TYB
Expand your thinking. POTUS WILL take the issue to SCOTUS.
SCOTUS WILL rule that POTATO was mentally INCOMPETENT and therefore his presidential acts will be declared NULLL & VOID.
FUCK me anons, WILLs have moar formal signing requirements than Executive Actions.
https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1901614505672515881
Elon Musk
@elonmusk
The very worst judges – those who repeatedly flout the law – should at least be put to an impeachment vote, whether that vote succeeds or not.
Quote
Chuck Grassley
@ChuckGrassley
·
22h
Another day, another judge unilaterally deciding policy for the whole country. This time to benefit foreign gang members If the Supreme Court or Congress doesn’t fix, we’re headed towards a constitutional crisis. Senate Judiciary Cmte taking action
8:40 AM · Mar 17, 2025
·
519.8K
Views
Absofuckinglutly
Impeach and/or DEFUND the courts.
Frenz, the ONLY COURT mentioned in the Constitution is SCOTUS.
All others are created by Congress. That means they can be ABOLISHED by Congress.
Lets get to fucking work anons.
_____
https://x.com/gatewaypundit/status/1901620590668087529
The Gateway Pundit
@gatewaypundit
Demented Obama Judge Who Wants to Liberate Venezuelan Gang Members Sent 70 Trump Supporters to Prison on Made-Up 1512c Charges that Were Later Overturned by SCOTUS
READ: https://thegatewaypundit.com/2025/03/demented-obama-judge-who-wants-liberate-venezuelan-gang/
Image
9:04 AM · Mar 17, 2025
·
608
Views
EXACTLY THIS
Don't blackpill my glorious Monday morning anon.
I amend sure know the challenges we face with that corrupt band of corrupt miscreants.
IF, there is a PLAN, anon is fairly sure it includes EXPOSING these corrupt judicial rEtaRds.
https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1901624569716150280
Elon Musk
@elonmusk
The list of “enemies” on the right or left has changed, as the left is now pro war and has captured the judiciary, but the general principle is timeless
From
Joe Rogan Podcast
9:20 AM · Mar 17, 2025
·
14.6K
Views
no worries anon. IMHO, we are winning bigly
RED TEXTSTART SUING the AGENCIES EXECUTING the SWAT
Swatting isn’t exactly "legal" in the sense of being explicitly permitted by law—it’s more accurate to say it exploits gaps and challenges in how laws, including constitutional protections like the Fourth Amendment, are applied in real-time situations. The Fourth Amendment requires a search warrant to be issued only upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized. Swatting, however, doesn’t involve a traditional warrant process initiated by law enforcement after a careful investigation. Instead, it’s a hoax where someone falsely reports an emergency—often a violent crime like a shooting or hostage situation—to trigger an immediate police response, typically involving SWAT teams.
Here’s how it works and why it clashes with constitutional principles yet still happens: When a 911 call comes in claiming an active threat, police operate under an "exigent circumstances" exception to the warrant requirement. The Supreme Court has recognized this exception in cases like Brigham City v. Stuart (2006), where immediate action is justified to protect life or prevent serious harm. The caller’s fabricated story—say, "Someone’s in my house with a gun"—creates the appearance of an emergency, prompting law enforcement to act fast without pausing to get a warrant. They show up, often with force, at the target’s address. In theory, this aligns with public safety priorities, but in practice, swatters manipulate it to weaponize police against unsuspecting victims.
The legality breaks down after the fact. Making a false report to police is illegal under various state and federal laws—think false statements (18 U.S.C. § 1001) or state-specific statutes on misuse of emergency services. Penalties can include fines, jail time, or civil liability if someone’s harmed. High-profile cases, like the 2017 swatting death of Andrew Finch in Kansas, led to convictions (the caller got 20 years). But the initial police response isn’t deemed "illegal" because officers act in good faith based on the info they’re given, even if it’s fake. The probable cause requirement is sidestepped by the urgency, and courts tend to shield cops from liability here under qualified immunity unless there’s blatant misconduct.
The disconnect with the Constitution lies in how swatting abuses this system. The Fourth Amendment assumes a judicial check—probable cause vetted by a neutral magistrate. Swatting bypasses that entirely, turning a random caller into the de facto decision-maker. There’s no oath, no affidavit, just a voice on the line. Yet, because police can’t verify every call in real time (and delaying could risk lives in a genuine crisis), the practical result is a loophole: the hoax triggers a search or seizure that, absent the lie, would’ve needed a warrant.
Fixing this is tricky. Requiring warrants for every emergency response would paralyze police in legit crises. Better caller ID tech or stricter penalties might deter swatters, but the core issue—how to balance rapid response with constitutional rigor—remains unresolved. So, swatting isn’t "legal" per se; it’s a crime that exploits the tension between safety and rights.
guess I fucked that one up
TESt
kek
https://x.com/DonaldJTrumpJr/status/1901630461744398602
Donald Trump Jr.
@DonaldJTrumpJr
💯💯💯
Quote
Rep. Mike Collins
@RepMikeCollins
·
15h
It’s ridiculous that a Democratic president can import violent gang members, but a Republican president can’t deport them.
9:43 AM · Mar 17, 2025
·
26.1K
Views
yep