Trump Assassination Threat Made, FBI Has Suspect in Custody, Media Blackout

[beautress]

Democrats and the mainstream media have been slamming Trump over the death of General Soleimani as well as blaming him for the downed Ukrainian passenger jet that was shot down by Iran.

Well, as Dems like to say, words matter, and their words have inspired a Florida man to threaten the life of our president.

(snip)

If this is the first you are hearing about this threat, even though it is almost a week old at this point, you are not alone.

(snip)

The only relatively mainstream outlets that I found at the time were the Review Journal in Florida and KTLA’s website, another Florida outlet.

Now, can you imagine if a threat like this had happened against Obama? It would have been all over the mainstream media for days.


Trump Assassination Threat Made, FBI Has Suspect in Custody, Media Blackout - TRENDINGRIGHTWING

BJ - The only chance that Dems ever have is to keep their fools uninformed .

Blackout was not complete enough. It would not have hurt my feelings if they had disappeared him to Guantanamo Bay for about 6 months while they investigated possible terrorist tie-ins. Plus, the bail they set if way too low. Hard to imagine not being able to come up with 10% that will put him back on the streets quickly.

I could go for that.

Of course you could- for you Trumpettes the American Constitution is just more used toilet paper to wipe your filthy asses on.

Get a grip! Nothing constitutional about threatening the life of the President. It may be a bad law, that allows special rendition on terrorist grounds, but it is on the books, last I heard and possibly needs dusting off once in a while, just for the merits of discussion. This would have been a good time.

Threatening the life of the President is a crime. And in the United States when an American citizen is accused of a crime, they are arrested, and publicly charged, put on trial and if convicted put in an American prison.

What the Trumpette suggested was an illegal Banana Republic style 'disappearance' to Guantanamo Bay- which would be again- illegal and unconstitutional. And this is not the first unconstitutional proposal made in this thread.

Trumpettes are quick to suggest pissing on the American constitution when it comes to their Dear Leader.

Syri sez: "Trumpettes are quick to suggest pissing on the American constitution.."
​

Project much?

 

[Syriusly]

First they said he would not run that it was just a publicity stunt.....then they said he could not win. Then they said they would impeach him because they could not defeat him in the upcoming election.

Now ....at least some of them are thinking about assasination.....time to deal with these traitors.

Why Is There Hue And Cry Over Sedition Law? Every Country Has And Needs It

Sedition law needed to combat anti-national elements, no proposal to scrap it: Centre

If the president is killed it time to go after Democrat Congressmen and mainstream media.

Sadly Republicans already do that.

No one should be threatening the life of the President of the United States. Doesn't matter who that President is.

 

[beautress]

I could go for that.

Of course you could- for you Trumpettes the American Constitution is just more used toilet paper to wipe your filthy asses on.

Get a grip! Nothing constitutional about threatening the life of the President. It may be a bad law, that allows special rendition on terrorist grounds, but it is on the books, last I heard and possibly needs dusting off once in a while, just for the merits of discussion. This would have been a good time.

Threatening the life of the President is a crime. And in the United States when an American citizen is accused of a crime, they are arrested, and publicly charged, put on trial and if convicted put in an American prison.

What the Trumpette suggested was an illegal Banana Republic style 'disappearance' to Guantanamo Bay- which would be again- illegal and unconstitutional. And this is not the first unconstitutional proposal made in this thread.

Trumpettes are quick to suggest pissing on the American constitution when it comes to their Dear Leader.

Syri sez: "Trumpettes are quick to suggest pissing on the American constitution.."
​

Project much?

I am not the one suggesting violating American's constitutional rights- that would be the Trumpette who suggested disappearing an American citizen to Guantanamo.

So- no- just pointing out what we see from Trumpettes regularly- a desire to piss on the American constitution.

You're such a Demmie-a dozen't, Syri. And your Demmie House are so bipolar their hatred for Trump spills over into their House seats with impeaching the innocent they falsely claimed colluded with Russians through 5 inquiries made by *Steele,* the House, the Senate, Mueller, Barr, and finally another inquiry, and when that didn't work, they did an Impeachment with no proof other than that they hoped the nation would buy more sleazy charges like whoever heard of obstruction of Congress because the President exercised appropriately the Separation of Powers mentioned in the Constitution but disrespected by Pelosi and her bagmen, Schoo-fly and Nutler. So up came ANOTHER delay before throwing up their failed hits to the Senate who has a choice of declining their foolish finale or go through the motions of an Impeachment that is merely the House trying to get somebody else to do all their damn dirty work. It's kind of like you blaming everyone on the right for everything everyone on the left did. You're a sourpuss looking for someone else to throw up on every minute you are here defending the guilty trying to get the innocent in trouble like them.

And you're their top projection specialist on a good day.
Laws of Mercy!

 

[White 6]

I could go for that.

Of course you could- for you Trumpettes the American Constitution is just more used toilet paper to wipe your filthy asses on.

Get a grip! Nothing constitutional about threatening the life of the President. It may be a bad law, that allows special rendition on terrorist grounds, but it is on the books, last I heard and possibly needs dusting off once in a while, just for the merits of discussion. This would have been a good time.

Threatening the life of the President is a crime. And in the United States when an American citizen is accused of a crime, they are arrested, and publicly charged, put on trial and if convicted put in an American prison.

What the Trumpette suggested was an illegal Banana Republic style 'disappearance' to Guantanamo Bay- which would be again- illegal and unconstitutional. And this is not the first unconstitutional proposal made in this thread.

Trumpettes are quick to suggest pissing on the American constitution when it comes to their Dear Leader.

I'm not Trumpette. I don't even like or approve of the guy in general. I despise would be assassins and traitors far more. This guy is no better than a domestic terrorist. I did not write the statute on special rendition. It quite possibly is unconstitutional, but if not used again in times not fraught with high tension and national fear it will lie dormant until a time of emergency and be used, possibly harmfully to many Americans and our constitutional style of governance. Sorry if I upset you, Buttercup.

LOL- no snowflake, you didn't upset me. I despise would be assassins and traitors also. But if they are Americans, then they are protected by the U.S. Constitution.
There is no law that allows an American citizen on American soil to be 'disappeared' and whisked out of the United States and be deprived of their Constitutional rights.
That would not be 'possibly unconsitutional' that is something that any American would recognize as a blatant violation of the Constitution.

The only possible exception would be in time of war when habeas corpus is suspended- and frankly Lincoln got that wrong

I was thinking of Jose Padilla
On June 9, 2002, two days before District Court Judge Michael Mukasey was to issue a ruling on the validity of continuing to hold Padilla under the material witness warrant, President George Bush issued an order to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld to detain Padilla as an "enemy combatant." Padilla was transferred to a military brig in Charleston, South Carolina, without any notice to his attorney or family. The order "legally justified" the detention using the 2001 AUMF passed in the wake of September 11, 2001, (formally "The Authorization for Use of Military Force Joint Resolution" (Public Law 107-40)) and opined that a U.S. citizen detained on U.S. soil can be classified as an enemy combatant.
According to the text of the ensuing decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, Padilla's detention as an "enemy combatant" (pursuant to the President's order) was based on the following reasons:

1. Padilla was "closely associated with al Qaeda," a designation for loosely knit insurgent groups sharing common ideals and tactics, "with which the United States is at war";
2. he had engaged in "war-like acts, including conduct in preparation for acts of international terrorism";
3. he had intelligence that could assist the United States in warding off future terrorist attacks; and
4. he was a continuing threat to American security.

Because Padilla was being detained without any criminal charges being formally made against him, he, through his lawyer, made a petition for a writ of habeas corpus to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, naming then Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld as the respondent to this petition. The government filed a motion to dismiss the petition on the grounds that:
According to the text of the ensuing decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, Padilla's detention as an "enemy combatant" (pursuant to the President's order) was based on the following reasons:

1. Padilla was "closely associated with al Qaeda," a designation for loosely knit insurgent groups sharing common ideals and tactics, "with which the United States is at war";
2. he had engaged in "war-like acts, including conduct in preparation for acts of international terrorism";
3. he had intelligence that could assist the United States in warding off future terrorist attacks; and
4. he was a continuing threat to American security.

Declaring that without clear congressional approval (per 18 U.S.C. § 4001(a)), President Bush cannot detain an American citizen arrested in the United States and away from a zone of combat as an "illegal enemy combatant," the court ordered that Padilla be released from the military brig within 30 days.[20] However, the court had stayed the release order pending the government's appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.[citation needed]

He was later actually charge and convicted on aiding terrorism charges due to connection to Al Qaeda , sentenced to 17 years, later upgraded to 21 years.

If they see fit, they can definitely arrest you without habeas corpus, and shift your location without telling anyone, so that attempt to file habeas not in correct court or correct jailer named. I liked the outcome but the process was less than what the framers had in mind.

 

[White 6]

Get a grip! Nothing constitutional about threatening the life of the President. It may be a bad law, that allows special rendition on terrorist grounds, but it is on the books, last I heard and possibly needs dusting off once in a while, just for the merits of discussion. This would have been a good time.

Threatening the life of the President is a crime. And in the United States when an American citizen is accused of a crime, they are arrested, and publicly charged, put on trial and if convicted put in an American prison.

What the Trumpette suggested was an illegal Banana Republic style 'disappearance' to Guantanamo Bay- which would be again- illegal and unconstitutional. And this is not the first unconstitutional proposal made in this thread.

Trumpettes are quick to suggest pissing on the American constitution when it comes to their Dear Leader.

I'm not Trumpette. I don't even like or approve of the guy in general. I despise would be assassins and traitors far more. This guy is no better than a domestic terrorist. I did not write the statute on special rendition. It quite possibly is unconstitutional, but if not used again in times not fraught with high tension and national fear it will lie dormant until a time of emergency and be used, possibly harmfully to many Americans and our constitutional style of governance. Sorry if I upset you, Buttercup.

LOL- no snowflake, you didn't upset me. I despise would be assassins and traitors also. But if they are Americans, then they are protected by the U.S. Constitution.
There is no law that allows an American citizen on American soil to be 'disappeared' and whisked out of the United States and be deprived of their Constitutional rights.
That would not be 'possibly unconsitutional' that is something that any American would recognize as a blatant violation of the Constitution.

The only possible exception would be in time of war when habeas corpus is suspended- and frankly Lincoln got that wrong

Would you like some cheese with that whine. What a brainwashed liberal loser.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I love how you Trumpettes think defending the Constitution is 'whining'

Seriously, Syriously. You need to f#ck off lumping me with the Trumpettes. I am an Independent @sshole, thank you very much.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

First they said he would not run that it was just a publicity stunt.....then they said he could not win. Then they said they would impeach him because they could not defeat him in the upcoming election.

Now ....at least some of them are thinking about assasination.....time to deal with these traitors.

Why Is There Hue And Cry Over Sedition Law? Every Country Has And Needs It

Sedition law needed to combat anti-national elements, no proposal to scrap it: Centre

If the president is killed it time to go after Democrat Congressmen and mainstream media.

Sadly Republicans already do that.

No one should be threatening the life of the President of the United States. Doesn't matter who that President is.

NO, NOT REALLY THAT'S WHY THE MEDIA SPEWS THE SHIT THEY SPEW AND THE DEMOCRATS CONTINUE TO THREATEN THE PRESIDENT
Sorry about the caps lock not retypng what I posted.

 

[Syriusly]

First they said he would not run that it was just a publicity stunt.....then they said he could not win. Then they said they would impeach him because they could not defeat him in the upcoming election.

Now ....at least some of them are thinking about assasination.....time to deal with these traitors.

Why Is There Hue And Cry Over Sedition Law? Every Country Has And Needs It

Sedition law needed to combat anti-national elements, no proposal to scrap it: Centre

If the president is killed it time to go after Democrat Congressmen and mainstream media.

Sadly Republicans already do that.

No one should be threatening the life of the President of the United States. Doesn't matter who that President is.

NO, NOT REALLY THAT'S WHY THE MEDIA SPEWS THE SHIT THEY SPEW AND THE DEMOCRATS CONTINUE TO THREATEN THE PRESIDENT
Sorry about the caps lock not retypng what I posted.

How do the Democrats 'threaten' the President? By following the Constitution and impeaching the President?

But yes- Republicans already go after Democrat Congressman and mainstream media- non-stop.

 

[White 6]

I'm not Trumpette. I don't even like or approve of the guy in general. I despise would be assassins and traitors far more. This guy is no better than a domestic terrorist. I did not write the statute on special rendition. It quite possibly is unconstitutional, but if not used again in times not fraught with high tension and national fear it will lie dormant until a time of emergency and be used, possibly harmfully to many Americans and our constitutional style of governance. Sorry if I upset you, Buttercup.

LOL- no snowflake, you didn't upset me. I despise would be assassins and traitors also. But if they are Americans, then they are protected by the U.S. Constitution.
There is no law that allows an American citizen on American soil to be 'disappeared' and whisked out of the United States and be deprived of their Constitutional rights.
That would not be 'possibly unconsitutional' that is something that any American would recognize as a blatant violation of the Constitution.

The only possible exception would be in time of war when habeas corpus is suspended- and frankly Lincoln got that wrong

Would you like some cheese with that whine. What a brainwashed liberal loser.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I love how you Trumpettes think defending the Constitution is 'whining'

Seriously, Syriously. You need to f#ck off lumping me with the Trumpettes. I am an Independent @sshole, thank you very much.

Seriously if I lump you with the brainwashed Trumpettes it is because you post like the brainwashed Trumpettes.

No, I figure you for one of the brain dead liberals they correctly scorn of this board.

 

[Syriusly]

Of course you could- for you Trumpettes the American Constitution is just more used toilet paper to wipe your filthy asses on.

Get a grip! Nothing constitutional about threatening the life of the President. It may be a bad law, that allows special rendition on terrorist grounds, but it is on the books, last I heard and possibly needs dusting off once in a while, just for the merits of discussion. This would have been a good time.

Threatening the life of the President is a crime. And in the United States when an American citizen is accused of a crime, they are arrested, and publicly charged, put on trial and if convicted put in an American prison.

What the Trumpette suggested was an illegal Banana Republic style 'disappearance' to Guantanamo Bay- which would be again- illegal and unconstitutional. And this is not the first unconstitutional proposal made in this thread.

Trumpettes are quick to suggest pissing on the American constitution when it comes to their Dear Leader.

I'm not Trumpette. I don't even like or approve of the guy in general. I despise would be assassins and traitors far more. This guy is no better than a domestic terrorist. I did not write the statute on special rendition. It quite possibly is unconstitutional, but if not used again in times not fraught with high tension and national fear it will lie dormant until a time of emergency and be used, possibly harmfully to many Americans and our constitutional style of governance. Sorry if I upset you, Buttercup.

LOL- no snowflake, you didn't upset me. I despise would be assassins and traitors also. But if they are Americans, then they are protected by the U.S. Constitution.
There is no law that allows an American citizen on American soil to be 'disappeared' and whisked out of the United States and be deprived of their Constitutional rights.
That would not be 'possibly unconsitutional' that is something that any American would recognize as a blatant violation of the Constitution.

The only possible exception would be in time of war when habeas corpus is suspended- and frankly Lincoln got that wrong

I was thinking of Jose Padilla
On June 9, 2002, two days before District Court Judge Michael Mukasey was to issue a ruling on the validity of continuing to hold Padilla under the material witness warrant, President George Bush issued an order to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld to detain Padilla as an "enemy combatant." Padilla was transferred to a military brig in Charleston, South Carolina, without any notice to his attorney or family. The order "legally justified" the detention using the 2001 AUMF passed in the wake of September 11, 2001, (formally "The Authorization for Use of Military Force Joint Resolution" (Public Law 107-40)) and opined that a U.S. citizen detained on U.S. soil can be classified as an enemy combatant.
According to the text of the ensuing decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, Padilla's detention as an "enemy combatant" (pursuant to the President's order) was based on the following reasons:

1. Padilla was "closely associated with al Qaeda," a designation for loosely knit insurgent groups sharing common ideals and tactics, "with which the United States is at war";
2. he had engaged in "war-like acts, including conduct in preparation for acts of international terrorism";
3. he had intelligence that could assist the United States in warding off future terrorist attacks; and
4. he was a continuing threat to American security.

Because Padilla was being detained without any criminal charges being formally made against him, he, through his lawyer, made a petition for a writ of habeas corpus to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, naming then Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld as the respondent to this petition. The government filed a motion to dismiss the petition on the grounds that:
According to the text of the ensuing decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, Padilla's detention as an "enemy combatant" (pursuant to the President's order) was based on the following reasons:

1. Padilla was "closely associated with al Qaeda," a designation for loosely knit insurgent groups sharing common ideals and tactics, "with which the United States is at war";
2. he had engaged in "war-like acts, including conduct in preparation for acts of international terrorism";
3. he had intelligence that could assist the United States in warding off future terrorist attacks; and
4. he was a continuing threat to American security.

Declaring that without clear congressional approval (per 18 U.S.C. § 4001(a)), President Bush cannot detain an American citizen arrested in the United States and away from a zone of combat as an "illegal enemy combatant," the court ordered that Padilla be released from the military brig within 30 days.[20] However, the court had stayed the release order pending the government's appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.[citation needed]

He was later actually charge and convicted on aiding terrorism charges due to connection to Al Qaeda , sentenced to 17 years, later upgraded to 21 years.

If they see fit, they can definitely arrest you without habeas corpus, and shift your location without telling anyone, so that attempt to file habeas not in correct court or correct jailer named. I liked the outcome but the process was less than what the framers had in mind.

Thank you- I had completely forgotten about Jose Padilla.

Personally I think that holding Padilla without charges was unconstitutional and I think it was wrong. The courts clearly had mixed reaction to it and it was never fully adjudicated. But I think that it is wrong to hold any American for crimes committed in America with no habeas corpus.

Just as I think that advocating that anyone who threatens the life of President Trump should be held outside our justice system. If someone commits a crime in America- they should face American justice.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

First they said he would not run that it was just a publicity stunt.....then they said he could not win. Then they said they would impeach him because they could not defeat him in the upcoming election.

Now ....at least some of them are thinking about assasination.....time to deal with these traitors.

Why Is There Hue And Cry Over Sedition Law? Every Country Has And Needs It

Sedition law needed to combat anti-national elements, no proposal to scrap it: Centre

If the president is killed it time to go after Democrat Congressmen and mainstream media.

Sadly Republicans already do that.

No one should be threatening the life of the President of the United States. Doesn't matter who that President is.

NO, NOT REALLY THAT'S WHY THE MEDIA SPEWS THE SHIT THEY SPEW AND THE DEMOCRATS CONTINUE TO THREATEN THE PRESIDENT
Sorry about the caps lock not retypng what I posted.

How do the Democrats 'threaten' the President? By following the Constitution and impeaching the President?

But yes- Republicans already go after Democrat Congressman and mainstream media- non-stop.

Witch hunts do not constitute grounds for impeachment

 

[basquebromance]

"We are helping Apple all of the time on TRADE and so many other issues, and yet they refuse to unlock phones used by killers, drug dealers and other violent criminal elements. They will have to step up to the plate and help our great Country, NOW! MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN." - President Trump

 

[whitehall]

When are they going to lock up actor Robert DeNiro for threatening the President?

I guess when he threatens to assassinate him.....


But hurting Trump's feelings is not a federal crime right now....you are free to start a campaign to pass a law that makes it illegal to hurt Trump's feelings if you like...

Threatening bodily harm is O.K>?

 

[White 6]

Get a grip! Nothing constitutional about threatening the life of the President. It may be a bad law, that allows special rendition on terrorist grounds, but it is on the books, last I heard and possibly needs dusting off once in a while, just for the merits of discussion. This would have been a good time.

Threatening the life of the President is a crime. And in the United States when an American citizen is accused of a crime, they are arrested, and publicly charged, put on trial and if convicted put in an American prison.

What the Trumpette suggested was an illegal Banana Republic style 'disappearance' to Guantanamo Bay- which would be again- illegal and unconstitutional. And this is not the first unconstitutional proposal made in this thread.

Trumpettes are quick to suggest pissing on the American constitution when it comes to their Dear Leader.

I'm not Trumpette. I don't even like or approve of the guy in general. I despise would be assassins and traitors far more. This guy is no better than a domestic terrorist. I did not write the statute on special rendition. It quite possibly is unconstitutional, but if not used again in times not fraught with high tension and national fear it will lie dormant until a time of emergency and be used, possibly harmfully to many Americans and our constitutional style of governance. Sorry if I upset you, Buttercup.

LOL- no snowflake, you didn't upset me. I despise would be assassins and traitors also. But if they are Americans, then they are protected by the U.S. Constitution.
There is no law that allows an American citizen on American soil to be 'disappeared' and whisked out of the United States and be deprived of their Constitutional rights.
That would not be 'possibly unconsitutional' that is something that any American would recognize as a blatant violation of the Constitution.

The only possible exception would be in time of war when habeas corpus is suspended- and frankly Lincoln got that wrong

I was thinking of Jose Padilla
On June 9, 2002, two days before District Court Judge Michael Mukasey was to issue a ruling on the validity of continuing to hold Padilla under the material witness warrant, President George Bush issued an order to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld to detain Padilla as an "enemy combatant." Padilla was transferred to a military brig in Charleston, South Carolina, without any notice to his attorney or family. The order "legally justified" the detention using the 2001 AUMF passed in the wake of September 11, 2001, (formally "The Authorization for Use of Military Force Joint Resolution" (Public Law 107-40)) and opined that a U.S. citizen detained on U.S. soil can be classified as an enemy combatant.
According to the text of the ensuing decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, Padilla's detention as an "enemy combatant" (pursuant to the President's order) was based on the following reasons:

1. Padilla was "closely associated with al Qaeda," a designation for loosely knit insurgent groups sharing common ideals and tactics, "with which the United States is at war";
2. he had engaged in "war-like acts, including conduct in preparation for acts of international terrorism";
3. he had intelligence that could assist the United States in warding off future terrorist attacks; and
4. he was a continuing threat to American security.

Because Padilla was being detained without any criminal charges being formally made against him, he, through his lawyer, made a petition for a writ of habeas corpus to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, naming then Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld as the respondent to this petition. The government filed a motion to dismiss the petition on the grounds that:
According to the text of the ensuing decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, Padilla's detention as an "enemy combatant" (pursuant to the President's order) was based on the following reasons:

1. Padilla was "closely associated with al Qaeda," a designation for loosely knit insurgent groups sharing common ideals and tactics, "with which the United States is at war";
2. he had engaged in "war-like acts, including conduct in preparation for acts of international terrorism";
3. he had intelligence that could assist the United States in warding off future terrorist attacks; and
4. he was a continuing threat to American security.

Declaring that without clear congressional approval (per 18 U.S.C. § 4001(a)), President Bush cannot detain an American citizen arrested in the United States and away from a zone of combat as an "illegal enemy combatant," the court ordered that Padilla be released from the military brig within 30 days.[20] However, the court had stayed the release order pending the government's appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.[citation needed]

He was later actually charge and convicted on aiding terrorism charges due to connection to Al Qaeda , sentenced to 17 years, later upgraded to 21 years.

If they see fit, they can definitely arrest you without habeas corpus, and shift your location without telling anyone, so that attempt to file habeas not in correct court or correct jailer named. I liked the outcome but the process was less than what the framers had in mind.

Thank you- I had completely forgotten about Jose Padilla.

Personally I think that holding Padilla without charges was unconstitutional and I think it was wrong. The courts clearly had mixed reaction to it and it was never fully adjudicated. But I think that it is wrong to hold any American for crimes committed in America with no habeas corpus.

Just as I think that advocating that anyone who threatens the life of President Trump should be held outside our justice system. If someone commits a crime in America- they should face American justice.

If anyone threatens, much less makes an attempt on this dumbass president or any other, they are to far gone for me to give a crap, how deep and dark the sling their butt ends up in.

 

[White 6]

Would you like some cheese with that whine. What a brainwashed liberal loser.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I love how you Trumpettes think defending the Constitution is 'whining'

Seriously, Syriously. You need to f#ck off lumping me with the Trumpettes. I am an Independent @sshole, thank you very much.

Seriously if I lump you with the brainwashed Trumpettes it is because you post like the brainwashed Trumpettes.

No, I figure you for one of the brain dead liberals they correctly scorn of this board.

You Trumpettes do tend to project.

I got your trumpette, hangin. Go ahead and blow it.

 

[Syriusly]

Threatening the life of the President is a crime. And in the United States when an American citizen is accused of a crime, they are arrested, and publicly charged, put on trial and if convicted put in an American prison.

What the Trumpette suggested was an illegal Banana Republic style 'disappearance' to Guantanamo Bay- which would be again- illegal and unconstitutional. And this is not the first unconstitutional proposal made in this thread.

Trumpettes are quick to suggest pissing on the American constitution when it comes to their Dear Leader.

I'm not Trumpette. I don't even like or approve of the guy in general. I despise would be assassins and traitors far more. This guy is no better than a domestic terrorist. I did not write the statute on special rendition. It quite possibly is unconstitutional, but if not used again in times not fraught with high tension and national fear it will lie dormant until a time of emergency and be used, possibly harmfully to many Americans and our constitutional style of governance. Sorry if I upset you, Buttercup.

LOL- no snowflake, you didn't upset me. I despise would be assassins and traitors also. But if they are Americans, then they are protected by the U.S. Constitution.
There is no law that allows an American citizen on American soil to be 'disappeared' and whisked out of the United States and be deprived of their Constitutional rights.
That would not be 'possibly unconsitutional' that is something that any American would recognize as a blatant violation of the Constitution.

The only possible exception would be in time of war when habeas corpus is suspended- and frankly Lincoln got that wrong

I was thinking of Jose Padilla
On June 9, 2002, two days before District Court Judge Michael Mukasey was to issue a ruling on the validity of continuing to hold Padilla under the material witness warrant, President George Bush issued an order to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld to detain Padilla as an "enemy combatant." Padilla was transferred to a military brig in Charleston, South Carolina, without any notice to his attorney or family. The order "legally justified" the detention using the 2001 AUMF passed in the wake of September 11, 2001, (formally "The Authorization for Use of Military Force Joint Resolution" (Public Law 107-40)) and opined that a U.S. citizen detained on U.S. soil can be classified as an enemy combatant.
According to the text of the ensuing decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, Padilla's detention as an "enemy combatant" (pursuant to the President's order) was based on the following reasons:

1. Padilla was "closely associated with al Qaeda," a designation for loosely knit insurgent groups sharing common ideals and tactics, "with which the United States is at war";
2. he had engaged in "war-like acts, including conduct in preparation for acts of international terrorism";
3. he had intelligence that could assist the United States in warding off future terrorist attacks; and
4. he was a continuing threat to American security.

Because Padilla was being detained without any criminal charges being formally made against him, he, through his lawyer, made a petition for a writ of habeas corpus to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, naming then Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld as the respondent to this petition. The government filed a motion to dismiss the petition on the grounds that:
According to the text of the ensuing decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, Padilla's detention as an "enemy combatant" (pursuant to the President's order) was based on the following reasons:

1. Padilla was "closely associated with al Qaeda," a designation for loosely knit insurgent groups sharing common ideals and tactics, "with which the United States is at war";
2. he had engaged in "war-like acts, including conduct in preparation for acts of international terrorism";
3. he had intelligence that could assist the United States in warding off future terrorist attacks; and
4. he was a continuing threat to American security.

Declaring that without clear congressional approval (per 18 U.S.C. § 4001(a)), President Bush cannot detain an American citizen arrested in the United States and away from a zone of combat as an "illegal enemy combatant," the court ordered that Padilla be released from the military brig within 30 days.[20] However, the court had stayed the release order pending the government's appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.[citation needed]

He was later actually charge and convicted on aiding terrorism charges due to connection to Al Qaeda , sentenced to 17 years, later upgraded to 21 years.

If they see fit, they can definitely arrest you without habeas corpus, and shift your location without telling anyone, so that attempt to file habeas not in correct court or correct jailer named. I liked the outcome but the process was less than what the framers had in mind.

Thank you- I had completely forgotten about Jose Padilla.

Personally I think that holding Padilla without charges was unconstitutional and I think it was wrong. The courts clearly had mixed reaction to it and it was never fully adjudicated. But I think that it is wrong to hold any American for crimes committed in America with no habeas corpus.

Just as I think that advocating that anyone who threatens the life of President Trump should be held outside our justice system. If someone commits a crime in America- they should face American justice.

If anyone threatens, much less makes an attempt on this dumbass president or any other, they are to far gone for me to give a crap, how deep and dark the sling their butt ends up in.

So if an American threatens the life of the President- you think that the Bill of Rights- i.e. the Constitution- doesn't apply to him/her?

That sounds more like a King than a President.

 

[Syriusly]

When are they going to lock up actor Robert DeNiro for threatening the President?

I guess when he threatens to assassinate him.....


But hurting Trump's feelings is not a federal crime right now....you are free to start a campaign to pass a law that makes it illegal to hurt Trump's feelings if you like...

Threatening bodily harm is O.K>?

Threatening the President with bodily harm is illegal and should be prosecuted.

Robert DeNiro hurting the President's fragile ego is not a crime.

 

[Kondor3]

Well, if the suspect is a Black, that's one reason for the Leftist Branch of the Lamestream Media to bury it...

And, if the suspect is a Muslim, that's two reasons for the Leftist Branch of the Lamestream Media to bury it...

So...

Why didn't the Rightwing Branch of the Lamestream Media play it up?

Perhaps the case is weak?

Perhaps the threat was not credible?

Perhaps they don't want to give the suspect and his ideology any more air time than absolutely necessary?

 

[White 6]

I'm not Trumpette. I don't even like or approve of the guy in general. I despise would be assassins and traitors far more. This guy is no better than a domestic terrorist. I did not write the statute on special rendition. It quite possibly is unconstitutional, but if not used again in times not fraught with high tension and national fear it will lie dormant until a time of emergency and be used, possibly harmfully to many Americans and our constitutional style of governance. Sorry if I upset you, Buttercup.

LOL- no snowflake, you didn't upset me. I despise would be assassins and traitors also. But if they are Americans, then they are protected by the U.S. Constitution.
There is no law that allows an American citizen on American soil to be 'disappeared' and whisked out of the United States and be deprived of their Constitutional rights.
That would not be 'possibly unconsitutional' that is something that any American would recognize as a blatant violation of the Constitution.

The only possible exception would be in time of war when habeas corpus is suspended- and frankly Lincoln got that wrong

I was thinking of Jose Padilla
On June 9, 2002, two days before District Court Judge Michael Mukasey was to issue a ruling on the validity of continuing to hold Padilla under the material witness warrant, President George Bush issued an order to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld to detain Padilla as an "enemy combatant." Padilla was transferred to a military brig in Charleston, South Carolina, without any notice to his attorney or family. The order "legally justified" the detention using the 2001 AUMF passed in the wake of September 11, 2001, (formally "The Authorization for Use of Military Force Joint Resolution" (Public Law 107-40)) and opined that a U.S. citizen detained on U.S. soil can be classified as an enemy combatant.
According to the text of the ensuing decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, Padilla's detention as an "enemy combatant" (pursuant to the President's order) was based on the following reasons:

1. Padilla was "closely associated with al Qaeda," a designation for loosely knit insurgent groups sharing common ideals and tactics, "with which the United States is at war";
2. he had engaged in "war-like acts, including conduct in preparation for acts of international terrorism";
3. he had intelligence that could assist the United States in warding off future terrorist attacks; and
4. he was a continuing threat to American security.

Because Padilla was being detained without any criminal charges being formally made against him, he, through his lawyer, made a petition for a writ of habeas corpus to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, naming then Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld as the respondent to this petition. The government filed a motion to dismiss the petition on the grounds that:
According to the text of the ensuing decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, Padilla's detention as an "enemy combatant" (pursuant to the President's order) was based on the following reasons:

1. Padilla was "closely associated with al Qaeda," a designation for loosely knit insurgent groups sharing common ideals and tactics, "with which the United States is at war";
2. he had engaged in "war-like acts, including conduct in preparation for acts of international terrorism";
3. he had intelligence that could assist the United States in warding off future terrorist attacks; and
4. he was a continuing threat to American security.

Declaring that without clear congressional approval (per 18 U.S.C. § 4001(a)), President Bush cannot detain an American citizen arrested in the United States and away from a zone of combat as an "illegal enemy combatant," the court ordered that Padilla be released from the military brig within 30 days.[20] However, the court had stayed the release order pending the government's appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.[citation needed]

He was later actually charge and convicted on aiding terrorism charges due to connection to Al Qaeda , sentenced to 17 years, later upgraded to 21 years.

If they see fit, they can definitely arrest you without habeas corpus, and shift your location without telling anyone, so that attempt to file habeas not in correct court or correct jailer named. I liked the outcome but the process was less than what the framers had in mind.

Thank you- I had completely forgotten about Jose Padilla.

Personally I think that holding Padilla without charges was unconstitutional and I think it was wrong. The courts clearly had mixed reaction to it and it was never fully adjudicated. But I think that it is wrong to hold any American for crimes committed in America with no habeas corpus.

Just as I think that advocating that anyone who threatens the life of President Trump should be held outside our justice system. If someone commits a crime in America- they should face American justice.

If anyone threatens, much less makes an attempt on this dumbass president or any other, they are to far gone for me to give a crap, how deep and dark the sling their butt ends up in.

So if an American threatens the life of the President- you think that the Bill of Rights- i.e. the Constitution- doesn't apply to him/her?

That sounds more like a King than a President.

Whoever the notball is, I wouldn't get caught on 5th avenue if Kingdon is in town.

 

[elongobardi]

I could go for that.

Of course you could- for you Trumpettes the American Constitution is just more used toilet paper to wipe your filthy asses on.

Get a grip! Nothing constitutional about threatening the life of the President. It may be a bad law, that allows special rendition on terrorist grounds, but it is on the books, last I heard and possibly needs dusting off once in a while, just for the merits of discussion. This would have been a good time.

Threatening the life of the President is a crime. And in the United States when an American citizen is accused of a crime, they are arrested, and publicly charged, put on trial and if convicted put in an American prison.

What the Trumpette suggested was an illegal Banana Republic style 'disappearance' to Guantanamo Bay- which would be again- illegal and unconstitutional. And this is not the first unconstitutional proposal made in this thread.

Trumpettes are quick to suggest pissing on the American constitution when it comes to their Dear Leader.

Boy you must me gay. You keep talking about dick suckers and jiz The Democrats have pissed all over the constitution. They want to rewrite it. Your just mad because you party are losers and will lose in the election and lose the House. You can go back and get your GED now.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Are you having problems working the internet??

You are yelling at the wrong people...

I am calling you a dic sucker.....a dumb one at that

I answered your moronic comment. Your the one who keeps talking about it not men loser. Your too stupid to know your letting yourself out of the closet Now go play with your goat.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[elongobardi]

Get a grip! Nothing constitutional about threatening the life of the President. It may be a bad law, that allows special rendition on terrorist grounds, but it is on the books, last I heard and possibly needs dusting off once in a while, just for the merits of discussion. This would have been a good time.

Threatening the life of the President is a crime. And in the United States when an American citizen is accused of a crime, they are arrested, and publicly charged, put on trial and if convicted put in an American prison.

What the Trumpette suggested was an illegal Banana Republic style 'disappearance' to Guantanamo Bay- which would be again- illegal and unconstitutional. And this is not the first unconstitutional proposal made in this thread.

Trumpettes are quick to suggest pissing on the American constitution when it comes to their Dear Leader.

I'm not Trumpette. I don't even like or approve of the guy in general. I despise would be assassins and traitors far more. This guy is no better than a domestic terrorist. I did not write the statute on special rendition. It quite possibly is unconstitutional, but if not used again in times not fraught with high tension and national fear it will lie dormant until a time of emergency and be used, possibly harmfully to many Americans and our constitutional style of governance. Sorry if I upset you, Buttercup.

LOL- no snowflake, you didn't upset me. I despise would be assassins and traitors also. But if they are Americans, then they are protected by the U.S. Constitution.
There is no law that allows an American citizen on American soil to be 'disappeared' and whisked out of the United States and be deprived of their Constitutional rights.
That would not be 'possibly unconsitutional' that is something that any American would recognize as a blatant violation of the Constitution.

The only possible exception would be in time of war when habeas corpus is suspended- and frankly Lincoln got that wrong

Would you like some cheese with that whine. What a brainwashed liberal loser.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I love how you Trumpettes think defending the Constitution is 'whining'

Your not defending it. You idiots are disgracing it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk