ADVERTISEMENT

Trump cases going to Supreme Court?

BoilerJS

All-American
Gold Member
May 29, 2001
8,570
3,906
113
It sounds like the prosecuting attorney, Jack Smith, wants the Supreme Court to expedite a decision on the Trump cases.
I suggested this a few months back and was ridiculed by some of the more liberal on this board.
Yes it is unprecedented but so is a leading candidate and former POTUS with a million charges against him.

So Mr Smith wants the SC to rule that a former POTUS is not immune to prosecution.
IMO this isn't the point. The point should be, are any of these charges prosecutable?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Boilermaker03
It sounds like the prosecuting attorney, Jack Smith, wants the Supreme Court to expedite a decision on the Trump cases.
I suggested this a few months back and was ridiculed by some of the more liberal on this board.
Yes it is unprecedented but so is a leading candidate and former POTUS with a million charges against him.

So Mr Smith wants the SC to rule that a former POTUS is not immune to prosecution.
IMO this isn't the point. The point should be, are any of these charges prosecutable?
Well it's Trump's point! Over and over and over and over it has been Trump's point that he is immune to prosecution. So Smith is calling his bluff and requested an expedited ruling on Trump's point.

It's almost like Trump is throwing unlimited, ridiculous legal bullshit against the wall in an attempt to delay having to face evidence, eh?

Also, it's almost like Trump declared his candidacy super, super early (two years before the election and three months before any other candidate from either party) so that he could say it was election interference while the Grand Jury was collecting evidence toward his indictment, eh?
 
Last edited:
If the Supreme Court rules against don tRump it will just be further proof of the two tiered justice system. Is there no limit to what the deep state is capable of? The king will exact revenge in 2024!! Build the wall, drill drill drill, maga maga maga!!
 
If the Supreme Court rules against don tRump it will just be further proof of the two tiered justice system. Is there no limit to what the deep state is capable of? The king will exact revenge in 2024!! Build the wall, drill drill drill, maga maga maga!!
How does it make you feel to know that when @Riveting- sees your posting name his mind drifts to thoughts about “pubes?”
 
  • Like
Reactions: PUBV
It sounds like the prosecuting attorney, Jack Smith, wants the Supreme Court to expedite a decision on the Trump cases.
I suggested this a few months back and was ridiculed by some of the more liberal on this board.
Yes it is unprecedented but so is a leading candidate and former POTUS with a million charges against him.

So Mr Smith wants the SC to rule that a former POTUS is not immune to prosecution.
IMO this isn't the point. The point should be, are any of these charges prosecutable?
No, Trump was president on January 6. This is about a sitting president being immune to prosecution.

This is a HUGE deal. It will set a critical precedent.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tbird2017
Well it's Trump's point! Over and over and over and over it has been Trump's point that he is immune to prosecution. So Smith is calling his bluff and requested an expedited ruling on Trump's point.

It's almost like Trump is throwing unlimited, ridiculous legal bullshit against the wall in an attempt to delay having to face evidence, eh?

Also, it's almost like Trump declared his candidacy super, super early (two years before the election and three months before any other candidate from either party) so that he could say it was election interference while the Grand Jury was collecting evidence toward his indictment, eh?
You missed my point.
I don't think a former POTUS should be immune to prosecution.
The SC will decide this issue.

I don't believe any of the cases against Trump have merit.
Georgia, no way. Kind of like the Ukraine impeachment.
This civil case in NY. Show me a victim.
Well Trump could be the victim of paying more taxes on his supposedly over valued properties.
Jan 6th, I don't agree with Trump on this.
But show me the crime by Trump.
If Trump is guilty of insurrection so is Maxine Waters, HRC, Adam Schiff, Slow Joe etc..
The SC, IMO, should look at these cases individually and decide.

It is a no lose scenario for Smith. If the SC rules against him he can say see, the Trump appointed SC is being political. Trump is guilty but is immune to prosecution.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Boilermaker03
You missed my point.
I don't think a former POTUS should be immune to prosecution.
The SC will decide this issue.

I don't believe any of the cases against Trump have merit.
Georgia, no way. Kind of like the Ukraine impeachment.
This civil case in NY. Show me a victim.
Well Trump could be the victim of paying more taxes on his supposedly over valued properties.
Jan 6th, I don't agree with Trump on this.
But show me the crime by Trump.
If Trump is guilty of insurrection so is Maxine Waters, HRC, Adam Schiff, Slow Joe etc..
The SC, IMO, should look at these cases individually and decide.

It is a no lose scenario for Smith. If the SC rules against him he can say see, the Trump appointed SC is being political. Trump is guilty but is immune to prosecution.
Okay, so your point is that some message board poster (that's you) who loves Trump thinks that the evidence against him doesn't support indictment nor conviction.

And while multiple Federal and State Grand Juries, judges and appellate courts (including judges appointed by all political affiliations) have seen the evidence and decided that the charges are with merit and appropriate, that message board poster has not seen the evidence.

Now I understand.
 
Well it's Trump's point! Over and over and over and over it has been Trump's point that he is immune to prosecution. So Smith is calling his bluff and requested an expedited ruling on Trump's point.

It's almost like Trump is throwing unlimited, ridiculous legal bullshit against the wall in an attempt to delay having to face evidence, eh?

Also, it's almost like Trump declared his candidacy super, super early (two years before the election and three months before any other candidate from either party) so that he could say it was election interference while the Grand Jury was collecting evidence toward his indictment, eh?
I don't recall him ever saying that he's above the law. Please show me where he said this.
 
Okay, so your point is that some message board poster (that's you) who loves Trump thinks that the evidence against him doesn't support indictment nor conviction.

And while multiple Federal and State Grand Juries, judges and appellate courts (including judges appointed by all political affiliations) have seen the evidence and decided that the charges are with merit and appropriate, that message board poster has not seen the evidence.

Now I understand.
Pretty much all of the jurisdictions that Trump went into court were Dem strongholds, and you think he's getting a fair trial in these places? That's rich.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BoilerJS
I don't recall him ever saying that he's above the law. Please show me where he said this.

Trump filed the motion to dismiss the charges in October, arguing his role as president granted him “absolute immunity” and that he was acting within the scope of his duties. Trump was charged with conspiracy to defraud the U.S., conspiracy against rights of citizens, obstructing an official proceeding and conspiring to obstruct an official proceeding after an investigation by Justice Department Special Counsel Jack Smith. Trump pleaded not guilty to the charges at an arraignment in August.

Trump Files Motion To Dismiss Federal Election Interference Charges​


Forbes Staff
Politics
Oct 5, 2023,02:55pm EDT

Former President Donald Trump’s legal team filed a motion to dismiss his federal election interference case Thursday, claiming his role as president entitled him to “absolute immunity”—the latest attempt by Trump to quash his mounting legal woes, despite nearly all of his earlier efforts ending in failure.

Link: Trump said the constitution let's him do whatever he wants

Link to Trump's Immunity claim Court Filing
 
  • Like
Reactions: tbird2017
Pretty much all of the jurisdictions that Trump went into court were Dem strongholds, and you think he's getting a fair trial in these places? That's rich.
This is Federal Court you twit. And the cases are in the jurisdictions that have venue. There are federal appeals courts ready and suited to address filings of inappropriate venue. Happens all the time. There have been ZERO claims of inappropriate venue by Trump's attorneys.

Are you suggesting that we live in a nation in which public officials are only subject to accountability under the law in places where they are ahead in election polling?

Trump is a resident of Florida, New York, and recently Washington DC. And the telcalls to Raffensberger and fake electors were in Georgia. Are you suggesting that appropriate venue is in Wyoming or Oklahoma? Besides, do you really think that Florida (and in this case, Fort Pierce Florida) is a Democratic stronghold?!!? You clearly have never been to Fort Pierce Florida.

By the way -- LET's have an official signal: a laugh emoji from you equals "@Boilermaker03 is a dumbass that's been owned, again!"
 
This is Federal Court you twit. And the cases are in the jurisdictions that have venue. There are federal appeals courts ready and suited to address filings of inappropriate venue. Happens all the time. There have been ZERO claims of inappropriate venue by Trump's attorneys.

Are you suggesting that we live in a nation in which public officials are only subject to accountability under the law in places where they are ahead in election polling?

Trump is a resident of Florida, New York, and recently Washington DC. And the telcalls to Raffensberger and fake electors were in Georgia. Are you suggesting that appropriate venue is in Wyoming or Oklahoma? Besides, do you really think that Florida (and in this case, Fort Pierce Florida) is a Democratic stronghold?!!? You clearly have never been to Fort Pierce Florida.

By the way -- LET's have an official signal: a laugh emoji from you equals "@Boilermaker03 is a dumbass that's been owned, again!"
Are fake electors the same as alternate electors?
Are alternate electors illegal.
What exactly is a fake elector?

 
Are fake electors the same as alternate electors?
Are alternate electors illegal.
What exactly is a fake elector?

Excellent questions!

The term 'fake elector' is descriptive, not statutory violative language. For the statutory applications to the activity, I have provided the statutory filing link:

https://georgiarecorder.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/CRIMINAL-INDICTMENT.pdf

By the way, this link is the real deal, not a summary from "The Daily Signal" lol:

Overview
Ad Fontes Media rates The Daily Signal in the Strong Right category of bias and as Unreliable, Problematic in terms of reliability.


The Daily Signal is a website that focuses on policy and political news, as well as conservative commentary. It is published by The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank based in Washington, D.C.

Overall Score
The following are the overall bias and reliability scores for The Daily Signal according to our Ad Fontes Media ratings methodology.

Reliability: 23.80
Bias: 17.83


Panels of analysts from Ad Fontes Media regularly review representative sample content to rate it for reliability and bias. Each panel of analysts comprises one left-leaning, one right-leaning, and one center-leaning analyst.

The team considers a variety of factors when rating content. To determine its reliability score, we consider the content’s veracity, expression, its title/headline, and graphics. We add each of these scores to the chart on a weighted scale, with the average of those creating the sample content’s overall reliability score.

To determine sample content’s bias score, we consider its language, its political position, and how it compares to other reporting or analysis from other sources on the same topic. We add each of these scores to the chart on a weighted scale, with the average of those creating the content’s overall bias score.

The bias rating, demonstrated on the Media Bias Chart®️ on the horizontal axis, ranges from most extreme left to middle to most extreme right. The reliability rating, demonstrated on the chart’s vertical axis, rates sources on a scale from original fact reporting to analysis, opinion, propaganda and inaccurate/fabricated information.

Reliability scores for articles and shows are on a scale of 0-64. Scores above 40 are generally good; scores below 24 are generally problematic. Scores between 24-40 indicate a range of possibilities, with some sources falling there because they are heavy in opinion and analysis, and some because they have a high variation in reliability between articles.

 
  • Like
Reactions: tbird2017
Are fake electors the same as alternate electors?
Are alternate electors illegal.
What exactly is a fake elector?

Lol. Challenging election certification is waaay different than a party who lost the election choosing their own electors and SENDING the results to congress.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HoosierfanJM
Lol. Challenging election certification is waaay different than a party who lost the election choosing their own electors and SENDING the results to congress.
The States would send the Alternate Electors.
If the State sends them are they Illegal?
 
The States would send the Alternate Electors.
If the State sends them are they Illegal?
I don’t know the law. HoosierFan might know better than I.

As I understand it, once a state chooses the electors, the results are ratified in that state, and the electors are sent to congress.

If the other party in that state chooses their own electors and SENDS THE UNRATIFIED electors and results to congress, portraying them as the legal electors of the states with false election results, that is illegal. It’s going on in Michigan right now, look it up.

Alternate electors come into play when the election results have not been ratified and the election results are in court or there is a recount. The parties are getting their electors in place in anticipation of a decision on the election. That has happened before and is not illegal.

It became illegal when they signed documents and sent the results to congress.
 
How does it make you feel to know that when @Riveting- sees your posting name his mind drifts to thoughts about “pubes?”
Riveting is a damn good maga foot soldier, totally believes in the chaos and can divert most any convo into a deep state/corrupt FBI shitstorm like a champ. We totally love him here at maga HQ. He does have a bit of a pubes fetish though. Perhaps he found out I coif my curlies in a swept way that’s a homage to the once and future king (maga maga Magoo!!).
 
Trump filed the motion to dismiss the charges in October, arguing his role as president granted him “absolute immunity” and that he was acting within the scope of his duties. Trump was charged with conspiracy to defraud the U.S., conspiracy against rights of citizens, obstructing an official proceeding and conspiring to obstruct an official proceeding after an investigation by Justice Department Special Counsel Jack Smith. Trump pleaded not guilty to the charges at an arraignment in August.

Trump Files Motion To Dismiss Federal Election Interference Charges​


Forbes Staff
Politics
Oct 5, 2023,02:55pm EDT

Former President Donald Trump’s legal team filed a motion to dismiss his federal election interference case Thursday, claiming his role as president entitled him to “absolute immunity”—the latest attempt by Trump to quash his mounting legal woes, despite nearly all of his earlier efforts ending in failure.

Link: Trump said the constitution let's him do whatever he wants

Link to Trump's Immunity claim Court Filing
In reference to the video you linked:

This remark has been taken entirely out of context and circulated in Leftist media as proof that “Trump is a dictator” or “Trump thinks he is a king”. That is a willful distortion.

The comment refers to whether Trump could fire Mueller during the so-called “Mueller Investigation”. Mueller was not a Congressionally appointed Special Counsel, he was a senior DOJ officer working within the Executive Branch who, like all Executive Branch officials, serves at the pleasure of the President. They can be fired by the President at any time, for any reason or no reason. Trump had every option, from doing nothing to having Mueller taken off the case and reassigned, to outright firing him. In that sense he could “do whatever he wanted” about it. He had the good sense to do nothing, but there was no legal barrier to simply firing Mueller. And the investigation would simply have continued with a different leader.

As far as the opinion drafted, I'm not sure what charges this is in reference to.
 
In reference to the video you linked:

This remark has been taken entirely out of context and circulated in Leftist media as proof that “Trump is a dictator” or “Trump thinks he is a king”. That is a willful distortion.

The comment refers to whether Trump could fire Mueller during the so-called “Mueller Investigation”. Mueller was not a Congressionally appointed Special Counsel, he was a senior DOJ officer working within the Executive Branch who, like all Executive Branch officials, serves at the pleasure of the President. They can be fired by the President at any time, for any reason or no reason. Trump had every option, from doing nothing to having Mueller taken off the case and reassigned, to outright firing him. In that sense he could “do whatever he wanted” about it. He had the good sense to do nothing, but there was no legal barrier to simply firing Mueller. And the investigation would simply have continued with a different leader.

As far as the opinion drafted, I'm not sure what charges this is in reference to.
I thought the video was just kinda funny because Trump can’t help himself from saying anti-democracy stuff. It’s just who he is.
 
Last edited:
  • Haha
Reactions: Boilermaker03
In reference to the video you linked:

This remark has been taken entirely out of context and circulated in Leftist media as proof that “Trump is a dictator” or “Trump thinks he is a king”. That is a willful distortion.

The comment refers to whether Trump could fire Mueller during the so-called “Mueller Investigation”. Mueller was not a Congressionally appointed Special Counsel, he was a senior DOJ officer working within the Executive Branch who, like all Executive Branch officials, serves at the pleasure of the President. They can be fired by the President at any time, for any reason or no reason. Trump had every option, from doing nothing to having Mueller taken off the case and reassigned, to outright firing him. In that sense he could “do whatever he wanted” about it. He had the good sense to do nothing, but there was no legal barrier to simply firing Mueller. And the investigation would simply have continued with a different leader.

As far as the opinion drafted, I'm not sure what charges this is in reference to.
Just because his statements were in reference to Mueller doesn’t mean it’s limited to him. He’s said it other times. He said it during Covid as well. Did he say “in this instance” or “when it comes to prosecutors “?
When he refers to article 2, is he saying it only applies to firing a special prosecutor? Of course not. He’s saying article 2 gives him the power to do whatever he wants…….period. He’s putting no caveats on it. Another instance of you making excuses for him and trying to narrow his words down to minute specifics.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Boilermaker03
Just because his statements were in reference to Mueller doesn’t mean it’s limited to him. He’s said it other times. He said it during Covid as well. Did he say “in this instance” or “when it comes to prosecutors “?
When he refers to article 2, is he saying it only applies to firing a special prosecutor? Of course not. He’s saying article 2 gives him the power to do whatever he wants…….period. He’s putting no caveats on it. Another instance of you making excuses for him and trying to narrow his words down to minute specifics.
How about you find the full videos of each instance and it will be clear to you that he was in fact referring to that instance. Stop being a leftist media lemming.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BoilerHuff3
“A Massive Fraud of this type and magnitude allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution. Our great ‘Founders’ did not want, and would not condone, False & Fraudulent Elections!”

HE JUST CANNOT HELP HIMSELF FROM SAYING ANTI-DEMOCRACY STUFF
 
“A Massive Fraud of this type and magnitude allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution. Our great ‘Founders’ did not want, and would not condone, False & Fraudulent Elections!”

HE JUST CANNOT HELP HIMSELF FROM SAYING ANTI-DEMOCRACY STUFF
No one will reply to this. Brought it up several times. There’s no rational explanation to explain this away.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Boilermaker03
“A Massive Fraud of this type and magnitude allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution. Our great ‘Founders’ did not want, and would not condone, False & Fraudulent Elections!”

HE JUST CANNOT HELP HIMSELF FROM SAYING ANTI-DEMOCRACY STUFF
This is literally the ONLY instance and it took massive fraud from the opposing party for him to suggest this. I don't agree with what he said, but I do think something needs/needed to be done because the system as constructed right now favors the cheaters.
 
This is literally the ONLY instance and it took massive fraud from the opposing party for him to suggest this. I don't agree with what he said, but I do think something needs/needed to be done because the system as constructed right now favors the cheaters.
Something needs to be done?!!?

If only there was a system in place with an independent branch of government that carefully considered lawsuits and gave full consideration to those lawsuits that had proper venue and a credible basis for proceeding.

And what if that independent branch of government considered over 60 lawsuits, heard in so many different states and heard by so many different judges from every walk of life and political persuasion. And found each and every one of those lawsuits meritless and/or improperly filed?

If only we had that. Wait ----- wha???

https://campaignlegal.org/results-lawsuits-regarding-2020-elections
 
Last edited:
This is literally the ONLY instance and it took massive fraud from the opposing party for him to suggest this. I don't agree with what he said, but I do think something needs/needed to be done because the system as constructed right now favors the cheaters.
So……..he only said it once? That’s your argument?!!!! Because the other crazy shit he calls for…….he’s done several times?

The elections are run by the states. Now that you are aware maybe you can tell him.
 
So……..he only said it once? That’s your argument?!!!! Because the other crazy shit he calls for…….he’s done several times?

The elections are run by the states. Now that you are aware maybe you can tell him.
The elections are run by the states, as determined by the State Legislatures, as dictated in the US Constitution.
Trump sued because a number of state legislatures didn't approve the changes as directed by state AG's or governors.
The SC in a couple of those states ruled against Trump.
He didn't have time to appeal to a higher court.
Since the 2020 election over 30 State Legislatures have made changes to their election laws.
Georgia, for example requires stricter voter ID and stricter rules on absentee voter signature verification.
Some states now require cameras to monitor mail in ballot boxes.
So there were 30 states that weren't comfortable how the 2020 and 2022 elections were handled.
So what statement did Trump make that was anti Democracy, or anti Constitutional?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Boilermaker03
Something needs to be done?!!?

If only there was a system in place with an independent branch of government that carefully considered lawsuits and gave full consideration to those lawsuits that had proper venue and a credible basis for proceeding.
Do you have any idea how fukking difficult it is to have to construct law suits in 5, 10, 20, hell 60 different areas, have all of your evidence put together and get into court in 2 months? A typical time frame for someone awaiting trial while they are in jail is about 2 years. I've heard of people being in jail for 4 years for armed robbery before going to trial. That's how long it takes to build a solid case and get court time. 2 months is a fukking joke.
And what if that independent branch of government considered over 60 lawsuits, heard in so many different states and heard by so many different judges from every walk of life and political persuasion. And found each and every one of those lawsuits meritless and/or improperly filed?
5 were deemed meritless. 33 were improperly filed or dismissed in some way and 14 were withdrawn. Please see above. The 2 month period is a huge reason for this. So out of 60 cases only 8.3% were deemed meritless, yet the media would have you believe that it was pretty much all of them.
 
So……..he only said it once? That’s your argument?!!!! Because the other crazy shit he calls for…….he’s done several times?

The elections are run by the states. Now that you are aware maybe you can tell him.
No, that wasn't my argument.

Election rules are set by state legislatures and a large number of states illegally changed their voting rules before the election.
 
The elections are run by the states, as determined by the State Legislatures, as dictated in the US Constitution.
Trump sued because a number of state legislatures didn't approve the changes as directed by state AG's or governors.
The SC in a couple of those states ruled against Trump.
He didn't have time to appeal to a higher court.
Since the 2020 election over 30 State Legislatures have made changes to their election laws.
Georgia, for example requires stricter voter ID and stricter rules on absentee voter signature verification.
Some states now require cameras to monitor mail in ballot boxes.
So there were 30 states that weren't comfortable how the 2020 and 2022 elections were handled.
So what statement did Trump make that was anti Democracy, or anti Constitutional?
ALL mail in ballot boxes were supposed to be video monitored in 2020 but most weren't because they were set up all over the place by Zuck Bucks. The few that were video monitored in swing states showed several people dumping ballots in the middle of the night, multiple times.
 
Do you have any idea how fukking difficult it is to have to construct law suits in 5, 10, 20, hell 60 different areas, have all of your evidence put together and get into court in 2 months? A typical time frame for someone awaiting trial while they are in jail is about 2 years. I've heard of people being in jail for 4 years for armed robbery before going to trial. That's how long it takes to build a solid case and get court time. 2 months is a fukking joke.
This is utter and absolute nonsense.

Lawsuits are not, nor are they expected to be tried in two months. But there has to be a proper filing and merit to enjoin and proceed. Every judge is more than willing to enjoin results upon a legitimate filing.

Only 8.3% were found meritless? Okay—that means that the rest were filed improperly or in an inappropriate venue. They had time to file 60 times but couldn’t convince one jurist that there were meritorious claims to enjoin and necessitate evidentiary submissions?

Your use of the word “fukking” and hysteric pseudo-anger is irrelevant to what actually happened.

And the mythology that was perpetuated by conspiracy theorists that courts didn’t give these claims a fair shake is patently ridiculous.

Bottom line? You’ve were suckered by a narrative from con men who want your vote, your money, and media/webpage clicks. But the courts weren’t conned! Not once.
 
Last edited:
ALL mail in ballot boxes were supposed to be video monitored in 2020 but most weren't because they were set up all over the place by Zuck Bucks. The few that were video monitored in swing states showed several people dumping ballots in the middle of the night, multiple times.
Are you sure it was Zuckerberg’s fault? Your brethren are convinced it was also George Soros, Bill Gates, Hunter Biden, Oprah, or Fauci that were the puppet masters.

You’ve been conned.
 
Last edited:
  • Haha
Reactions: Boilermaker03
This is utter and absolute nonsense.

Lawsuits are not, nor are they expected to be tried in two months. But there has to be a proper filing and merit to enjoin and proceed. Every judge is more than willing to enjoin results upon a legitimate filing.

Only 8.3% were found meritless? Okay—that means that the rest were filed improperly or in an inappropriate venue. They had time to file 60 times but couldn’t convince one jurist that there were meritorious claims to enjoin and necessitate evidentiary submissions?

Your use of the word “fukking” and hysteric pseudo-anger is irrelevant to what actually happened.

And the mythology that was perpetuated by conspiracy theorists that courts didn’t give these claims a fair shake is patently ridiculous.

Bottom line? You’ve were suckered by a narrative from con men who want your vote, your money, and media/webpage clicks. But the courts weren’t conned! Not once.
Ok man. You have no clue what you're talking about here.
 
Are you sure it was Zuckerberg’s fault? Your brethren are convinced it was also George Soros, Bill Gates, Hunter Biden, Oprah, or Fauci that were the puppet masters.

You’ve been conned.
I don't know about the others, but I do know 100% Zuckerberg was involved. They literally called it Zuck bucks.
 
I don't know about the others, but I do know 100% Zuckerberg was involved. They literally called it Zuck bucks.
So maaaaybe Soros, Oprah, Fauci, Hillary, and Hunter tooooo!! Gotcha Mr. “I’m Not A Sucker Who’s Been Conned.”

Hahahahahahahahaaaaaaa

Do also suspect, or can’t rule out: Obama, Billy Carter, Rosie O’Donnell, or LeBron James?!!? Maybe the Geico Lizard! Shifty eyes ya know.

Hahahahahahahaaaaaaaaa
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT