Dem Rep. Jim Himes tells "MAGA" they better think twice about supporting strikes on drug traffickers because they "need to imagine who gets killed ...

Fishermen and/or drug dealers are not my enemies.
First of all let's completely dispel the myth of fishermen..... There were no fishing poles those parts. Drug dealers are certainly your enemy.
It costs the government billions of dollars every year to deal with the inflicted addictions.
 
No one was insane enough to think the president had immunity at that time.

Show me where the SCOTUS decision says you can prosecute for core constitutional duties after impeachment.

No one tried prosecuting Presidents before they were impeached before that time.
 
They are very specifically overpowered speed boats.... They are not fishing boats, they are certainly not commercial cargo boats... And they're heading for areas of the coast that don't have developed receiving areas. It is almost 100% certain that they are drug runners.

How much you want to bet they have these boats under drone and/or spec ops observation while they are being loaded?
 
How much you want to bet they have these boats under drone and/or spec ops observation while they are being loaded?
I'm very sure you are correct about that.
They're just holding back the footage allowing left to make total asses of themselves.
Once they have all taken the same position as the Margarita senator who went down to El Salvador for the public to see who they really are....

We will probably see that footage. My guess is we're hearing a lot of noise because the strikes are making a serious impact on the cartel money flowing into DC. I know everyone keeps saying that less than 1% of the drug trade comes in by speedboat but I don't buy that for one minute. If it was so easy send it over land and so difficult to send it by speed boat why do they keep sending speed boats?
 
No one tried prosecuting Presidents before they were impeached before that time.
Nixon resigned.

When are you going to show the part of the decision that backs you up?

Never. It’s never. You never do shit.
 
Nixon resigned.

When are you going to show the part of the decision that backs you up?

Never. It’s never. You never do shit.

And then was pardoned before they could try to prosecute him, which they were trying to do.

There aren't any because the question was never asked until now, because no one actually went through with legally gunning for a sitting President for Presidential acts until now.
 
And then was pardoned before they could try to prosecute him, which they were trying to do.

There aren't any because the question was never asked until now, because no one actually went through with legally gunning for a sitting President for Presidential acts until now.
According to you, they couldn't prosecute him until they impeached him.

You made a claim about the content of the SCOTUS decision giving Trump immunity which is wrong and you refuse to acknowledge it.
 
According to you, they couldn't prosecute him until they impeached him.

You made a claim about the content of the SCOTUS decision giving Trump immunity which is wrong and you refuse to acknowledge it.

He resigned. Same thing legally, but we will never know because no one questioned it.

I am not wrong, you are making shit up.
 
He resigned. Same thing legally, but we will never know because no one questioned it.

I am not wrong, you are making shit up.
Ha! It’s not the same thing legally. Jesus Christ you’re a ******* moron. No one actually thinks that impeachment and conviction is equivalent to resigning.

If you’re not wrong, why can’t you prove it?
 
Ha! It’s not the same thing legally. Jesus Christ you’re a ******* moron. No one actually thinks that impeachment and conviction is equivalent to resigning.

If you’re not wrong, why can’t you prove it?

And if the situation came up the SC would render an opinion and settle it. To me they would settle it the way I described.

I've given my opinion on the matter. It doesn't matter what "proof" I provide because you won't accept it.

You are a dime store hack troll.
 
And if the situation came up the SC would render an opinion and settle it. To me they would settle it the way I described.

I've given my opinion on the matter. It doesn't matter what "proof" I provide because you won't accept it.

You are a dime store hack troll.
You're changing your story, hack.

Once Impeached he can be prosecuted. That was the gist of the SC case.

That's what you actually said. Now you're walking it back to "that's what they would have said". The SCOTUS decision is perfectly clear, you can't prosecute the president exercising core constitutional duties, at all.

And that's why it's such a dumb ******* ruling and needs to be overturned.
 
15th post
You're changing your story, hack.



That's what you actually said. Now you're walking it back to "that's what they would have said". The SCOTUS decision is perfectly clear, you can't prosecute the president exercising core constitutional duties, at all.

And that's why it's such a dumb ******* ruling and needs to be overturned.

I'm pointing out the answer to these questions don't happen until the SC hears a case involving these questions. Again, they haven't been asked in the past because the answers were assumed, until the left went all lawfare and the SC had to rule on the issues.

You removed the part where they talked about valid and legal presidential duties. figuring out that part is given to congress with its power of impeachment.

So you want it overturned to every time a President does something some State or congress critter doesn't like they can be sued and/or prosecuted?

That would be the result, you ******* moron.
 
Back
Top Bottom