Democrats look to strip Secret Service protection from Trump if he's convicted

Off topic just a tad, please forgive, but do you realize that your first signature line is an insult to Trump?

 

Because, for the first time in our history, we have a former president under a handful of felony indictments. We did not need to adjust that statute until Trump.

 

Sure it can - as of the date assigned in the bill.

 

@Bush Lawyer

So you're essentially condoning/justifying violence.. We have rules about violence on this forum good sir..

 

If you were an ex president, I would..

 

If the DNC has its way, he will.. No matter how long or how devious they have to get to get it done..

Thats how the fascist web is spun..

 

I don't watch or subscribe to Russian TV.. I was simply going off the propaganda I hear on MSM and leftwing posts here..

 

Took the DNC awhile to condition their base to embrace facism lite.. It's all down hill from here, you can expect the same thing from them with every candidate and I'm sure the republicans will answer in kind..

Good job Democrat, no one is worthy of the presidency..

History is forgotten on the left..

 

I am 'essentially' doing no such thing. I am saying a convicted imprisoned felon gets treated like every other convicted imprisoned felon. You?

 

Why? How would that make me a better pig than all the other pigs?

 

The "DNC" has nothing to do with this. It's tRaitor tRump and the justice system.

The "fascist web" is spun by letting suspected criminals off without prosecution.

 

And given a pass if the are on team leftist..

 

And, no he wouldn't, if you were god's arc-angel with a D next to your name he would be perfectly fine taking the Secret Service away.

 

Sound like a soul searching thing, I can't help you sir

 

That sounds much different then the first draft?

 

Wow... sounds like selective persecution if you have to make up new rules to go after one guy...

Funny how a prime example is the Bragg's case as a misdemeanor that has ran out the statute of limitations...

or the Carroll case where NY LITERALLY created a law out of whole cloth a law with a one year "window" for Carroll (who was pushing the bill) to go back for Trump... and she didn't even know what year it was
https://www.nysenate.gov/sites/defa...ent/06.03.21_adult_survivors_act_release_.pdf

or the James case were she claims now Trump can't get a bond outside NY...... while Engoron's ruling specifically prohibited Trump from getting his $454 mil bond inside NY

 

I believe JFK was a bit of manwhore in his day.... Then again American were much less washwomenish like the tenders they are today

 

Huh? HE WAS A DEMOCRAT, why would he run on a Republican narrative?

Odd grouping of words

 

I would think by now the dumb press wouldn't even post a far-fetched speculating story like this.

 

BTW, while you insist on derailing to personal signatures, you might want to fix yours..

 

The point was President Kennedy ran away from his religion. TRaitor tRump ran on wooing the support of religious fanatics that he had NOTHING in common with.

 

I worked hard to make my sigs work withing what the paradigm would accept.

Which has NOTHING to do with the fact that you're sig puts down the guy you "supposedly" support.

 

No he didn't, and the Catholics never abandoned him either. Going to parochial school we always said a prayer for him in first period and alway on sunday mass.

Then again, democrats were better then, we were taught forgiveness.. Today's Democrat, doubtful they are catholics, are more geared to condemnation.

 

just like social security, but prisoners lose that too while in prison

you lose a lot of rights when you go to prison

 

So you believe all Democrat politicians are saintly, honest and without lust?