Let me ask you a question MAGA....

Based on history, it would have no practical impact.

Impeachment has been and will remain the only way to start a process which will punish a president.

So you are saying that because past presidents have gotten away with crime, Donald should get away with it as well?

And I have to assume you have no idea what the case is actually about, considering you reference paying off a porn star as the crime. That wasn't the crime at all. It's that he hid the payment, and paying her off is considered a campaign expense. It really wouldn't have mattered what he spent the money on, it was illegal for him to contribute that much to his campaign, AND he didn't acknowledge it even happened.

Donald stole that election, as a result. Had the porn star payments been made public, which they legally should have, it very well could have cost him the election.

But I get it now. I understand your position. You've given up on our system, and as long as everyone seems to be breaking the law, why not Donald.

Freon

Well, yes. If presidents get away with murder, but then a specific president, hated by the bureaucracy and neocons and corporate media and party elites from both oligarchic parties, is attacked with the judicial system for things that shouldn’t even be crimes, then that’s a dangerous establishment.

Lot of if's there.

What about the premise that they have gotten away with crimes BECAUSE no one has held them accountable, BECAUSE it was the status quo, and it simply took a president who not only broke laws, but paraded their ability to do so in front of the whole nation, to actually begin changing that status quo.

Because that's how we look at it. We have drawn a line and said that from now on, NO president, regardless of party, can break those laws ever again and expect to get away with it.

That sounds like a huge improvement to me.

You are choosing the status quo, over moving us towards that better, more fair system where everyone is treated equally, just as you wanted.

Freon

There’s one “if”. That’s not a lot for most people.

And it’s not really an “if”.

But you’re being a very good boy. Maybe they’ll notice you!

I notice you’re not disputing the one “if”.

People use “if / then” statements to formulate and illustrate an obvious conclusion, not merely to speculate on an unknown.

If you have anything to respond to the actual argument, let me know. I won’t play your dimwit games as you continue to fail to understand my points.

Enjoy your week!

I'm sure it's happened more frequently, but Obama had an American citizen killed while the individual was not performing any crime and far from any active combat zone.

This is well documented.

Afterward, they argued they had every right to do so...

www.aclu.org/press-releases/obama-administration-claims-unchecked-authority-kill-americans-outside-combat-zones

But c'mon. Make sure you and your buddies call me a fascist.

Been taking lessons from Que-Anon on fucking up 'analysis'?

academic.oup.com/book/3744/chapter-abstract/145205431?redirectedFrom=fulltext


This chapter analyzes the constitutionality of the targeted killing of Anwar al-Awlaki, a U.S. citizen whom the executive branch believed to be a senior planner for AQAP (a regional branch of al-Qaeda), concluding that the Obama administration’s claim that the killing was lawful is correct, but that the administration’s reasoning was seriously defective. Because Congress had authorized military action against al-Qaeda but not total war, contrary to the executive, the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) was the only available source of domestic-law authority; the killing, however, was within the scope of the AUMF. The administration overlooked Supreme Court precedent showing that the Fourth and Fifth Amendments do not apply to the military use of deadly force under the AUMF. If the Fifth Amendment had applied as the administration assumed, the killing of al-Awlaki would have been a clear violation of the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause.


Ooooooooooooops.

Sorry, not sorry about your pal, al-Awlaki.

Since you are now on-record as supporting the former piece of shit, how many missions did you compromise while you were downrange, Oath-Breaker? Further, imbecile, bin Laden was 'not performing any crime and far from any active combat zone.' Are you saying we should not have wasted his ass too, scumbag?