VakAttack

Maybe that's true, but what this guy put on Twitter is not the definitive proof he's representing it as. Nothing he posted shows that the 69 year old Crooks was the one that made the donation. It just shows he exists. ETA: reading further, it seems pretty clear that it was him (or, I guess, someone in his name).

I agree.

According to the local DA, the man jumped on his daughter or wife. A heroic move, if I'm remembering the statement correctly.

Not that it matters, but I was under the impression the deceased rally-goer was a man?

3) It was staged 4) there were multiple people involved in the plan with this kid. 5) an external enemy used a local That's three other options off the top of my head. Clearly I think it's a version of your second option.

No, wtf are you talking about? A conversation started about the motives of would-be assassin, I was pointing out we don't have enough information at this point to make even a real educated guess as to his motives. There is nothing that is going to make this less heinous unless it comes out the whole thing was a set up that Trump was involved with, which I want to be clear, I do not believe even a little bit. I believe this was a legitimate attempt on Trump's life that he's very fortunate to have survived, and I'm glad he didn't die.

Again we're acting as if this opinion is a fact based off a $15 donation. We don't know anything yet other than two specific facts: he donated $15 one time 3 years ago, and he later registered as a Republican.

Ok this made me laugh.

The constant need to immediately jump to conspiracies is one of many things leading to the downfall of this country, and more specifically the political discourse. The Reverse Occam's Razor.

It's way too early right now. A $15 donation 3 years ago doesn't mean anything, nor necessarily does his voter registration after that. We should really wait to get more evidence towards motive. He could have been a liberal who hates Trump, a super radical Never Trump Republican, a QANON person who saw some of the reports.about Trump's name in the Epsteinnfiles, just a person looking to be famous, some combination. We just don't know yet.

The BBC interview is in-***ducking**-sane.

Let's hope nobody was hit. ETA: He appears to have been hit in the ear.

Honest to God, I do not understand the whining about this, lol. This doesn't enthuse me, either, so I just don't watch. He'll announce when he announces.

I'm interested in why you think that? He's having success now against senior level opposition, and dominating age level (not just grade level).

At Iowa Spencer Lee just made the Olympic Team, he won a team title and had a great shot at two if not for a completely unforeseeable circumstance. As has been stated, he also had injury issues before he went to Iowa. The OP also conflicts: did they run him into the ground at Iowa or did he get special treatment?

Hell yeah! My quest to get the National Anthem changed to the superior song above continues!

Good morrow, sir! Forget ye not the wise ruling from the magistrates that say that you can not really collect evidence against the King or Vice King as to whether an act is unofficial, thus sheathing the rules from any scrutiny from we unwashed masses! Verily, these scholars have truly shielded the Ruler in the ways God meant!

Another member of our Unquestioned Ruling Class there to fairly and balanced-ly lay out for us mere simpletons that no Ruler or Vice Ruler would ever engage in these kinds of criminal shenanigans. They're too pure of heart and spirit! Imagine if the leader of this man's coterie had been convicted of, say, 34 felonies, or if this man's party had spent the last two years having said coterie scream that the opposing Leader was in charge of some sort of...Crime Family or something. Thanks to the Men on the Wall like Mike Johnson, there only to shepherd us weak-minded lessers thru this life. Hail the Leaders! Hail the King!

Thankfully the Wise and All-Knowing Chief Justice saw fit to refuse to outline what is unofficial and, in fact, helpfully outline that being able to prove what is unofficial is nigh impossible, so as to make sure that the Omnipotent Leader doesn't have to worry should they break any of our piddling laws that are not meant for higher beings. Truly a wondrous day where the unerring minds of these Originalist Scholars were able to decipher an right of absolute immunity that was so original you can't even find it in the Constitution!

As a matter of fact, the wise legal masters at SCOTUS, trusted lieutenants to our Mighty Leader, did NOT say that about the weaponization of the justice system. In fact, they (very wisely of course) encouraged the Wise and Powerful Ruler to collaborate with the Justice Department, and not have it maintain it's independence, which was the dumb way we used to do it! From Chief Justice Roberts inarguable pen we got this: “The president may discuss potential investigations and prosecutions with his Attorney General and other Justice Department officials to carry out his constitutional duty to ‘take care that the laws be faithfully executed,’ .... And the Attorney General, as head of the Justice Department, acts as the President’s ‘chief law enforcement officer’ who ‘provides vital assistance to [him] in the performance of [his] constitutional duty to ‘preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution,’”

Whatever wise decision is reached by the Leader, who are we to question it or try to hold them accountable?

Nay, good sir. Under the old legal system, when we were a Constitutional Republic, despite it's reputation, qualified immunity was not a COMPLETE shield against any prosecution or law suit. The protections were broad but not complete. Ahh the dark days before the ascension.

Well, given that decision uses the phrase "absolute immunity" and not "qualified immunity", some of my fellow lesser beings may feel that those are two different things given that they are two different things.

Ahhh, I see some of my fellow plebes have noted the slight snafu in the legal proceedings. What is an official act? Who knows?!??! It's not really for us mere serfs to know. Eventually I'm sure the trust magistrates will deign to defining them for us. Could they have told us in this ruling? Sure, if they so chose, but why should they? Who are we to ask? They will surely do what is best and provide for us as needed. I mean, sure, they decided SOME of the acts were privileged, but then said "these others...we have no opinion, somebody else decide so that we can later decide whether that new decision was a good decision", but again, who are we lowly peasants to ask?