Comments by "TheEvertw" (@TheEvertw) on "David Pakman Show" channel.

  1. 2
  2. 2
  3. 2
  4. 2
  5. 2
  6. 2
  7. 2
  8. 2
  9. 2
  10. 2
  11. 2
  12. ​@Blort Snergfud I am no legal scholar, but here goes. Also, 4 violations of the constitution is a pretty high bar, 1 should be more than enough. I do not know what the penalty is for violating the Constitution, probably these have been detailed in Federal law. 1). From article 1, section1, "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in [a] Congress." This includes the power to gather information with which to review and create new legislation. However, the president has forbidden government to provide such information to congress. 2). From article 1, section 8, "The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes". This includes the power to obtain detailed information on the taxes for an individual. When the relevant committee subpoenaed for this information with regards to D.J. Trump, the IRS was ordered by Trump not to provide it. 3). From article 1, section 9: "The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended". However, when a Writ of Habeas Corpus was issued for the children of certain immigrants, it was found that the relevant documents necessary to comply had been ordered destroyed by the government. 4). This is the biggest offence: From Article 2, section 1: (with regards to counting the electoral votes on jan 6th) "The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed;" Yet, Trump put pressure on Mike Pence to do otherwise, then incited a mob to interfere with this process. But the race had been won, the electoral college had cast its votes, and the constitution is crystal clear on how to proceed after that. Trump is still insisting he should be president. But after the electoral college had cast its votes, those complaints were unconstitutional and seditious.
    2
  13. 2
  14. 2
  15. 2
  16. 2
  17. 2
  18. 2
  19. 2
  20. 2
  21. 2
  22. 2
  23. 2
  24. 2
  25. 2
  26. 2
  27. 2
  28. 2
  29.  @yuehan6711  It seems you feel strongly for the boy. Fact is, he took the lives of 2 unarmed, innocent protesters, who had done nothing worse than move in his general direction. That is a very serious fact. Self-defense laws take into account the amount of danger a person is in and whether the "defense" is proportional to it. The boy's life was not in danger from the protesters. He was not threatened with any deadly weapon. We do not know why the protesters moved (reportedly, they were being herded by police), but it was very likely had nothing to do with him. You are right in pointing out some people had attacked him when he fired his last shot, but I mainly saw people trying to take his weapon from him. Thus his response was probably not appropriate for the amount of danger he was in, and thus a self-defense plea will probably not fly. When someone pushes you, that does not give you the right to shoot that person dead in so-called "self-defense". But, as I said before, the judges and/or jury will have to decide that. Them awaits the difficult task of balancing the fact that he knowingly and willingly placed himself in harms way, carrying a deadly weapon, without any official mandate, and the futures of the people who's lives he squashed, with his own youth, his panic, and his future. I do not want to ruin the boys life. But he did take away the lives of two people, and punishment is due for such a fact--unless there are strong mitigating circumstances. You just can not take away someones life and expect not to be punished. For his sake, I hope he is judged as a minor.
    2
  30. 2
  31. 2
  32. 2
  33. 2
  34. 2
  35. 2
  36. 2
  37. 2
  38. 2
  39. 2
  40. 2
  41. 2
  42. 2
  43. 2
  44. 2
  45. 2
  46. 2
  47. 2
  48. 2
  49. 2
  50. 2