Ok, if a cop in Texas can get charged for diddling a motorist. .
.

I’m wondering why the Chief Executive of the United States of
America isn’t facing charges for murder, or at least involuntary
manslaughter. The excuse that lots of pieces of paper were
generated and filed away in cabinets somewhere make the 4th, 5th
and 14th Amendments merely suggestional just doesn’t cut it. If the
government can reach into your pocket to grab your money, then all
the rights and privileges contained in the Constitution with regard
to how our government interacts with us should apply worldwide.
Declaring that the target of such an extrajudicial killing was
‘considered’ to be a bad or dangerous person, and labeling them so
as to appear repugnant and deserving to the mobocracy is also
inadequate.

Why isn’t Rand filibustering about what actually happened,
instead of what ‘may’ happen? It already has. WTF?

Seems a lot more rational than simply screaming impeachment over
some paperwork or dislike of a legislative agenda.

But an impeachment seems necessary to ‘settle’ this issue. Can
the President kill the citizenry if he feels like it?