"You Have To Shoot To Kill" Says Anti-Trump Harvard Law Professor

[LuckyDuck]

What do you think would have happened to this guy if he has made that same statement about Obama?
Harvard Law's Laurence Tribe tells CNN viewers how to impeach President Trump: 'You have to shoot to kill'

Clearly, CNN is desperate by putting on some ancient Harvard professor who seems to be unaware that to date, there is NO evidence of Trump colluding with Russia.

 

[S.J.]

What do you think would have happened to this guy if he has made that same statement about Obama?
Harvard Law's Laurence Tribe tells CNN viewers how to impeach President Trump: 'You have to shoot to kill'

Stop acting like a stupid regressive by quoting things out of context, he was talking about impeachment, nothing else.


.

I didn't quote anything out of context. I didn't quote anything, period. I asked a question. Can't you read?

Evidently you can't read the title you typed. Carry on.


.

Evidently you're too stupid to understand what the thread is about. I quoted his own words, then asked what would happen to him if he had said the same thing regarding Obama. But don't let that stop you from trolling the thread along with the liberals.

The answer is not a damn thing if his words were taken in context.


.

The point is that it WOULD be taken out of context. Get it now? Probably not.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Lol, that is clearly a figure of speech. You guys are nuts. Now this:



Is an open invitation to assassination.

Quit standing up for fuck faces... Makes you look like a fucking pussy

Lol, I can always tell when I've won the discussion here. Without fail the conservatives start calling me names when they run out of things to say.

Harvard law professor = shiteater
They can’t make it in the real world so they have to indoctrinate young naïve people into their world of piss and shit...

Lol, dude! Take a deep breath, don't wanna have an anurism over a forum discussion!

What's a "anurism"?

 

[OKTexas]

Stop acting like a stupid regressive by quoting things out of context, he was talking about impeachment, nothing else.


.

I didn't quote anything out of context. I didn't quote anything, period. I asked a question. Can't you read?

Evidently you can't read the title you typed. Carry on.


.

Evidently you're too stupid to understand what the thread is about. I quoted his own words, then asked what would happen to him if he had said the same thing regarding Obama. But don't let that stop you from trolling the thread along with the liberals.

The answer is not a damn thing if his words were taken in context.


.

The point is that it WOULD be taken out of context. Get it now? Probably not.

The press might try, no serious law enforcement agency would.


.

 

[S.J.]

I didn't quote anything out of context. I didn't quote anything, period. I asked a question. Can't you read?

Evidently you can't read the title you typed. Carry on.


.

Evidently you're too stupid to understand what the thread is about. I quoted his own words, then asked what would happen to him if he had said the same thing regarding Obama. But don't let that stop you from trolling the thread along with the liberals.

The answer is not a damn thing if his words were taken in context.


.

The point is that it WOULD be taken out of context. Get it now? Probably not.

The press might try, no serious law enforcement agency would.


.

I never said they would.

 

[Rustic]

Harvard Law professor... Credibility at its lowest

 

[OKTexas]

Evidently you can't read the title you typed. Carry on.


.

Evidently you're too stupid to understand what the thread is about. I quoted his own words, then asked what would happen to him if he had said the same thing regarding Obama. But don't let that stop you from trolling the thread along with the liberals.

The answer is not a damn thing if his words were taken in context.


.

The point is that it WOULD be taken out of context. Get it now? Probably not.

The press might try, no serious law enforcement agency would.


.

I never said they would.

So what was the point of this thread again?


.

 

[Marion Morrison]

Skip to 4:00 in so as to not waste time.

Idk, 50% dogwhistle, IMO.

 

[MarathonMike]

The problem is you have millions of unstable and non too bright Liberals out there. The statement was irresponsible and potentially dangerous. CNN demonstrated their lack of journalistic credibility by not calling the professor on it.

 

[Marion Morrison]

The problem is you have millions of unstable and non too bright Liberals out there. The statement was irresponsible and potentially dangerous. CNN demonstrated their lack of journalistic credibility by not calling the professor on it.

Or cutting it out, as they're so famous for doing. No, they purposely left that in there.

 

[S.J.]

Evidently you're too stupid to understand what the thread is about. I quoted his own words, then asked what would happen to him if he had said the same thing regarding Obama. But don't let that stop you from trolling the thread along with the liberals.

The answer is not a damn thing if his words were taken in context.


.

The point is that it WOULD be taken out of context. Get it now? Probably not.

The press might try, no serious law enforcement agency would.


.

I never said they would.

So what was the point of this thread again?


.

I've only explained it to you half a dozen times. Do I have to hold your hand?

 

[OKTexas]

The answer is not a damn thing if his words were taken in context.


.

The point is that it WOULD be taken out of context. Get it now? Probably not.

The press might try, no serious law enforcement agency would.


.

I never said they would.

So what was the point of this thread again?


.

I've only explained it to you half a dozen times. Do I have to hold your fucking hand?

Yeah, I guess I have a problem understanding people who proffer a false premise. So maybe you can explain how it's not.


.

 

[S.J.]

The point is that it WOULD be taken out of context. Get it now? Probably not.

The press might try, no serious law enforcement agency would.


.

I never said they would.

So what was the point of this thread again?


.

I've only explained it to you half a dozen times. Do I have to hold your fucking hand?

Yeah, I guess I have a problem understanding people who proffer a false premise. So maybe you can explain how it's not.


.

I guess you have a problem understanding basic English. Either that or you just like to troll. Maybe both, but neither is my problem.

 

[The Irish Ram]

Lol, that is clearly a figure of speech. You guys are nuts. Now this:



Is an open invitation to assassination.

They are hoping to plant a seed. It's some sick shit, that deep state...

"Deep state" is a conservative fairy tail.

tail?
And no, it is not. Soros holds resistance training seminars. Pelosi introduces him at the meetings:

CARLSBAD, Calif.—A secretive three-day conference where big money liberal donors are plotting the next steps of the "resistance" will be headlined by Friday speeches by billionaire George Soros and Democratic House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, according to internal documents obtained by the Washington Free Beacon.

 

[OKTexas]

The press might try, no serious law enforcement agency would.


.

I never said they would.

So what was the point of this thread again?


.

I've only explained it to you half a dozen times. Do I have to hold your fucking hand?

Yeah, I guess I have a problem understanding people who proffer a false premise. So maybe you can explain how it's not.


.

I guess you have a problem understanding basic English. Either that or you just like to troll. Maybe both, but neither is my problem.

I'm not trolling, I asked a couple of questions, so far all you've done is deflect, so I'll ask again. What was your motivation for starting this thread? It couldn't have had anything to do with facts.


.

 

[Marion Morrison]

I never said they would.

So what was the point of this thread again?


.

I've only explained it to you half a dozen times. Do I have to hold your fucking hand?

Yeah, I guess I have a problem understanding people who proffer a false premise. So maybe you can explain how it's not.


.

I guess you have a problem understanding basic English. Either that or you just like to troll. Maybe both, but neither is my problem.

I'm not trolling, I asked a couple of questions, so far all you've done is deflect, so I'll ask again. What was your motivation for starting this thread? It couldn't have had anything to do with facts.


.

Probably to gaslight the leftist assassination dogwhistle. Just a guess.

 

[OKTexas]

So what was the point of this thread again?


.

I've only explained it to you half a dozen times. Do I have to hold your fucking hand?

Yeah, I guess I have a problem understanding people who proffer a false premise. So maybe you can explain how it's not.


.

I guess you have a problem understanding basic English. Either that or you just like to troll. Maybe both, but neither is my problem.

I'm not trolling, I asked a couple of questions, so far all you've done is deflect, so I'll ask again. What was your motivation for starting this thread? It couldn't have had anything to do with facts.


.

Probably to gaslight the leftist assassination dogwhistle. Just a guess.

Are you saying he was trying to troll the left?

.

 

[baileyn45]

No matter what you think of Trump, what in God's green earth was that video supposed to be? Too much vodka? Not enough crack?

 

[John Shaw]

The right-wingers in this thread are even more hilarious than usual. They act like little children, pretending the guy literally thinks the president should be shot, when anyone with half a brain could tell what was actually meant.

Trump supporters are the oldest children in the world, I swear.

 

[there4eyeM]

A certain 'important' individual's tweets have served to reduce contemporary American language to a new, low level. When outrageous hyperbole is issued so often from so elevated a podium, it is difficult to hold others to a higher standard.