Rand Paul On Board to Indict Hillary Clinton, "followed by a prison sentence"

a reply to: Krazysh0t

it doesn't. Obama signed it into law in 2012 , but only the government can do it. I re-worded it for the likes of you and others who will probably try to have me swatted for my words.

It is the government's right, to eliminate the terrorist Hillary Clinton due to her threat to national security. No trial needed. Was not needed when they targeted and killed a 16 year old American citizen and his father in Yemen, so no trial needed for Hillary.

Would be nice to see their own laws backfire and get used against them. May even encourage a repeal of said law.

a reply to: AmericanRealist

If the government droned Hillary Clinton for "terrorism", there would be QUITE a few "patriot" groups that would be bombed before her. It's sad that you are for kangaroo courts and don't care for our judicial system though... Just declare people guilty based on popular opinion.

originally posted by: AmericanRealist
It is the government's right, to eliminate the terrorist Hillary Clinton due to her threat to national security. No trial needed. Was not needed when they targeted and killed a 16 year old American citizen and his father in Yemen, so no trial needed for Hillary.

Because the government acted illegally (and it hasn't happened again since) is not precedent for it to act illegally in the future.

The government executing it's own citizens without trial, even when dealing with terrorism is illegal. The same goes for torturing them. Needing to bring government into compliance with it's own laws doesn't mean those laws are null and void.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

The whole point of this thread IS to show the uphill battle to have this criminal see some time in court. But since sooo many people want to defend her, I will absolutely settle with the eye for an eye punishment she has a coming.

a reply to: AmericanRealist

No. The point of this thread, as I pointed out on page 1, was to show that another Republican agrees that Hillary should be in jail. Which is nothing new at all. We already knew all of them wanted her in jail.

Though it's nice to see that you have no concern for the rule of law. Someone breaks the law? Screw due process and our judicial system as outlined by the Constitution. Just break the law, start holding kangaroo courts for everyone you "feel" is guilty, and impose Hammurabi's Law to these people since you've already decided they are guilty without reviewing any legally valid evidence. You aren't part of the solution, mate

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: AmericanRealist

No. The point of this thread, as I pointed out on page 1, was to show that another Republican agrees that Hillary should be in jail. Which is nothing new at all. We already knew all of them wanted her in jail.

Though it's nice to see that you have no concern for the rule of law. Someone breaks the law? Screw due process and our judicial system as outlined by the Constitution. Just break the law, start holding kangaroo courts for everyone you "feel" is guilty, and impose Hammurabi's Law to these people since you've already decided they are guilty without reviewing any legally valid evidence. You aren't part of the solution, mate

Rand Paul was quite specific in his charges, including Hillary's testimony under oath that she nothing of weapons sales to 'freedom fighters'. He also talked about evidence, not a kangaroo court.

a reply to: UKTruth

I'm sorry, but since when was Rand Paul in charge of indicting someone?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: UKTruth

I'm sorry, but since when was Rand Paul in charge of indicting someone?

Oh yeah, Rand Paul wants us to go back to the dark ages before Equal Rights.

What a nut job. Doesn't anyone read what he says?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: UKTruth

I'm sorry, but since when was Rand Paul in charge of indicting someone?

He didn't say he was.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: UKTruth

I'm sorry, but since when was Rand Paul in charge of indicting someone?

Oh yeah, Rand Paul wants us to go back to the dark ages before Equal Rights.

What a nut job. Doesn't anyone read what he says?

It doesn't matter what you think of Rand Paul - if evidence is revealed that Hilary lied under oath then she should be indicted and Rand Paul is calling for it. There is already evidence and more may be coming.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: UKTruth

I'm sorry, but since when was Rand Paul in charge of indicting someone?

Oh yeah, Rand Paul wants us to go back to the dark ages before Equal Rights.

What a nut job. Doesn't anyone read what he says?

It doesn't matter what you think of Rand Paul - if evidence is revealed that Hilary lied under oath then she should be indicted and Rand Paul is calling for it. There is already evidence and more may be coming.

Oh, Gawd - - - more . . .

But, Hillary!

But, Hillary!

But, Hillary!

But, Hillary!

But, Hillary!

But, Hillary!

Of course it matters what Rand Paul promotes.

He can't let go of the past. He can't move forward. His ideas are archaic.

a reply to: Annee

Tell that to the 12 year old victim of rape . . .

Or to the relatives of the huge body count.

I doubt that they consider their pains and losses "archaic."

I can appreciate, however,

your eagerness to sweep the crimes of the damaged brain into the dustbin of history as though they'd never happened.

originally posted by: BO XIAN
a reply to: Annee

Tell that to the 12 year old victim of rape . . .

Tell that to every professional woman who got "handed her ass" because she behaved like a woman.

a reply to: Annee

Are you speaking of personal

"archaic"

feelings about such cases . . . or what?

originally posted by: BO XIAN
a reply to: Annee

Are you speaking of personal

"archaic"

feelings about such cases . . . or what?

I really don't care what your opinion is of Hillary's case as a Public Defender.

I'm the same age as Hillary. I know how the professional world was for a woman in those days.

I've been raped. My daughters have been molested.

Hillary had a job to do, and she did it. That was her profession. Not her personal opinions or life.

Its called the real world. Not some idealistic crap.

What does any of that have to do with Rand Paul?

a reply to: Annee

Yea Annee, what DOES any of what you typed have to do with Rand Paul? Man, you are the QUEEN of straw manning, err, I mean non gender specific straw they.

a reply to: Annee

And another thing, ethics are trumped by the duty to your job? Hillary was forced at gun point to defend the rapist? Jesus. And you want this person to be president.

originally posted by: rollanotherone
a reply to: Annee

And another thing, ethics are trumped by the duty to your job? Hillary was forced at gun point to defend the rapist? Jesus. And you want this person to be president.

You must be a guy.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: AmericanRealist

If the government droned Hillary Clinton for "terrorism", there would be QUITE a few "patriot" groups that would be bombed before her. It's sad that you are for kangaroo courts and don't care for our judicial system though... Just declare people guilty based on popular opinion.

Except we all know incredibly F'ing guilty Hillary is, so to see her droned dead would be a parade day in the USA. Dancing in the streets afterwards..

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: rollanotherone
a reply to: Annee

And another thing, ethics are trumped by the duty to your job? Hillary was forced at gun point to defend the rapist? Jesus. And you want this person to be president.

You must be a guy.

Incredibly sexist this one is. Because gender has anything to do with the truth? Nice deflection by the way.