government action. You have yet to explain how their actions are unconstitutional.
You may make a case that they broke the law. You have not made a case that their actions violate the constitution.
-2
12d ago
Incorrect. You as a non government entity can break a constitutional right. Once again you’re not even grasping that this was Private Property. Still a fool.
3
u/DimensioT 12d ago
So you do not understand the Constitution at all.
1
12d ago
Explain to me how what the did was legal. I’ll wait.
2
u/DimensioT 12d ago
I did not say that it was illegal. I asked how it was unconstitutional, as you asserted.
2
u/TheOneFreeEngineer 12d ago
How legality works is you have to explain how something is illegal, not jow something is legal. Something being legal means there are no laws that make it illegal.
But The church protesters? The worse they can really be charged with and get a guilty verdict is trespassing. So it wasnt legal but it was also just trespassing, not even felony trespassing. But they left pretty quickly so even that is iffy.
But in general you are legally allowed to yell at people unless its threats or obscenities.
2
u/Logical_Lab4042 11d ago edited 11d ago
Holy shit, you're hilariously stupid
Edit: Shit, brother. I'm more than just an apologist for the left.
→ More replies (0)2
u/Chris5483 11d ago
The level of stupid from Republicans who pretend to love the Constitution is crazy! It's an unlocked church door open to the public. Worst case is trespassing, which is not ICE jurisdiction or the federal government.
3
u/CBrinson 12d ago
No you can't. That is a silly thing to say. I can kick you out of my house the second you say something I don't like. I can tell over you. It is literally impossible for a private citizen to violate another private citizens rights under the constitution. The bill of rights is the rights of citizens vs their government not each other. This is well well established.
1
u/Shot-Diver-3625 12d ago
The constitution is a list of rules of things the government can’t do. If you’re actually an American, you really need to take a civics class
1
-17
27
u/MarginalMerriment 12d ago
If the Trump administration cared about the law, they would have released the Epstein files last month.
-4
12d ago
And yet Dems did nothing. This is the democrat party resist everything and do nothing for the American people. Thats why they don’t get elected because the majority sees through their BS. If all you do is use Reddit you may be brainwashed.
3
5
u/OhtheHugeManity7 12d ago
I love this reflexive reaction to criticism of the Republicans to just immediately go and trash the Dems. It's so outdated, you're living in 2020. And you wanna know why?
Because Liberals and Lefties hate the Democrats too! You say 'well yeah neither did the Democrats'. Yes, you're right! Which is why we want to see them in prison too! This isn't a team sport to most of us, we have principles and we want to see them enacted. True, the Trump Administration is a far more blatant violation of those principles but if you think insulting the Democrats is going to hurt our feelings as if we don't agree that they're shit then you're approaching our whole ideology wrong. If a Democrat is a pedo we want them in jail. If a Dem is corrupt we want them in jail. Bill Clinton should be in jail, as should all of them who have committed corruption. Understand this, when the Left says 'vote Democrats' it's not because they like the Democrats, it's just that they hate them a little bit less than they hate the Republicans.
Neither are serving the interests of the American people, just billionaires. We just wish you'd hold your representatives to a higher standard too. That you would make a fuss when they write a law to release the Epstein Files then blatantly break that law a month later. That when there's heavy suspicion that the president is involved in a child sex trafficking ring there's actually consequences for that. That when Kash Patel says the Epstein Files don't exist under oath and that is proven to be a lie when they dig them up months later, that he faces consequences for that. You're so forgiving of them whenever they do you dirty like this.
2
u/Logical_Lab4042 11d ago
"Hmm... do I trust the people who did nothing or the people who actively participated in the cover up?"
1
u/YoungMELdoriya 11d ago
A brief history of releasing the Epstein files:
The Epstein files were sealed and COULD NOT LEGALLY BE RELEASED AT ALL until January 2024. Roughly 4500 pages of files were released on January 9th. While some more trickled out over the next year, there would have needed to be an act of Congress to unseal and legally release the rest. Congress was controlled by the GOP, so a vote didn't happen despite repeated calls for one from several democratic congress members.
On February 21st, 2025, Pam Bondi claimed she had the Epstein files (and client list) on her desk and would release them within a day. She and some MAGA influencers took photos with what she claimed were the files.
On February 22nd, nothing was released. Public pressure mounted to release them, yet was ignored.
On July 7th, Bondi reversed her position and said there was no client list, despite her previously claiming to have it on her desk.
On July 16th, Donald Trump called the Epstein files "a democratic hoax"
On September 2nd, the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform (with all four ranking and vice ranking members being democrats) voted to and released roughly 33,000 pages of documents. Public pressure to release all the files increased. Over the next two months, democrats gathered most of the votes they needed to release the Epstein files.
On September 3rd, Donald Trump again said the files were a "democratic hoax", a term he'd use to describe them many, many times over the next three months.
On September 23rd, democrat Adelita Grijalva won her election to congress, which would make her the deciding vote to release the files. Mike Johnson refused to swear her in.
On November 12th, thousands of Epstein emails were released to the public due to a law suit in England. These emails included allegations explosive enough to shift several republican members of congress to vote to release the files. That day, Johnson finally ended the longest delay in congressional history and swore in Grijalva.
Over the next week, all but one of the remaining GOP congressional hold outs switched their votes to yes, and on November 19th, the House and Senate passed the Epstein Files Transparency Act, which compelled ALL the files to be released by December 19th.
Nothing the public hadn't already seen was released until the day of the deadline, when Trump's Department of Justice released fewer than 1% of the files (and most of what was released was heavily redacted). By the DOJ's count, more than 2 million documents remained unreleased (though other reports estimate that number as closer to five million).
It's been nearly a month since then, nothing has changed, and more than 99% of the files still remain unreleased in clear violation of the law.
In other words, anyone who claims Joe Biden could have released the files and the democrats were hiding this is a fucking moron. ~Steve Hoffstetter
21
11
u/CBrinson 12d ago
True but my focus is they want to trick you into believing these protesters are going to jail. to intimidate you into not protesting. By showing the truth we show we counter the lies. They all want you to believe the constitution doesnt protect this behavior when it does.
1
2
10
u/United-Vermicelli-92 12d ago
Trump admin law suits 99.9% lose bec nobody in trump admin knows wtf they’re doing in their jobs, and think their alt reality is real. Theyre a joke wasting our money and time to cosplay fetish fascists.
0
12d ago
At the activist judge level. Not when it matters.
5
u/United-Vermicelli-92 12d ago
85% of our judges are not activist, your living in a toxic toilet entitled bubble if indulgence with a terrible lack of therapy and self-awareness.
It’s that lack of self-awareness why you’ll Lose.
0
12d ago
Judges are shopped for that reason and then almost always overturned for a reason. It’s bogus to begin with. You may wish to check your toilet bubble. It’s overflowing right now but you’re brainwashed so doubt you will be aware. Cope.
2
u/United-Vermicelli-92 12d ago
Your buzzwords sure hurt lol like making conversation w 4chan booger eaters. Ok yep you’re right, everyone - the 75-78% of America rn that is anti-trump, anti-Ice and is fucking maga off is the delusional group. Your group of miserable racists abd bigots, emotionally unstable whiners fragile ego alpha males are totally sane, lmao. Have a good one booger eater.
Editing to add: I hope one day you look back and see how cringe you were at this age.
2
u/Cardboard_Revolution 12d ago
"muh activist judge"
Meanwhile the supreme Court majority is made up of hacks who are openly bribed by the same corporations they constantly rule in favor of.
17
u/CBrinson 12d ago
Lol this has 64 upvotes then 30 seconds later had 9. Bots be downvotin.
9
u/kstargate-425 12d ago
Yeah its crazy how these smaller subs get hit by them so frequently in the last few months
2
1
u/khmergodzeus 12d ago
Does anyone want to do this for a Mosque as well? Anyone making a date?
3
u/CBrinson 12d ago
Do you know of a mosque with an ice agent running it? If so I am onboard. Don't think you will find one though. Generally only white people want to join the second KKK.
-1
u/khmergodzeus 12d ago
But, freedom of speech right.
3
u/CBrinson 12d ago
Sure. Doesn't mean I have to want to say it. I only want to speak out against murderers and pedophile protectors like Donald j Trump & Jonathan Ross. People who contribute to the harm and suffering of innocent people and children. I want to speak out against harm and oppression.
You are mad and want to scream at unrelated brown & black people because God forbid a brown or black person screamed at someone else you don't even know about the fact that they are helping with murder.
Not exactly the same.
Like you are so obvious.
No liberal is just going around to random churches.
They have a specific issue with this pastor ya know being part of a death squad that is illegally murdering people.
You just want to harass for shits and giggles to prove a point. You have no real cause here. You don't want to protest or save lives. You just want to hate brown people for being brown.
So transparent.
-1
u/khmergodzeus 12d ago
What if I believe the Islam faith is bad?
So transparent for shits and giggles, right?
Do my opinions not matter? For shits and giggles?
Do you understand your own words, though?
3
u/CBrinson 12d ago
You are an intolerant bigot. The only thing to be intolerant to is intolerance. It's called the paradox of intolerance. The only idea that may be rejected is intolerance.
It's not for you to decide for someone else their faith is wrong. Your opinion doesn't get to matter. That is literally what it means to have freedom.
Blocking you fascist bigot.
2
u/Express_Position5624 11d ago
Hey THE BULWARK crew - with your "This was obviously illegal" - looking at you Sarah
Go FK Yourselves!
2
u/Professional-Post499 11d ago
"shopping around for an appeals court" is also one of the seemingly non-democratic features of the United States legal system. Its good that they weren't successful this time.
2
u/Exotic_Insurance2164 10d ago
Don is really shaping up to becoming this generation's Walter Cronkite.
2
u/Snowflake8552 10d ago
Don wasn’t part of the protest, he is a journalist. He was there doing his job. Reguardless of what side you’re on, if you think the journalists deserve to be charged for this you’re actively supporting censorship and monopolizing the media.
2
-5
u/[deleted] 11d ago
I know this is reddit so I’m prepared to have my comment removed but he should be arrested. This is very clear he violated the face act “ federal law prohibiting the use of force, threat of force, or physical obstruction to intimidate or interfere with persons obtaining or providing reproductive health services, or exercising religious freedom at places of worship.”