He can pretty much say what he wants, as Arizona’s 7th district, which includes Phoenix, is a super safe Dem stronghold, and it appears as if there isn’t even a Republican running this election cycle
(Washington Examiner) AÂ House Democrat on Thursday warned immigration agents who have carried out federal laws and directives from President Trump they will “not be safe” when his party is back in control.
“If you are a US government official and you are deporting Americans be warned. When the worm turns you will not be safe because you were just following orders. You do not have to take part in illegal acts ordered by this President’s administration,” Rep. Ruben Gallego, D-Ariz., wrote on his personal Twitter account.
The initial message did not specify what kind of consequences U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement personnel would face.
If you are a US government official and you are deporting Americans be warned. When the worm turns you will not be safe because you were just following orders. You do not have to take part in illegal acts ordered by this President's administration. https://t.co/BLq48HRkbH
— Ruben Gallego (@RubenGallego) August 30, 2018
The progressive lawmaker’s tweet was in response to MSNBC host Chris Hayes’ statement regarding a Washington Post report that the State Department had denied passports to American Latinos believed to have fake birth certificates. The State Department shot back and said these incidents have declined under Trump.
Gallego’s office issued a follow-up statement to the Washington Examiner that stated federal employees “who violate the law or the Constitution will not be immune to legal consequences.”
Funny how Gallego wasn’t worried before
Funny how you care now, but didn't when Obama did it. Or served in GWB's "illegal" war. Or were you just following orders? Priorities I guess. BTW stop threatening US Law enforcement, you are a member of congress not a Judge Jury or Executioner. Get over yourself!
— LadyGar (@1EvillQueen) August 30, 2018
He might want to think hard about threatening federal law enforcement and sitting federal judges.
At least he didn’t call the officers, ‘Enemies of the People’.
Should lawbreakers, even when acting a the behest of the president, be exempt from investigation?
How do you know?
He must have some heavy competition if he has to start sounding like Jeffery.
Threatening a government official…
Isn’t that against the law?
Okay, sooooo tell us again which party is the party of fascists?
Little Jeffy and every Democrat who aids & abets the illegal invaders needs to be held criminally and civilly liable for the crimes that their illegal buddies commit
mark e typed: every Democrat who aids & abets the illegal invaders needs to be held criminally and civilly liable for the crimes that their illegal buddies commits
Now that’s some fascism! What’s the crime.
Do the other Covians think that’s a good approach?
“What’s the crime”
— Illegal Entry to US
— Identify Theft
— Falsification of Govt Docs on applications for assistance
for starters
Of course Little Jeffy, you have a reading comprehension problems. The original post referred to “crimes that their illegal buddies commit”
Little dummie,
You can re-read your own comment, but you wanted every Dem who oppose trump’s cruel policies to be held criminally and civilly liable for the crimes that their illegal buddies commit…
What crime did the Dems you want to hold liable commit, little dummie?
Should tRump be held liable for all the crimes his campaign committed?
So much hatred…
Temper Temper Little Jeffy.
I’ll use small words, one at a time since you seem to have a problem reading & comprehending.
Quote: “Every … Democrat … who … aids … & … abets … the … illegal … invaders … needs … to … be … held … criminally … and … civilly … liable … for … the … crimes … that … their … illegal … buddies … commit” End Quote.
Every democrat who aids & abets = every democrat supporting the sanctuary movement, who releases or calls for the release of illegal aliens, who obstructs ICE and other agencies enforcing immigration laws and rules, who calls for open borders or reduced / no enforcement, or who calls for attacks against those enforcing those laws.
Every crime = every crime.
Simmer down, litle dummie, your hatred is showing…
So you wish to make criminals out of Dems who don’t support tRump’s cruel immigrant policies, holding all Dems responsible for crimes committed by others. Got it. So does trump. So do all tyrants.
So if a million Dems supported less restrictive enforcement or sanctuary city status and an immigrant killed someone you would want the feds to try one million Dems for murder? How would you enforce that sort of pogrom? Keep track of voting records?
What if when the libs are in charge they hold Con Men criminally and civilly liable for damages caused by GOP lax environmental laws or lax regulations that lead to deaths? Good idea?
Have you heard of the US Constitution? It’s not that long of read.
Just when we think Con Men couldn’t get any more stupid…
You, above all people, should be careful about name calling.
A criminal smuggles someone into the country illegally and they commit a crime, they can be held responsible. Consider the murder of Mollie Tibbetts. The legal point is valid.
Dummy.
No, it’s not fascism. The crime he address is called accessory before the fact.
Whether it would hold up in court is another matter, but his point is perfectly valid, as Jeffery would know if he ever picked up a book about the law and the rules of evidence.
That ‘threat’ can be interpreted as threatened legal action. Sort of like when tRump promised to have his DOJ investigate Clinton and ‘lock her up!’ ‘When the worm turns’ refers to the GOP losing the House.
In any event, the professionals at the DOJ can investigate Rep Gallego’s ‘threat’.
First, these are not illegal acts, as Federal courts daily carry them out without protest or objection.
Second, he is an even bigger fool than Jeffery talking about the worm turning.
The only worm is all those Leftists like little Jeffery expecting the country to rise as one when Trump is doing what they want him to do, as the polls say weekly.
Nov will depend on how well tRump and the Russians do.
What if when the libs are in charge they hold Con Men criminally and civilly liable for damages caused by GOP lax environmental laws or lax regulations that lead to deaths? Good idea?
They can only be held for any penalty specified by the law. Poor little Jeffery, he thinks he’s Lavrenti Berua.
Have you heard of the US Constitution? It’s not that long of read.
Have you? You don’t what impeachment means, so clearly it’s too long a read for you. Either that,or like Kerosene Maxine, you think the Constitution of Wakanda applies here.
Just when we think Con Men couldn’t get any more stupid…
Jeffery comes along and shows nobody is dumber than he is.
Did you not read what mark e proposed?
That Dem voters who support sanctuary cities be charged if an immigrant commits a crime in that city. That’s a dumb idea, not to mention being not legal.
Just when we thought Con Men couldn’t get any more dishonest.
Again, here you are doing nothing but trolling.
The original comment was :
To aid and abet is much more than just an opposition to policy. It is an active participation in a crime.
The only reason you would misrepresent what was said was either ignorance of the terms being used or simply trolling.
It’s like arguing with a child. A child loves to argue. He wants his ideas to be everyone else’s ideas. He likes to prove that he is right and you and everyone else are wrong.
Poor little fella.
He’ll never grow up.
Nice try, slick. Wouldn’t anyone aiding and abetting a criminal act already be subject to charges?
Here’s how he/she tried to clean it up, making it worse:
Even you would agree that those citizens highlighted should not be subject to criminal or civil charges for crimes committed by others.
My first question was under what law such Dems would be charged.
Nice try yourself.
The original comment was made at12:05 PM to which you responded at 2:06 PM saying:
He does later say that what you quoted, but that is AFTER your trolling and misrepresentation of what the original comment read.
Given a chance to explain his/her ambiguous comment, he/she went all in.
Case closed.
This is a hate site.
Nearly every post from TEACH mocks and ridicules those with whom he disagrees. Often in degrading terms. He argues dishonestly and misinforms his hapless readers. His objective is to engage.
It’s not surprising that responses can be sharp elbowed.
If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.
Daily I am called childish names by childish commenters who have no intention of discussing issues or even how issues are repesetented/misrepresented by TEACh and others. Personal information has been revealed here, with threatening intent.
We fully understand how decent Americans, men and women, who voted for Donald Trump as a protest, are now embarrassed by what they wrought. Yes it’s difficult to admit one’s errors, and even more difficult to have your nose rubbed in it daily, but as a patriotic American you have a responsibility to help us correct this anomaly.
Given a chance to misrepresent what was said initially, you went all in.
As for the post on “childish name calling,” when you first came here, you said that you wanted to discuss ideas and you immediately starting calling people names and acting the childish fool.
Even now you seem to be saying “they do it too!” as some sort of a justification for you doing the very things you think others should not do.
See? This is a comment without basis and is simply trolling.
It is also an example of demanding of others what you will not do. When you misrepresented Mark E’s comments, you never pulled back and admitted the mistake.
If you want people to start treating you like a serious debater, stop acting in a childish manner.
And you’re as slippery as ever.
You’ve completely ignored mark e’s expansive explanation. He wasn’t forced or tricked into proposing that Dems be charged with crimes for supporting sanctuary cities. He typed that, not me.
Do YOU think people should be charged with a crime for supporting sanctuary cities? (Understanding that it requires legislative infrastructure to make it a crime – which we have to assume mark e supports – so.. that slippery cop out is closed to you).
It’s likely that the few remaining commenters here agree with mark e’s position. We doubt that you do, hence your reluctance to address it at all. We further suspect that many far-right Americans would welcome laws that limit the rights of Americans who disagree with them. One TV host went so far as to suggest that the US nationalize twitter and facebook as platforms to support more conservative content!
On every issue, our far-right/white nationalist/Trumpian brethren point toward tyranny.
I don’t care how you treat me, as long as you commit no crimes in the process. I treat commenters here as hostile witnesses – with little to contribute and much to hide. When I ask for you input, it’s to try to understand the increasingly illogical thought processes of the American far-right.
Sigh. This site relies on trolling by the host! Do you ever read his posts?