![\"\"](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/angry.net\/blog2\/wp-content\/uploads\/2012\/08\/democrats-party-of-tolerance.jpg?ssl=1\")
<\/a>\n<\/p>\n
In this case it\u2019s the Supreme Court\u2019s ruling on presidential immunity. Most of the Democrats, being the short term thinkers that they are, aren\u2019t considering that the ruling applies to all presidents, not just President Trump. Then you have the real morons who think that the ruling now means that presidents can do whatever they want. Here are some of those amusing details from Fox News<\/b><\/a>:<\/p>\n A California lawmaker<\/a> questioned if President Biden could send in the military to “take out” conservative Supreme Court justices and be immune from punishment in light of Monday’s presidential immunity decision.<\/b><\/p>\n Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif., floated the theory as a hypothetical scenario while on MSNBC reacting to the Supreme Court decision handed down in Trump v. United States. <\/b><\/p>\n Allow me to put what passes for a mind at rest you moonbat. The simple answer is no. It would be considered an illegal order by the military and they would be within their rights to refuse it.<\/p>\n Lofgren referenced past controversial comments from Trump to suggest that the ruling could give him “wide range” to make changes to the Constitution, incite mob violence and not accept the results of the election. <\/b><\/p>\n No you idiot, it doesn\u2019t. But please, continue with your delusions. I find them entertaining.<\/p>\n “So we\u2019ve got a problem here. If he cannot be accountable \u2014 if any president cannot be held accountable under the laws that exist, that\u2019s a complete departure from our history,” she argued. <\/b><\/p>\n “I guess, you know, theoretically, President Biden, acting within the scope of his official duties, could dispatch the military to take out the conservative justices on the court, and he\u2019d be immune,” she continued, posing the question to Andrew Weissmann, MSNBC legal analyst and former top prosecutor in the Mueller investigation. <\/b><\/p>\n This is what you want to happen and is what you would do. It isn\u2019t what would actually happen. The sitting president would and could be held accountable. It\u2019s called the impeachment process. If a president breaks the law, the House impeaches and the Senate convicts and removes the president. In fact you tried to do this with President Trump for the sole reason that you hate him. Of course, when it comes to Democrat presidents who actually did break the law, such as the perjurer Bill Clinton, you will move to protect him. Funny that.<\/p>\n Another shocking scenario was posed by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson in a footnote from a separate dissent.<\/strong><\/p>\n Oh goody! We get to hear from Biden\u2019s Supreme Court diversity hire!<\/p>\n Noting that the president’s removal of a cabinet member would constitute an official act, Jackson said that “while the President may have the authority to decide to remove the Attorney General, for example, the question here is whether the President has the option to remove the Attorney General by, say, poisoning him to death.”<\/b><\/p>\n She added, “Put another way, the issue here is not whether the President has exclusive removal power, but whether a generally applicable criminal law prohibiting murder can restrict how the President exercises that authority.” <\/b><\/p>\n First, there would be no reason for a president to poison a cabinet officer. He or she can just fire them and they usually do. Second, no a president can\u2019t commit murder, which is a problem for Barack Obama. He\u2019s guilty of ordering the murder of an American citizen because he might be a terrorist. The drone strike managed to kill his underage son who had nothing to do with any illegal actions. (Biden might still be charged for this)<\/p>\n However, constitutional law expert Jonathan Turley called out those on the left for “misleading the public” on the ruling. <\/b><\/p>\n “[W]hat these people ignore is that there are checks and balances on a president. He can be impeached. He can be removed. There are federal courts that can enjoin him. There are all of these protections. Just because the president can’t be criminally charged doesn’t mean that a president can’t be stopped,” he said Tuesday on the “<\/b>Brian Kilmeade Show<\/b><\/u><\/a>.” <\/b><\/p>\n The problem for Democrats is that they don\u2019t recognize any such checks and balances, at least on them. What they are basically saying is that they think the next president, who won\u2019t be Biden, is going to do all these things. The reality is, it\u2019s been Democrat presidents who have been murdering American citizens and willfully violating the constitution.<\/p>\n Hopefully, the next Attorney General will be a real pitbull and will first clean house in the DoJ and then start reviewing all the crimes the Democrats have been engaging in for the last decade or so. Unlike Garland, these will be real crimes, not political, made up ones. As to the Democrats fear that the President will murder them all? They really should understand that the book by Tom Kratman<\/a>, Caliphate<\/a>, is a novel.<\/p>\n Thatisall<\/p>\n ~The Angry Webmaster~<\/b><\/i><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Good day all. When the Supreme Court said that presidents have immunity for their work related actions, the Progressive Liberal Democrats went even more insane then they normally are. The Democrats, of course, are masters at projecting what they want … Continue reading <\/a><\/p>\n<\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n (4<\/strong> votes, average: 5.00<\/strong> out of 5)
<\/span><\/span>Loading...<\/span>\n