Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
His EXACT quote was "You would be in jail." He never said anything about appointing (yet another) "special prosecutor". We've already had seven of those, BTW, and they came up with nothing.
Here's an exact quote: "If I win, I am going to instruct my attorney general to get a special prosecutor to look into your situation, because there has never been so many lies, so much deception. There has never been anything like it, and we’re going to have a special prosecutor." When he said "you'd be in jail," that was a response to the hypothetical Hillary posited of Trump being in charge of the law. And no, there has not been a special prosecutor appointed to investigate the e-mail situation, let alone seven. Clearly, the truth doesn't matter to you.
This is exactly why he lost last night. You can't lie and dodge questions, give cute sound bite answers, and remain oblivious of absolutely anything and expect to win a debate. He doesn't understand the Constitution. He has no idea of what actions the President can and cannot legally perform. He doesn't understand the power of a senator. He thinks he will be a dictator, and senators can just right all the wrongs unilaterally. He is absolutely unfit for office, and if you listened to him speak, it's obvious he is clueless. It's not going to help him convince those not already blindly following him.
Interesting. Why does Trump think he actually has the power to do this? Why do so many of his supporters think he has the power to do this? Why do they think he ought to have the power to do this?
The NYPost headline is bs. They're selling newspapers an support Hillary, so that's their excuse. You have no excuse except laziness or anti-Trumpitis to believe that's what he said.
The NYPost headline is bs. They're selling newspapers an support Hillary, so that's their excuse. You have no excuse except laziness or anti-Trumpitis to believe that's what he said.
Oh, sure, the NY Post is well-known as a commie liberal left-wing rag and Hillary-supporting news source...
Originally Posted by pknopp
Obama didn't order the death of Anwar Al-Awlaki
Quote:
Originally Posted by NOLA101
I have no idea who that person is, and no, Obama as President doesn't have any police or prosecution powers. He never arrested, jailed or prosecuted anyone.
You have no idea who Anwar Al-Awlaki is? Seriously?
Obama DID order his execution and Anwar Al-Awlaki was an American Citizen - that wasn't the only American Citizen Execution/Death by Drone that Obama ordered in 2011. This was big news as Al-Awlaki was a really bad dude.
Politifact (known Left Wing Supporter) even reported on it -- based on Obama's own Speech, John Brennan's Speech and Eric Holder's Congressional Testimony.
The NY Times wrote of al-Awlaki’s death, "For what was apparently the first time since the Civil War, the United States government had carried out the deliberate killing of an American citizen as a wartime enemy and without a trial."
Al-Awlaki’s 16-year-old son, a U.S. citizen born in Denver, Colo., died Oct. 14, 2011, in Yemen when, the Times wrote, "a missile apparently intended for an Egyptian Qaeda operative, Ibrahim al-Banna, hit a modest outdoor eating place in Shabwa. … Banna was not there, and among about a dozen men killed was the young Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, who had no connection to terrorism."
U.S. citizen Jude Kenan Mohammad was believed by his family to have been killed in a November 2011 strike in Pakistan, according to a May 24, 2013, Los Angeles Times news story that said, "Former U.S. officials said that even if Mohammad wasn't the target of the strike, he was of interest to American intelligence because he was believed to have communicated with Muslims in the United States and encouraged them to travel to Pakistan or carry out attacks at home."
~snip~
In a May 23, 2013, speech at the National Defense University, Obama said he had authorized the attack on Anwar al-Awlaki: "I would have detained and prosecuted Awlaki if we captured him before he carried out a plot, but we couldn’t. And as president, I would have been derelict in my duty had I not authorized the strike that took him out."
What about the strikes that Holder said killed U.S. citizens unintentionally?
News accounts indicate Obama likely approved those attacks as well. The New York Times reported in a May 29, 2012, news story that cited current and former presidential advisers, "Obama has placed himself at the helm of a top-secret ‘nominations’ process to designate terrorists for kill or capture."
Trump should focus on the real issues. If he wins, that should be a harsh enough sentence for Hillary and it should give her a clue on how Americans feel about her.
Like others mentioned, it should not be up to the Executive branch to prosecute somebody for their wrong doings, but under the Obama administration, an FBI that won't indict her even with all the evidence, an attorney general that is on her side, and the meeting between the AG and Bill Clinton on a tarmac in Phoenix, that should say something about how biased this whole fiasco is, she'll be able to get away with murder.
If things are done right under a Trump administration, she'll be indicted and prosecuted.
I can't tell if you can't read or if you're being dumb on purpose. Nowhere in your quote does he claim he'd throw her in jail if he were President. And I didn't fabricate anything. There are copies and transcripts of the debate all over the internet so anyone who wants to can verify that he said exactly what I posted.
Actually, you're splitting hairs here as he responded to her comment (words to the effect that) 'it's a good thing he wasn't in charge of law enforcement' by saying "You'd be in jail." That means that he would put her in jail if he was in charge or at least be instrumental in putting her there. Clearly this was his meaning. We don't need any trumpsplaining, thank you very much. So Nola missed part of the exchange. She/he didn't miss the meaning of the part that she/he did catch.
Trump should focus on the real issues. If he wins, that should be a harsh enough sentence for Hillary and it should give her a clue on how Americans feel about her.
Like others mentioned, it should not be up to the Executive branch to prosecute somebody for their wrong doings, but under the Obama administration, an FBI that won't indict her even with all the evidence, an attorney general that is on her side, and the meeting between the AG and Bill Clinton on a tarmac in Phoenix, that should say something about how biased this whole fiasco is, she'll be able to get away with murder.
If things are done right under a Trump administration, she'll be indicted and prosecuted.
Interesting. Why does Trump think he actually has the power to do this? Why do so many of his supporters think he has the power to do this? Why do they think he ought to have the power to do this?
he cannot but he CAN appoint an AG who won't meet her husband in the back of an airplane
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
