Threats will get you time

Legionthecat said:
Sundby may well be wrong. There is no precedent to cite.
Click to expand...

He could be, I dunno, I am not a law expert & when you go into court you are rolling the dice, but when you have an army of attorneys things often roll your way..

I guess we will see if anyone even charges him..
 
Bill said:
Scholar Says Trump's 'Second Amendment' Comment Doesn't Cross A Legal Line

Scholar Says Trump's 'Second Amendment' Comment Doesn't Cross A Legal Line AUDIO 05:19 A good five min listen

August 10, 2016
Share
Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump claps with the audience during a campaign event at Trask Coliseum on Aug. 9, 2016 in Wilmington, North Carolina. (Sara D. Davis/Getty Images)
closemore
Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump claps with the audience during a campaign event at Trask Coliseum on Aug. 9, 2016 in Wilmington, North Carolina. (Sara D. Davis/Getty Images)

Donald Trump received another firestorm of criticism Tuesday, after he made comments suggesting Second Amendment advocates might stop Hillary Clinton's gun control agenda.

Making the unsubstantiated claim that Clinton wished to abolish the Second Amendment, he went on to talk about the presidential power to choose Supreme Court judges. “If she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks,” he said, adding, “Although the Second Amendment people — maybe there is, I don’t know.”

Critics said he was inciting violence against Clinton, something Trump denied.

Was Trump's comment about the Second Amendment legal? The Secret Service said it was "aware" of what Trump said, but legal scholars, including Scott Sundby of the University of Miami, say Trump did not cross a legal line.

Here & Now's Robin Young speaks with Sundby about why that may be the case.
Guest

Scott E. Sundby, professor of law at the University of Miami School of Law.
Click to expand...

Do we really need a legal scholar for that conclusion lol.

Anyone who thinks Trump would be charged for his remarks is dreaming or reading too many hack web sites. The problem is an interpretation is required. Trump could have been suggesting someone shoot Hillary; but how do you know [much less prove] he wasn't talking about 'the second amendment people stopping Hillary' in the courts?

'Oh, but you know how Trump is' won't stand up in court. It would get thrown out in a minute.
 
Darth Hussein Omar said:
Do we really need a legal scholar for that conclusion lol.

Anyone who thinks Trump would be charged for his remarks is dreaming or reading too many hack web sites. The problem is an interpretation is required. Trump could have been suggesting someone shoot Hillary; but how do you know [much less prove] he wasn't talking about 'the second amendment people stopping Hillary' in the courts?

'Oh, but you know how Trump is' won't stand up in court. It would get thrown out in a minute.
Click to expand...

Well after listening to Sundby I tend to agree... It is very, very difficult to prove he intended for some to act on/carry that out..

He will have many more chances to screw up & say something stupid before the election & I know we is good for@ least a couple WTF's a week lol:)
 
Bill said:
Well after listening to Sundby I tend to agree... It is very, very difficult to prove he intended for some to act on/carry that out..

He will have many more chances to screw up & say something stupid before the election & I know we is good for@ least a couple WTF's a week lol:)
Click to expand...

It is entertaining lol. It would be more so if Hillary wasn't on the other side.

I guess there are people who REALLY think Trump would actually encourage [even by suggestion] someone to assassinate Hillary.

They're unhinged, imo.
 
Loyal Lapdoggy Hack Hussein said:
It is entertaining lol. It would be more so if Hillary wasn't on the other side. I guess there are people who REALLY think Trump would actually encourage [even by suggestion] someone to assassinate Hillary. They're unhinged, imo.
Click to expand...

There is nothing your master could do or say that would stop you from curling up in his lap, is there, lol?
 
Legionthecat said:
Certainly if an attempt is made on Clinton's life after she is elected. Trump could be named as a co-conspirator for planting and inciting the idea to kill her before she could choose Justices.
Click to expand...

No he couldn't you're fucking delusional, was Kerry indicted after the assassination attempt on Bush in the Ukraine?
 
Face said:
There absolutely is you dumb fuck, John Kerry threatened the life of both Dan Quayle and George W. Bush.
Click to expand...

Kerry said he could have killed a bird with one stone by getting to the white house. That is a metaphor for solving the woes the nation faced under Bush by getting elected in the first place, in case you didn't know.
Do you think Kerry would have really killed Bush with a "stone" anyway? Could he have been indicted for using an ancient metaphor?
Trumpf called on the gun nuts of America to shoot his political opponent after she is elected before she has a chance to choose justices that may change their interpretation of the 2nd amendment.
See the difference?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top