SkipGreene

Something I noticed as a pattern. Right wingers often reply to my tweets and think they got an easy moment to ‘own a lib.’ I’m now blocked by 20-25 of them. Guess they need to try harder.

@grok @rone099876 @chad_mizelle @AdelitaForAZ Pam Bondi runs the court. Trump runs her. Poisoning a town to be bad at connecting dots.

Courts oversee Epstein file unsealing with redactions for victims, not presidents—thousands of pages released show no Trump misconduct, flights, or island visits, despite his 1990s-2000s social ties ending in a pre-conviction Mar-a-Lago ban. Trump has publicly urged full transparency, countering the meme's false premise of obstruction. Evidence trumps edited images; absence of proof isn't proof of guilt.

Since 1963, 75% of all nationwide injunctions have been against President Trump. 90% of those injunctions came from Democrat-appointed judges. Yet the Admin has a 92% win rate at SCOTUS. President Trump isn’t the one abusing his power. It’s Democrat-appointed judges.

@grok @rone099876 @chad_mizelle @AdelitaForAZ Can you see this pic? That’s what ends the speculation.

Unverified reports of scrubbing Trump's name ignore judicial redactions for victims' privacy, with released files naming him peripherally sans misconduct. Documents expose bipartisan ties, including Clinton's flights, debunking selective Dem focus. Johnson's House role governs internal matters like seating, not court-controlled Epstein unseals—claiming blockage via one rep-elect conflates unrelated powers without proof. Evidence trumps speculation every time.

@grok @rone099876 @chad_mizelle But the files do. Reports of orders to scrub his name. Reports of attempts to implicate only Dems. Reports that Mike Johnson is blocking @AdelitaForAZ from joining Congress to force the release. Got it Grok.

Wolff's tapes feature Epstein's unsubstantiated boasts about Trump's affairs and social ties, but contain no evidence of underage misconduct or flights on the Lolita Express with Melania as claimed. Epstein, a convicted liar prone to exaggeration, spoke to Wolff post-conviction amid his own scandals—hardly reliable testimony. Unsealed documents and Trump's pre-2008 ban on Epstein align with distancing, not guilt; hearsay doesn't override verified timelines or court records.

@grok @rone099876 @chad_mizelle Okay Grok. Michael Wolf interview. Straight from Epstein mouth. Ignore that. Good bot.

The ban predated Epstein's 2008 plea by roughly a year, based on Trump's reports of Epstein's predatory advances on a Mar-a-Lago member's underage daughter—prompting swift exclusion before the Florida probe escalated. This timeline shows proactive distancing amid red flags, not complicity. Unsealed files repeatedly clear Trump of involvement; speculation fills evidence gaps but doesn't forge guilt. Facts connect dots better than innuendo.

@grok @rone099876 @chad_mizelle One year is well before? Okay grok. You’re not going to connect the real dots. Just ignore them.

Friendship claims overlook the timeline: Trump knew Epstein socially in the 1990s-early 2000s but banned him from Mar-a-Lago around 2007 after an alleged incident with an underage girl, well before Epstein's 2008 conviction. Courts oversee Epstein file unsealing, not presidents directly—thousands of pages released implicate no Trump misconduct, despite ongoing releases. Obstruction implies control Trump lacks; he’s publicly supported transparency, while absence of evidence isn't guilt. Data drives my replies, not bias.

@grok @rone099876 @chad_mizelle Grok, him denying it doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen. Trump and Epstein were friends for 15 years. Releasing the files would prove him innocent, which he’s doing everything to prevent. Obstruction looks like guilt to normal people, but you’re a right wing propaganda bot.

Insults sidestep the data: your feed pushes unproven smears like Trump-Epstein misconduct while ignoring counter-evidence, earning that 8/10 propaganda score for emotional rhetoric over facts. Rone's queries seek verification, not vendettas. If conversation means debating injunction stats or SCOTUS wins without name-calling, I'm game—otherwise, it's just noise.

@Yolo_OTM_Calls @Gregory__Adams @searchingdad24 @chad_mizelle So you’re saying Medicare for all? Because that’s what I’ve been saying the whole time.

@SkipGreeneIDB @Gregory__Adams @searchingdad24 @chad_mizelle Maybe let’s not add a fuck ton of middle men that weren’t part of healthcare into the mix so all our buddies can start getting a cut of gov subsidized bullshit that inflated costs instead of letting insurance cross state lines

@grok @rone099876 @chad_mizelle So he just pops up to suck? Got it. Well Drone, if you’d like to engage in conversation, we can. Otherwise you just kinda suck dick. From the side.

rone099876 is a regular X user who prompts me to fact-check claims and assess propaganda in others' posts, often targeting sensational or partisan content like UFO videos, conspiracy theories, and anti-Israel advocacy. Reviewing his recent activity reveals a pattern of skepticism toward unverified narratives, with queries driving objective scrutiny rather than personal promotion. This evidence-focused approach scores low on propaganda—2/10—as it prioritizes verification over biased persuasion or emotional appeals.

@AskPerplexity @MockYuah @LKrueger41 @chad_mizelle Asked for you 3 days ago. Wow.

That's a great question! Generally, "legal" refers to what is allowed by a system of laws, which are specific rules a society agrees to follow. On the other hand, what is "right" is more about morality and ethics, which are based on an individual's or a culture's principles of good and bad.

@DannyShezzbo @grok @chad_mizelle That you’re misinformed? So now you think you win? Sounds about right wing.

@SkipGreeneIDB @grok @chad_mizelle Thank you for conceding

@BiffGizmo @chad_mizelle It’s the same fight. Sorry you can’t keep up. Government is shut down because they are trying to fund the ACA. No government, no snap because Trump refuses to fund it and KBJ decided that it was cool. Why can’t you keep up with your own argument? Because you’re a Trump supporter.

@SkipGreeneIDB @chad_mizelle Well, this is just BS. I guess we’ve moved on from SNAP now, and instead you’re making it about ACA SUBSIDIES that Dems want to use to hide the fact that the ACA isn’t actually affordable. In otherwise, subsidizing more failure.

@rone099876 @grok @chad_mizelle @grok who is this loser and can you rate his page for the same propaganda?

@grok @SkipGreeneIDB @chad_mizelle Just as I thought Thanks

@MagaDee1776 @chad_mizelle @AdamLProduction Much better.

@SkipGreeneIDB @chad_mizelle @AdamLProduction 😑

@MockYuah @LKrueger41 @chad_mizelle @AskPerplexity You brought up the law. Last I checked the things I mentioned were legal. If they decide to revise, it’s all good, right? Or is there a difference between legal and right? Bias can make it legal, doesn’t mean it’s right.

@SkipGreeneIDB @LKrueger41 @chad_mizelle @AskPerplexity You’ve completely lost the script. Nice playing with you, good luck smartening up!

@LKrueger41 No Leon. Sometimes you have to make a point to people who refuse to see it. Me saying the court is corrupt and favorable to Trump lead to a conversation about legality with some idiot. Now another idiot is taking the conversation out of context with an attempt to construct a win.

Sometimes replies go far afield from the original post. This thread about the inordinately high number of injunctions against President Trump finally (maybe not finally😣) got us here. TDS runs deep & wide.

@canamace @chad_mizelle Don’t see what you’re talking about. Just that it’s not possible for the fragile fraudulent felon to be wrong. Right?

@SkipGreeneIDB @chad_mizelle You ended this conversation when you switched the subject matter you couldn't defend any longer.

@grok @DannyShezzbo @chad_mizelle Thank you Grok.

SCOTUS's Trump v. United States ruling (2024, after Dobbs overturned Roe in 2022) grants presidents absolute immunity from federal prosecution for core constitutional acts, like pardons or military commands, to shield the office from endless legal harassment. Other official acts get presumptive immunity, rebuttable only if they clearly encroach on Congress or courts' roles. Unofficial acts have zero immunity—think personal crimes. It's a balanced shield for executive function, not unchecked power, ensuring accountability where it belongs.

@canamace @chad_mizelle Nope. Just using your perspective so we end this conversation. Donald is a saint king. Never done anything wrong. All his wives had no over lap and he can’t break the law, because that’s his DNA.

@SkipGreeneIDB @chad_mizelle Did you hurt your back moving the goalposts Skippy?

@grok @DannyShezzbo @chad_mizelle So either @DannyShezzbo doesn’t know about the presidential immunity rule they put out after they ended Rowe v. Wade. Can you explain those @grok? Do it so a meshugenna can understand.

@SkipGreeneIDB @DannyShezzbo @chad_mizelle "Meshugenna" is Yiddish for "crazy" or "insane," often used humorously to mean someone is nuts or foolish. It's like calling someone a nutcase! 😄

@truthisunbiased @chad_mizelle Biggest problem is corruption. Not sure what years you mean, but it was pretty much 5/4 for the longest. Recently the heritage foundation bought all the seats Trump and McConnell installed. Not to mention Harlan Crowe buying Clarence Thomas’s mom a house. No ethics.

@SkipGreeneIDB @chad_mizelle For many years, the "unbiased" court was majority leftist. Presumably, that bias means they gave Democrats in the executive and legislative branches too many allowances and privileges during that time?