3 ms·
> He threatened, on stage, in a Presidential debate, to unilaterally throw his political opponent HRC in jail. To object to that is to beg the question of whet
by zeveb 10y ago
> He threatened, on stage, in a Presidential debate, to unilaterally throw his political opponent HRC in jail.
To object to that is to beg the question of whether she belongs in jail or not. I won't take a position on that, but it should be obvious that being a political candidate doesn't grant one immunity from prosecution for improperly divulging classified information (or for sexual assault, for that matter; I can't remember a previous where folks could legitimately debate whether both candidates should be in jail).
- colemickens 10y agoNo, it's not. First of all, just like Benghazi, she's already been investigated by her political opponents and they've come up empty-handed. Second of all, Trump didn't call for her to be prosecuted; he claimed he would single-handedly lock her up of his own authority. To object to literal fascism is to acknowledge that we live in a Constitutional Democracy and have an actual legal and judicial system which is not to be subverted by a unilateral Executive branch actor who has a short temper and a grudge. You know, basic separation of powers principals that are fundamental pillars of our Democracy. But then again, this is the party that has illegally obstructed the nomination for the Scalia's replacement for the last 9 months, and will continue to do so for the next 3 _AND_ has already proclaimed that they will obstruct HRC's nominations as well... So it's nothing new to disregard the Constitution for the Republicans at this point, I guess.