“The Sergeant at Arms is authorized to arrest and detain any person violating Senate rules, including the President of the United States,” states the senate.gov website.
The Sergeant at Arms of the United States Senate, currently Andrew B. Willison, is the only person with authority to arrest a sitting president – if the president has violated Senate rules – which Obama certainly has.
But what if the Sergeant at Arms won’t do his job and arrest the President when crimes have been committed?
If Andrew Willison will not perform his duty and arrest the president for crimes Obama has committed, is Mr. Willison not complicit and guilty of a criminal act himself?
CONTINUE ON PAGE 2:
David Breyer All of what I said was in the TV News Stations you should watch the News sometime and get informed.
What is Congress doing why are they not stopping the man, are they asleep, are they a bunch of edits too? What’s wrong with these people in DC, ? Oh cowards I get it!!!!
David Breyer Glenn Beck supports or is a Democrat so he will defend Obama.
David Breyer I heard that General Petraeus was fired because of his cheating on his wife. Am I wrong.
The folks in Iceland put crooked bankers in prison. Why doesn’t that happen in this country? What kind of message does it send to crooked people in positions of trust and authority? The message they get is, “Go ahead and screw other people’s money and lives. Nothing will happen to you.”
I’m including politicians in this, too, not just financial executives.
Please let this happen!!!
Dolores Crain Pryor no he’s not??????? He’s NEVER defended Obama!!! He claims to be Libertarian but he’s way more Conservative Republican than anything.
Dolores Crain Pryor I’ve already answered this is another thread. Unlike you, I provided a link to back up my answers. General Patraeus gave classified information to his mistress. No one cared about the affair. It was the passing of information to her that ended that portion of his career
Tammy Travis I have looked it up. I found contradictory information. That’s why I want to read your links.
Homophobic much?
No such thing as Homophobia, since a “phobia” is an unjustified fear and while the chances of contracting one or more disease syndromes from homosexual contact are about the same as dying from a black widow or brown recluse bite (which makes Arachnophobia a real fear) hence the deliberate mislabeling of the real fear of communicable decease (as some kind of fiction) does nothing but massively compound the problem and, in face, partially responsible for the poor schmucks who contract HIV/AIDS because they believe you rather than the truth.
So: Yes, Homophobic Very, very much.
NB
By inviting people to to contract what is, at the moment, still a fatal decease strikes me as tantamount to murder. Nice.