Riddle me this.

The President of the USA frequently has pets. Frequently, the pets are dogs.

As a civilian the President has immunity from prosecution while performing duties. Within the staff at the White House is a lawn care person with different political practices than the President.

This dog belongs to the President.

1. The President’s dog bites the lawn care person for no apparent reason. Is the President liable? Is the President charged with a crime?

2. The President feels threatened by the lawn care person and the dog bites the lawn care person. Is the President liable? Is the President charged with a crime?

3. The President is feeling real animosity toward the lawn care person due to a brief conversation they had and the President orders the dog to attack the lawn care person. Is the President liable? Is the President charged with a crime? 

I will write what I believe to be the correct answer tomorrow. I wanted anyone who cares to a fair amount of time to deliberate the differences. Thank you.

To be continued….

Hey, Texans, too. Pay attention. Retribution is not the Rule of Law. Retribution, depending on the severity, can be a crime. Popping a chewing gum bubble in a disliked person’s face isn’t illegal, but, publicly advertise a specific judge should be impeached IS a crime. It is a form of intimidation because of death threats.

It actually has to be said?

It should not have to be public discourse. Respect for judges is automatic. The courtroom is a place where innocence or guilt is decided. There is no public discourse. 

End of discussion.

(Click here)

What is to understand about someone who disobeys a court order?

Donald John Trump is carrying out personal animosities as President. That is not in the job description.

Call all of them up for contempt of court and let the lawyers make the arguments. Trump is a convicted criminal. This isn’t new. Charge whoever is necessary to charge including the border patrol, ICE, and any pilots involved.

He invoked an Act that applies to war. We are not at war. Trump cannot break the law every day of his presidency and get away with it. 

Let all involved argue it to the Supreme Court including charges of racism, hate crimes, and bigotry. Let the Supremes know what a mess they created for the country and economy.  I know they never intended this. They wanted to protect the President if he or she tripped over themselves. Not this. The order needs to be refined. It is not absolute. I am confident the Supremes did not intend for a president to lead an anarchy.

Venezuelans had special status because of the illegal and lethal government in that country. This is a humanitarian issue as well. These actions are NOT my country. These people were within our borders legal and probably paid every dollar they had to insuring their legal status. They were unarmed and trustworthy. They are not criminals.