OFFICIAL: Donald Trump thread.

[Left Hook Tua]

The Constitution bars the President from assassinating a foreign head of state.

While a great idea, unfortunately that would have been unconstitutional.

I dont think it's in the constitution banning it.

We were doing it before.

We have worked around it by redefining assassination.

Remember bin laden? That was assassination. The seals were told not to capture him alive.

Anyways easily solved with participation from congress.

Say set up a committee that involves senate and house, majority and minority leaders.

Or an assassination court where evidence has to be presented to a judge/jury to hand out execution sentences.

[1bad65]

I dont think it's in the constitution banning it.

We were doing it before.

We have worked around it by redefining assassination.

Remember bin laden? That was assassination. The seals were told not to capture him alive.

Anyways easily solved with participation from congress.

Say set up a committee that involves senate and house, majority and minority leaders.

Or an assassination court where evidence has to be presented to a judge/jury to hand out execution sentences.

You are correct. It's not in the Constitution, though there have been Executive Orders banning assassinations.

Interestingly enough, it's a debate we are still having today.

This is a good read on the topic:
https://www.hoover.org/research/assassination-option

Thanks for correcting me, fyi.


As to Congress, the moment they started leaking like sieves (for political reasons no less) they forfeited any perceived rights they thought they had to be notified in advance of any upcoming military actions.

[Mooshashi]

Thank you Mr President! You have made good one of your campaign promises to get the US out of foreign wars! Bring the troops home!

Iraqi lawmakers approved a resolution Sunday calling to expel U.S. troops from the country, following an American drone attack that killed Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani.

The resolution asks the Iraqi government to end the agreement under which Washington sent forces to Iraq more than four years ago to help in the fight against the Islamic State terror group.

[man down]

Flashback Jan 2016: "John Kerry: Some sanctions relief money for Iran will go to terrorism" https://t.co/IH12aO4zWl

— Tammy Bruce (@HeyTammyBruce) January 5, 2020

[JimRaynor]

Wow. Tucker Carlson, Geraldo Rivera, and now their darling sweetheart also criticizing Trump on Fox News over this? Pigs certainly ARE flying!

An act of war that violates the constitution? Hmm.

There are a lot of Republicans who are anti war. But this not an act of war. They didn’t assassinate him in Iran, they hit him in Iraq where by international law he was barred from going, and his presence there was solely to disrupt US interests.

[Money Shot]

$80m bounty on the orange impostors head.

[MOMENTO MORI]

If the guy was indeed was a threat to us military and us interests, why not take him out. Why would you *****foot around the situation, it may lead to more casualties. If that intel was solid I think I support our presidents decision. And if I support his decision to take out that general then I support his decision to increase our presence in the region cuz you gotta be ready to strike if necessary, and our presence may act as a deterrent against future hostilities.

War Trump!!!!

[travestyny]

There are a lot of Republicans who are anti war. But this not an act of war. They didn’t assassinate him in Iran, they hit him in Iraq where by international law he was barred from going, and his presence there was solely to disrupt US interests.

There's been a lot of debate on the board about whether this was an act of war or not. I've seen plenty of politicians saying that it is. To me, that isn't important. What's important is what comes next. I was in NY during 9/11. Was a block away from WTC the day before the attack. My sister quit her job in the WTC the week before the attack. Now I'm hearing, of course, that NY is a prime target if something is to go down within the US. I really feel for anyone who has family members being whisked to the middle east in the service. It's easy for some of us to say Trump is unfit to be president. Seems to be reaching the point now where that realization is scary and can have grave consequences.

[JimRaynor]

There's been a lot of debate on the board about whether this was an act of war or not. I've seen plenty of politicians saying that it is. To me, that isn't important. What's important is what comes next. I was in NY during 9/11. Was a block away from WTC the day before the attack. My sister quit her job in the WTC the week before the attack. Now I'm hearing, of course, that NY is a prime target if something is to go down within the US. I really feel for anyone who has family members being whisked to the middle east in the service. It's easy for some of us to say Trump is unfit to be president. Seems to be reaching the point now where that realization is scary and can have grave consequences.

George Bush had done nothing in the Middle East in his brief time in office for 9/11 to have happened. So the idea of blaming the next terror attack on Trump because he called a hit on a man who was master minding proxy wars against the USA is preposterous. If nothing comes out of this then one could argue that the attack did its job of sending a warning shot that Trump won’t hesitate to retaliate. And if you’re Iran right now the last thing you’d want to do is poke the bear who showed he’s willing to destroy you.

[travestyny]

George Bush had done nothing in the Middle East in his brief time in office for 9/11 to have happened. So the idea of blaming the next terror attack on Trump because he called a hit on a man who was master minding proxy wars against the USA is preposterous.

First of all, it's completely different circumstances. I brought up 9/11 simply as a reminder of what can happen on US soil. That George Bush didn't have someone assassinated to provoke retaliation has nothing to do with Trump having someone assassinated and provoking retaliation.

And preposterous? lol. Not at all.

The whole reason for the hit, according to Trump, is that an imminent attack was being planned. Yet, he has revealed no such plan. So the question is, is he credible?

You and I both believe that he withheld security money from Ukraine to boost his chances to be re-elected, after lying and saying his phone call was perfect. So we both know he's not above lying, and we both know what's important to him.

And what did he say about Obama? That he would start a war with Iran....to become re-elected.

Coincidence? We both know he's not above lying, and we both know he will do corrupt shlt to become re-elected. That right there tells me anyone with a brain would be suspicious and not simply take his word for it. Until I get credible information about his claim, I'm not believing shlt this dude said, and no one else should either. It's simply common sense when you look at his conduct, that we should suspend belief until we get the facts, that don't seem to be coming.


And for the record, no, I'm not saying he has to reveal to the public secret information. He could have, for instance, revealed to the gang of 8 what he knows. If the gang of 8 came out and said, folks, we've seen the proof -- there was indeed credible information regarding this imminent attack. I would think most of us would be much more satisfied than by blindly believing a liar who would seemingly do anything to be re-elected, and claimed his predecessor, in an effort to be re-elected, would do the exact thing that he just did.