Search Posts

A screenshot of a social media (X/Twitter) post by user "Buzz Patterson" (@BuzzPatterson, verified). The post argues that the federal judiciary is engaging in "tyranny" against presidents, particularly Trump, and includes a bar chart comparing the number of preliminary injunctions/policy blocks against sitting presidents' administrative policies by administration, with bars for George W. Bush, Obama, Trump 1.0, Biden, and Trump 2.0, the last two shown in orange, the first three in blue (Trump bars are both orange, Obama/Bush/Biden bars are blue). A source note below the chart cites CRS, Harvard Law Review, and an NYT tracker. The post shows 2:31 AM · Jun 23, 2026 and 31.8K views.

Text in image: Buzz Patterson ✓ @BuzzPatterson 🚨 Tyranny of the Judiciary. Let's talk about it. Marinate on this: Number of times judges blocked a President's policies: • Bush: 6 • Obama: 12 • Trump 1.0: 75 • Biden: 21 • Trump 2.0: 169 (and climbing) When Democrats lose, they stomp their feet and sue, depending on activist judges to nullify the will of the voters. This isn't "checks and balances." It's lawfare on steroids. The Supreme Court has started reining it in, but the resistance never sleeps. Our Republic will die in a black robe. Preliminary Injunctions Against Sitting President's Administrative Policies (Updated as of June 2026) 200 175 150 125 100 75 50 25 0 6 12 75 (64-86) 21 (14-28) 169 George W. Bush Obama Trump 1.0 Biden Trump 2.0 Number of Preliminary Injunctions / Policy Blocks Note: Trump 1.0 shown as 75 (range 64-86); Biden shown as 21 (range 14-28). Trump 2.0 ≈169 from active cases with halted policies (NYT tracker). Data from CRS, Harvard Law Review, NYT tracker. Numbers are approximate. 2:31 AM · Jun 23, 2026 · 31.8K Views

Described automatically. The words above are a machine's reading of the picture, not Trump's.

communist show trial. You know, even North Korea, even the former Soviet Union, went to a greater length to create the pretense of fairness that is being seen with this Biden donor judge in this courtroom. He ruled that the jurors do not need even to agree among themselves, not even a majority of them, forget unanimity, need to agree among themselves as to the crime that Donald Trump is alleged to have committed. And of course, we know the reason for this, which is that they want to avoid addressing the fact, we've discussed this at length, Eric, before, but it bears repeating, that the central allegation, unproven, can't be proven, that Donald Trump violated campaign finance law is an impossibility. Because the long standing universally understood definition of campaign finance law is that you must use private funds for private matters like a legal returner, like a settlement dispute, anything to do with your corporation, private business, private family. So Donald Trump, even if you believe in the allegations that the prosecution has put forward, which of course, our bunk, is still completely innocent of a campaign finance violation. >> So Stephen, but allow me, I don't want to cut you off, but this is so important because there are a lot of times people are charged with several different things during a trial, during a case. And if the jury can't come to unanimity on a single charge, the charge has to be thrown out, not guilty of secondary degree murder, not guilty of third degree murder. >> And there's no system in the civilized world, in civil litigation anywhere, where less than a majority is required to agree on what the crime is. The idea that less than a majority would need to agree that he committed the campaign finance violation is such an affront to our system of justice, to our constitution, to the rule of law. And here's another point on this. You may remember, the defense was prevented and precluded from presenting expert testimony that Donald Trump never could be construed to a violated campaign finance law for the reasons that I said. They wanted to call as an expert witness, Brad Smith, the former head of the FEC, which administers campaign finance law in this country. They were precluded from bringing him to testify as to what campaign finance law actually is. But the prosecution was allowed in his closing arguments to say without rebuttal and without evidence that Donald Trump broke campaign finance law. So the judge has doubly stacked this. On the one hand, he's prevented the defense from offering any exculpatory evidence, presenting the jury with any information about the actual long-standing meaning of campaign finance law. And at the same time, he's lowered the threshold for the jury to 12 of you just need to agree that some crime somewhere has been committed, that you want a guilty verdict, but you don't even have to agree what it is. This is one of the saddest days in the history of American jurisdiction.

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.

-Crooked Joe Biden's targeted weaponized DOJ and FBI are a grave threat to our democracy. They are doing crooked dirty work and attacking and persecuting Trump and only doing so because I'm crushing to sanctimonious and Biden in the polls. If I weren't winning in the polls, they wouldn't be doing it. If I weren't running, they definitely wouldn't be doing it. This is planned election interference of the highest magnitude and used to only happen in third-world countries, but now it's happening in the USA.

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.