I was told Trump was violating the 5A.
Yes, because Trump has (at least twice, it seems) publicly admitted to doing so.
I was asked what I thought about it.
This is what you were asked:
Trump said that federal agents under his control went with the express intent of not arresting this man (a suspect in a crime, not a convicted criminal), and that's the way it has to be. That's denying him due process as stated in 5A, and Trump defending it as a normal situation... for someone suspected of a crime.
Are you okay with this? Why?
And you've attempted to twist it around as if someone asked you if you
think Trump is denying people their 5th Amendement rights. Trump has not only admitted this, he's also said it's the way things have to be. You've also avoided my and Eunos_Cosmo's question as to why you continue to defend Trump (I know that I've personally asked you several times previously).
It's obvious, though not surprising, that you're going out of your way to be purposely dishonest.
I said I don't think he was violating the 5A, and that I thought the notion was absurd.
And several individuals in this thread have shown you evidence
from President Trump himself stating that U.S. Marshalls under Trumps command were sent to kill
Michael Reinoehl with no intention of bringing him to justice. According to McLaren's post, it appears he said this at least twice.
Saying and doing are two different things.
The president shouldn't be saying and/or doing such things in the first place, yet Trump has publicly admitted to violating a citizens 5A rights. If such clear disregard to the constitution doesn't show that he's unfit to be president, than I honestly don't know what does.
This was at a campaign event.
Yes, a campaign event for and hosted by the sitting president, whose job it is to uphold and defend the constitution. During which, he literally said that he sent federal agents to kill a man, with no intention to bring him to justice for his crimes, and further stated that such action
had to be taken as "retribution
," which is a direct and purposeful violation of his job to protect and uphold the constitution. The idea that these statements directly from the current sitting president are even remotely excusable because "they were made during a campaign event" is absolutely laughable.
And if it somehow does turn out that Trump was "joking," that still leaves the problem of the president "joking" about denying citizens their constitution rights for being
suspected of a crime, as well as the president "joking" about endorsing government-sanctioned extrajudicial homicide. Will you defend that as well, if that turns out to be the case? If so, why?
Biden said this at a campaign event, "If the president had done his job, had done his job from the beginning, all the people would still be alive. All the people. I'm not making this up. Just look at the data.". Should Biden be held to account for such libelous treachery? Of course not. He was campaigning. So was Trump.
Considering that Biden is A) Currently not the president, and B) not endorsing government-sponsored, extrajudicial homicide, that is an absolutely craptastic comparison.
Nice attempt at deflection, though.
