Previous Post
Next Post

In the ongoing injustice of Americans being imprisoned in the Turks and Caicos Islands for accidental possession of a few rounds ammunition that they could legally own and transport in the United States, an Oklahoma man has pleaded guilty to the charges.

Ryan Watson of Edmond, Oklahoma, pled guilty after two other Americans were sentenced for similar “crimes” last week. One, a Pennsylvania man, was given a year-long suspended sentence and fined $6,700. The other man, who was from Virginia, was given time served and fined $9,000.

Watson and his wife were leaving the island last month when four rounds of hunting ammunition were found in his luggage. He has been forced to remain on the island since April 12.

A British territory in the Caribbean, Turks and Caicos is a very popular destination for tourists from the U.S. But the government’s strict ban on even a single round of ammunition has caught many Americans in its trap.

In fact, at least nine Americans have been arrested for ammunition accidentally brought to the islands since gun laws were made more restrictive there in 2022. Most simply failed to check their luggage closely enough and accidentally had a few rounds of ammo from an earlier trip within the U.S.

The grave injustice of being imprisoned and fined for simply having ammo has drawn the attention of American lawmakers at both the state and federal level. The governors of Oklahoma, Pennsylvania and Virginia sent a letter to Turks and Caicos Gov. Dileeni Daniel-Selvaratnam last month asking that the frivolous charges against the residents of their states be dropped. “We humbly ask that your government—in its wisdom—temper justice with mercy and recognize that these men made mistakes but had no apparent malicious intent,” the letter stated.

More recently, some members of Congress visited the island to appeal for leniency for the incarcerated Americans. The strange mix of lawmakers included Senators Mark Wayne Mullin, R-Oklahoma, and John Fetterman, D-Pennsylvania, along with Representatives Guy Reschenthaler, R-Pennsylvania, Bob Good, R-Virginia, Josh Brecheen, R-Oklahoma, and Michael Cloud, R-Texas.

However, according to a statement from Turks and Caicos Premier Washington Misick released last week, the efforts by politicians don’t seem to be bearing much fruit. In that letter, the premier noted: “Let me be clear: In the Turks and Caicos Islands, the law stands firm and applies to everyone equally, without exception. Our commitment to the rule of law is unwavering and remains a cornerstone of our democratic values.

Under the restrictive ammunition ban, offenders can be sentenced to a minimum of 12 years for possessing a single round of ammo.

Previous Post
Next Post

71 COMMENTS

  1. I wonder how many citizens of the island have been charged and incarcerated to the full extent.

    or is this a shakedown for tourists?

        • I predict an apocalypse. If this bs doesn’t fire up the right nothing will. Even so come LORD JESUS!

        • And his felony conviction will prevent his run for office:

          “UNITED STATES PROBATION
          Middle District of Florida
          Search form Search
          You are hereHomePost Conviction
          Felony Offenders

          Information for Felony Offenders

          Civil Rights
          Florida law deprives convicted felons of certain Civil Rights including the right to vote, serve on a jury, hold public office, and restricts the issuance and renewal of some professional licenses such as real estate and insurance.“

          https://www.flmp.uscourts.gov/felony-offenders#:~:text=Florida%20law%20deprives%20convicted%20felons,as%20real%20estate%20and%20insurance.

          • https://www.thefreemanonline.org/can-a-felon-run-for-president/

            Can a felon run for president?

            Yes, a person convicted of a felony can run for the office of President of the United States of America. The reason for this is that no part of the constitution prohibits a felon from contesting. The constitution spells out that all you have to do to become the president is to be 35 years old, a native-born American, be a resident of America. Also, he can only serve two terms of 4 years each at the maximum. But if he or she has already served up to two years of another person’s tenure, he or she can only go for one more term of 4 years thus meaning that he or she can only serve 6 years maximum. The only major negative effect of being convicted as a felon is that it hurts your character and this can be leveraged upon by your opponents.

            • Shhh…

              Let ’em think Trump’s running for governor of Florida.

              That’s why he was against DeSantis earlier this year, right?

              • He’ll likely get a dip in the polls, but his numbers will firm up as election day approaches.

                If anything, the sham conviction will motivate his people to show up…

              • I’m not sure why you’d expect a dip.

                His GA mugshot gave him an instant boost.

                This is, very likely, boost-ier. Even RFK thinks so.

            • Oh, and also since you’re batting zero Miner, Trump can’t even be kept from voting for himself in Florida, since the “crime” was committed in NY, whiich reinstituted felon voting rights in 2021. Florida law states that voting rights follow the law of the state where the conviction was implemented.
              So, it looks like it will make little difference… vote for a convicted felon, or vot for an as-yet convicted felon, who also happens to be a meat puppet.

            • The freeman online?

              Yep, it seems to be an official site with the final word… As opposed to an actual justice system information source.

              But anyway, the bigger issue is how the Republicans can ignore the actual finding of fact that Donald Trump and his co-conspirators engaged in willful and felonious election interference.

              Trump’s pal, David Peckerwood testified under oath that the conspiracy included the national inquirer suppressing factual stories about Donald Trump’s adulterous affairs, while intentionally publishing false stories about his opponents in order to influence the 2016 election.

              It seems four different juries (2 Grand juries, 2 trial juries) have heard the testimony and seen the evidence, and with these convictions, we have found the conspiracy to interfere with our elections.

              • Coming from NY this was a sham trial even by our low bar of constitutional standards. It will be a talking point and an asterisk thrown out on appeal. Now if you are smart you will push the narrative of the last convicted felon turned western world leader but honestly that’s already been played out as well so on to the debates and seeing how well we prevent voter fraud in states that matter.

              • “Coming from NY this was a sham trial“

                Well, you know, humans actually presented themselves and testified under oath, as well as documentary evidence presented, about the crimes committed by Donald Trump and his co-conspirators.

                What evidence do you have to the contrary, what testimony under oath can you point to to justify your claim this trial was a ‘sham’?

              • Presentation of charges per NY criminal law is a great start before anything of the sensational nonsense gets involved. Commie show trials involved actual humans as well, was often part of the problem. You got your talking points by hook or by crook now let’s see if they are effective let alone relevant.

              • “push the narrative of the last convicted felon turned western world leader“

                Trump isn’t the first western world leader to be held accountable, and he certainly won’t be the last, Netanyahu is currently facing serious allegations.

                There’s been many western world leaders found guilty of corruption, the ability to hold corrupt leaders accountable is a major benefit to the world’s social democracies.

                “Jacques Chirac, who served as President from 1995 to 2007, was handed a suspended two-year jail sentence in 2022 after being convicted of corruption. He died in 2019.
                Nicolas Sarkozy, who succeeded Chirac as President from 2007 to 2012, was found guilty of bribing a judge with a job to access confidential information involving another trial. He was handed a three-year prison sentence in 2021—two years suspended and one served under house arrest—which was upheld despite Sarkozy’s appeal. In February, Sarkozy also lost his appeal against a six-month prison sentence for overspending in his 2012 reelection campaign and illegally charging it to his party.

                Former Israeli President Moshe Katsav, who served from 2000 to 2007, was sentenced in 2011 to seven years in prison for raping an aide while he was a minister in the 1990s and sexually harrassing two women while he was President. He served five years before being released in 2016 on parole.
                Ehud Olmert, who was Prime Minister from 2006 to 2009, was sentenced to 27 months in prison in 2016 for fraud. He was released in 2017 after serving part of his sentence.

                Four-time Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, who died last year at 86, has been charged in over 30 criminal cases, though he only had one lasting conviction. He was found guilty in 2013 of paying for sex with a minor, but his conviction was overturned in 2014. He was also acquitted of tax evasion, bribing judges, and corruption—though in some instances the acquittals came after his administration changed the law such that his initial charges no longer constituted a crime. In other cases, he was convicted but managed to evade serving his sentence because the statute of limitations had run out.”

              • You seem a bit insecure in your victory by how quickly you ramble while missing obvious connections. It is readily apparent you are not the same Miner from 2 years ago let alone further back. Have fun with the debate and appeal I am sure it will totally away support to Biden.

          • extremely questionable verdict and highly likely to be overturned (eventually) on an appeal.

            Doesn’t stop him from running for president or being elected as president.

            • Tell me honestly, do you believe that Donald Trump did not have an illicit adulterous affair with stormy Daniels and Karen McDougall?

              Do you believe he did not engage in a conspiracy with the publisher of the National Enquirer to suppress those stories in the weeks before the 2016 election?

              Really, I’m asking in all honesty, I would like to know what you folks think.

              • Wow, you used honestly in a sentence? Well then, honestly Miner, what does it say about ” your guy/your side ” that anywhere between 5 and 9% of potential voters surveyed preferred ” our guy ” over the current Weekend at Bernie’s meat puppet.
                In all honesty, we’d like to know.

              • In all honesty (always since I’m not a disingenuous person), here’s what I think.

                He obviously had an affair with them. He obviously wouldn’t want his wife to find out. None of that is illegal. It’s possible that his team would act on his behalf so that Trump wasn’t personally involved in the details of covering up the affair, but that doesn’t even matter.

                Supposedly, what makes this a crime they can pursue at this point, is that it was improper accounting to change the outcome of an election. Hillary and the DNC were found guilty of that with the Russian Collusion seed money. They were fined by the Federal Election Commission. Why didn’t they try to throw Hillary in jail? Why didn’t they try to make her a felon? The media quietly reported on this and immediately dropped it. Why wasn’t that the story of the century since Russian Collusion was the biggest story for three straight years?? You know why. No one cares that it was all lies. It was designed to get Trump.

                The DNC was fined $105,000 and the Clinton campaign was fined $8,000, according to a letter sent by the Federal Election Commission to a conservative group that requested an inquiry.

                Political candidates and groups are required to publicly disclose their spending to the FEC, and they must explain the purpose of any specific expenditure more than $200. The FEC concluded that the Clinton campaign and DNC misreported the money that funded the dossier, masking it as “legal services” and “legal and compliance consulting” instead of opposition research.

                Is blackmail illegal? Why aren’t they pursuing charges against Stormy for that? She came to collect money before the election. She got her money and signed an NDA. Then she told anyway so she could make more money.

                Michael Cohen committed grand larceny by stealing 10s of thousands from Trump. Why aren’t they figuring out some loophole to prosecute Cohen and Stormy? You know why. No one cares about breaking laws. This is another get Trump operation. They’ve been running back to back ops on him since he became the nominee in 2016. They’re willing to do anything to get Trump. That’s how insecure they are about debating policy with Trump and letting an informed electorate decide which one is the best option.

              • “Tell me honestly, do you believe that Donald Trump did not have an illicit adulterous affair with stormy Daniels and Karen McDougall?”

                Couldn’t care less whether he did or didn’t as long as it was consensual. That’s between him and his family.

                “Do you believe he did not engage in a conspiracy with the publisher of the National Enquirer to suppress those stories in the weeks before the 2016 election?”

                No reason to doubt that at this point. However, paying people for silence isn’t illegal. Kind of sleezy if he actually did have sex with her (no reason I can see to believe her now rather than before when she said she didn’t). But it’s not a crime.

                The issue here is that a corrupt DA worked with a corrupt judge to warp criminal proceedings to take out an opposition political candidate. Not only unconstitutional shenanigans, pre magna carta shenanigans. The USA has been forever sullied by this no matter what happens going forward.

                I personally think Trump is a callow, immature douche bag, and some of what he did as President made my teeth itch. But there are bigger principles at play here now. Time for all people of conscience, whether they like Trump or not, to make like August Landmesser.

              • False equivalence, Hillary Clinton didn’t sign any checks or conduct conspiracies to use the media to influence the election.
                There was no testimony or evidence showing Hillary Clinton was involved in any way in the particular accounting items found in violation, no actual audio recordings of Hillary saying “Don’t use a check, pay cash”.

                If you think there should’ve been charges filed, then do you think charges should be filed in the (below) findings of the Federal Elections Commission:

                “FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20463
                BEFORE THE FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION
                STATEMENT OF REASONS OF
                COMMISSIONERS SHANA M. BROUSSARD AND ELLEN L. WEINTRAUB
                The “Russian government engaged in an aggressive, multi-faceted effort to influence, or attempt to influence, the outcome of the 2016 presidential election,” concluded the bipartisan U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence in its five-volume report, Russian Active Measures Campaigns and Interference in the 2016 U.S. Election.1 The Complaints in these matters alleged that such interference amounted to impermissible campaign contributions from foreign nationals. The facts before the Commission – set forth in the Senate Intelligence Committee Report, the Department of Justice Special Counsel’s Report On the Investigation Into Russian Interference In The 2016 Presidential Election, federal indictments and trial transcripts, and other findings issued by the U.S. Intelligence Community – overwhelmingly supported the conclusion that the Russian Federation and the Internet Research Agency (“IRA”), a Russian troll farm tied to Russian intelligence, made, and that Donald Trump and his presidential committee (“Trump Committee”) knowingly solicited or accepted, prohibited foreign national contributions in violation of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, as amended (“FECA” or the “Act”). We voted accordingly, consistent with the recommendations from our General Counsel’s Office.”

              • “paying people for silence isn’t illegal“

                Yes, it is, if you falsify business records to conceal the payment and the intent is to provide undocumented in-kind campaign contributions in the form of media manipulation.

                Trump’s payments of $150,000 and $130,000 were campaign contributions that he willfully concealed in order to manipulate the electorate, the very definition of election interference.

                I am glad to see some of you folks admitting that America’s best Christian leader is also a serial adulterer who dragged his dick through porn stars and playboy bunnies, and then lied about it to the American people.

              • “False equivalence, Hillary Clinton didn’t sign any checks or conduct conspiracies to use the media to influence the election.”

                Who signed the checks on behalf of the Clinton campaign? Why isn’t that person being charged? Who signed the checks at the DNC? Why didn’t they pursue those charges?

                Of course Hillary conducted “conspiracies to use the media to influence the election.” Were you in a coma from 2016 until yesterday? She said that Russia stole the election from her. She claimed that Trump was an illegitimate president. She played up the Russian collusion narrative, all while knowing that she seeded that lie with the help of the DOJ, CIA, and the media.

                “do you think charges should be filed in the (below) findings of the Federal Elections Commission”

                They would have if they could have. They threw the book at Trump, as always. In the end it was Hillary and the DNC who were actually guilty of election interference, trying to cover it up, and pushing a lie on the American people for years, a lie you were still trying to defend a few months ago after Dem operatives even abandoned it lol.

                Here’s a video of Democrats denying election results.

              • “contributions that he willfully concealed in order to manipulate the electorate”

                No one would be shocked that a man known as a billionaire playboy ran around on his wife. Why wouldn’t a married man want to conceal an affair from his wife? This is a serious question because I don’t know the answer: is there specific evidence stating that this money was paid in order to manipulate the electorate? Or was that an assumption? Should we throw a presidential candidate in jail based on an assumption (while we ignore the crimes committed by his opponents)?

              • “Here’s a video of Democrats denying election results.“

                Immaterial, none of these Democrats engaged in a wide ranging, national conspiracy to use fake electors (their own term) to subvert the 2020 election.
                Just like Al Gore, some Democrats have pursued recounts and audits, even contesting results in court. But once the courts have ruled, end of story, they don’t encourage thousands of supporters to storm the US Capitol promising “It will be wild!”.

                “is there specific evidence stating that this money was paid in order to manipulate the electorate?“

                Yes, sworn testimony by the publisher of the National Enquirer as to his participation in the conspiracy to influence the election:

                “A longtime Trump friend, Pecker was the publisher of the National Enquirer and chief executive of its parent company, American Media Inc., during the 2016 presidential campaign.

                Pecker told the jury he agreed to be the “eyes and ears” of Trump’s campaign, looking out for damaging stories so they could be suppressed. He said he agreed to the role — and to a plan to publish positive stories about Trump and negative stories about his opponents — at an August 2015 meeting with Trump and Cohen.

                “If there were any rumors in the marketplace about Mr. Trump or his family or any negative stories that were coming out or anything that I heard overall,” Pecker said, “I would call Michael Cohen directly.”

                He said he told the National Enquirer’s editor at the time, Dylan Howard, “that we are going to try to help the campaign, and to do that, I want to keep this as quiet as possible.”

                Dude, these transcripts of testimony are available online at multiple sites, but you probably won’t find them at Fox or NewsMax.

              • Miner, are you saying that Trump was prosecuted for improper payments to AMI/National Enquirer/David Pecker? Correct me if I’m wrong, but I thought it was about alleged improper payments to Trump’s lawyer for the Stormy payoff.

                Just days before the 2016 election, Cohen paid $130,000 to adult film star Stormy Daniels, who claimed she had sex with Trump in 2006. She agreed to keep her story under wraps in exchange for the money.

                After Trump became president, Cohen was paid $35,000 a month for a year in a series of checks, most of which were signed by Trump. (How much wasn’t signed by Trump, Miner? You said that mattered with the Hillary campaign.) Prosecutors said the checks and associated business records were illegally portrayed as payments to Cohen for his legal work, when in fact they were intended to reimburse him for the Daniels deal, among other things.

                Let’s say this was improper accounting. Why wouldn’t this fall under the jurisdiction of the FEC just like the Hillary Campaign and the DNC who were fined for their coverup? Did the FEC look into this and decide not to pursue it? Answer: yes. Did prosecutors look into this, at the time, and decide not to prosecute? Answer: yes. Did the statute of limitations pass? Answer: yes. They pursued this based on some obscure legal theory that allows the state of NY to prosecute beyond the statute of limitations because Democrats are insecure about a non-rigged election.

              • “Immaterial, none of these Democrats engaged in a wide ranging, national conspiracy to use fake electors”

                “Fake electors” have what to do with this case? You’re getting your talking points mixed up. It IS material because Hillary and the DNC knew the Russian collusion story was a lie because they’re the ones that seeded it. They used that lie as the basis for their soft coup of the Trump Administration. The DOJ and CIA also knew it was a lie from day one.

              • “Fake electors” have what to do with this case?“

                Dude, stop being disingenuous, you’re the one they tried to change the subject by talking about Democrats who denied elections.

                All you have is bits and pieces of editorial comments from various Talking Heads, contrasted with actual sworn testimony and documentary evidence presented in this trial before the jury, which found Donald Trump guilty of 34 felonies in his attempt to interfere with the election.

                And you haven’t even addressed Donald Trump‘s conspiracy with the National Enquirer to plant false derogatory stories about his opponents:

                “As he was questioned during the trial this week, former Enquirer publisher David Pecker testified that he helped Trump manufacture stories about Cruz and others.

                Pecker said that Cruz, fellow Republican Senator Marco Rubio and Ben Carson—all of whom were running against Trump for the 2016 GOP presidential nomination—were targeted by the fake stories, as was former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Trump’s eventual opponent in the general election.
                After purportedly agreeing to the plan during a 2015 meeting at Trump Tower, Pecker said, he helped manufacture stories that falsely claimed Cruz had multiple mistresses and attempted to establish a link between the senator’s father and the assassination of President John F. Kennedy.“

                https://www.newsweek.com/ted-cruzs-father-jfk-smear-national-enquirer-what-we-now-know-1894307

                “the Russian collusion story was a lie”

                False, I posted the actual FEC findings that Donald Trump and his campaign knowingly accepted Russian help with his campaign:

                “Donald Trump and his presidential committee (“Trump Committee”) knowingly solicited or accepted, prohibited foreign national contributions in violation of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, as amended (“FECA” or the “Act”). We voted accordingly, consistent with the recommendations from our General Counsel’s Office.”

              • “Dude, stop being disingenuous, you’re the one they tried to change the subject by talking about Democrats who denied elections.”

                No. I was responding to you. You were talking about a conspiracy to manipulate the electorate. Hillary knew the Russia collusion stuff was a lie because she seeded said lie. Then she spent years promoting that lie in order to manipulate the electorate.

                “False, I posted the actual FEC findings that Donald Trump and his campaign knowingly accepted Russian help with his campaign”

                Yes, I’m very familiar with the context of the Russian collusion lie. I’ll post a link for the complete context. Trump’s supposed solicitation for help from Russia was him publicly calling on Russia to release Hillary’s emails lol. It was one of his typical laugh lines on the campaign trail. He was referring to subpoenaed evidence which Hillary criminally deleted (and was never prosecuted for hmm). Then some actual, REAL emails involving Hillary, and other Dem operatives were published (not the subpoenaed emails). It was embarrassing for Hillary because it made them look like evil liars. It’s hilarious that you’re upset about real information being published about Democrats.

                We’ve been through the Russia collusion lies a million times before. You’re STILL desperately clinging to that joke. You’re the last man standing lol. They had the full force of the federal government trying to pin something on Trump for that, and they couldn’t do it.
                https://www.fec.gov/files/legal/murs/7207/7207_47.pdf

              • And you haven’t even addressed Donald Trump‘s conspiracy with the National Enquirer to plant false derogatory stories about his opponents:

                Cite chapter and verse from the NY state penal code. Yes it WAS a conspiracy, albeit a LEGAL one.

              • “A payment to a lawyer was marked as a legal expense Mr Miner“

                Just because a lawyer was the bag man does not magically make it a Trump Org ‘business expense’.

                Hilarious, if you pay a lawyer for the services of a hitman, can you claim that as a legal expense on your taxes?

                Sorry, while a hush money payment for bare backing a porn star is not a crime, it is not a business expense and it is a crime to report it on taxes as anything but a personal expense.

                See, that’s the tax fraud part of the case, you can make payments to anyone you want, for personal business, but it’s not a legitimate business expense of your company and to report it as such is perpetrating tax fraud, a felony in most jurisdictions.

              • “it is not a business expense and it is a crime to report it on taxes as anything but a personal expense.”

                Are you saying that Trump is being prosecuted for tax fraud because payments should be listed as a personal expense? Didn’t you just say this was a campaign expense? Was it a personal expense or a campaign expense? Does Trump owe the IRS money for fraudulently allocating expenses?

                What usually happens when a campaign expense is misreported? We have a recent example of how that was handled with the Hillary campaign and the DNC. Why is this different?

                Was this a violation of federal election law? Was this a violation of federal tax law? Why aren’t the feds prosecuting Trump?

              • “Are you saying that Trump is being prosecuted for tax fraud because payments should be listed as a personal expense?”

                He was prosecuted for falsifying business records, it was upgraded to a felony because he was attempting to hide this personal expense and falsely show it as a Trump Org ‘business expense’. He could still be prosecuted for tax evasion.

                “Didn’t you just say this was a campaign expense?”

                Yep, this was indeed a campaign expense because they realized they needed to catch and kill these stories before it hit the papers and had a negative impact on his campaign.

                “Was it a personal expense or a campaign expense?”

                I’m sorry this is so difficult for you, clearly this was a personal expense that he tried to conceal as a business expense which makes it tax evasion.

                And, this personal expense was used to benefit his campaign by concealing the damaging information, thus making the expenditure an unreported campaign contribution, another violation of the law.

                The access Hollywood tape had just been made public so everyone heard his confession to multiple sexual assaults, the campaign knew that if the voting public found out he’d been bare-backing porn stars it would be the end of his campaign.

                Really, this isn’t rocket surgery, I think most who claim they don’t understand what Trump was charged with are being intentionally obtuse, this many people could not be that stupid… Of course, we are talking about the conservatives here so…

              • So it was “an unreported campaign contribution.” That means it wasn’t a personal expense. This falls under the jurisdiction of the FEC. We have a precedent for how that was handled with the Hillary campaign and the DNC for the 2016 election. Why is this being handled differently? You know the answer. You spent 2016-2023 defending the Russian collusion lies. You’re either very easily manipulated, or you have no regard for the truth.

              • “So it was “an unreported campaign contribution.” That means it wasn’t a personal expense.”

                Wrong, it was both, I’m sorry that’s a complex concept that may be difficult to grasp.

                He personally spent the money as an unreported campaign contribution in order to suppress the truth because he knew it would have a negative impact on his campaign.

                Of course, he could not report it as a campaign contribution because that would’ve been the end of his campaign, so he compounded his criminality by hiding it in his business taxes as a ‘legal expense’.

                I am endlessly entertained by folks who have zero legal training, never heard one word of testimony or examined a single piece of evidence, and yet they are convinced they are right and the entire jurisprudence system is wrong.

                “defending the Russian collusion lies“

                Sadly for you, the folks that matter see it differently:

                “Donald Trump and his presidential committee (“Trump Committee”) knowingly solicited or accepted, prohibited foreign national contributions in violation of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, as amended (“FECA” or the “Act”). We voted accordingly, consistent with the recommendations from our General Counsel’s Office.”

                https://www.fec.gov/files/legal/murs/7207/7207_47.pdf

              • “defending the Russian collusion lies“

                Miner, I’m very familiar with that document. I just posted it above before I read this comment. Read the context of “collusion.” It’s a joke.

                “Wrong, it was both”

                That means it was an unreported campaign contribution. Got it. Like I said, we have a very recent precedent for handling that.

  2. “ was given a year-long suspended sentence and fined $6,700. The other man, who was from Virginia, was given time served and fined $9,000.”

    Sounds like a raquet

  3. Use this one trick to extort thousands of dollars from unsuspecting tourists. Go to: dubyadubyadubya.youhavenorightshere.commie.

    • No trick, no extortion.

      These folks have their own country with their own laws, careless American tourists broke the laws.

      I’d say they were stupidly negligent to bring prohibited items to another country.

  4. The 2A does not exist for American citizens outside of the US…and when visiting foreign countries, you ARE subject to THEIR laws.

    Possession of ammunition is a crime in Turks and Caicos. When you break the laws in foreign countries, you get arrested, charged and sentenced. Being too stupid to make sure your luggage does not have any ammunition it, is not, nor should it be an excuse.

    The idiots should all be thankful they just got time served and a relatively small fine…rather than 12 years behind bars.

  5. New York City used to run this shake down game all the time on people with pocket knives.
    I don’t go to New York either.

  6. The American 2nd Amendment does not apply there. There is nothing stopping the government in that place from disarming people. It’s a shame but that simply is the way it is going to be unless the people that live there change things. American citizens traveling to this destination need to understand that and act accordingly. I would suggest going someplace else.

  7. …. Wait, if US rights don’t exist elsewhere, how is China threatening to sue for violating their first amendment rights over tic toc ?

    • Foreign nations aren’t supposed to be able to sue like this. Like Mexico trying to sue US companies. If we had actual leadership in DC that had the backbone to stand up to this, it wouldn’t be an issue. This is China manipulating the US government in an effort to force THEIR will on US.

      Since when has China ever been all that interested in freedom of speech?

      • Honestly I want to know how they are getting standing as we get a lot of challenges thrown out for a lack of somehow……. Oh right forgot we are trying to restart the plantation nevermind.

  8. “Watson and his wife were leaving the island last month when four rounds of hunting ammunition were found in his luggage.”

    The key word is “leaving”. They had already finished their visit and had Watson been a threat, he would have already committed a crime. This is making something out of nothing and doing things because they can. There is right and wrong and then there is foolishness. Watson was not stupid he is like every other human in that he was careless. If he had ill intent in his heart, it stands to reason that he would have committed the bad act(s) while on the island. He was leaving and the imaginary threat was leaving.

  9. President Trump has been found guilty. OK now can we please have a national divorce. Obviously the 80 million Trump voters can create a very nice nation. By themselves.

    And the three L’s who hate Trump and Trump voters can go their own way too.

    I believed a NYC jury would find him guilty on anything. So now put him in jail. That is what the three L’s yearn for.

    And then let the entire world learn just what has become of the United States of America.

    And let the american citizens see just how far the tryants will go.

      • “Let my people go”

        Yes I refuse to say it’s ok to do drugs. People will never have my blessing to do that.
        But you can certainly do stupid things if you want to.

        They just have to face the consequences.

        I just want to be be able to legally kill addicts who rob, rape, steal, break into or vandalize private property. In order to pay for their drug habit.

        I want to be able to kill to protect my private property. Just like agents of the government, can legally kill anyone, to protect government property. And they have done so.

        They have shot at criminals trying to steal government property. And they are never prosecuted.

        • “I just want to be be able to legally kill addicts who… vandalize private property.”

          Right, somebody spray painting the side of your garage ‘Donnie luvs Karen 4ever’, and you want to be permitted to kill them without consequence.

          You are one murderous bastard, I can only pity your family and neighbors.

          • I do know of people who had kill n#ggers spray painted on their private property. And also had a cross burned on their front lawn.

            And I do know that libertarians liberals and the left do support this “free speech.”

            Because they went to court to defend it.

            • “And also had a cross burned on their front lawn.
              Because they went to court to defend it.“

              How interesting, please be kind enough to post a citation or reference to anyone who claimed burning a cross on someone else’s property was an expression of free speech.

              I think you’re confused, it is an expression of free speech if you burn a cross on your OWN property (or another’s with permission), but burning a cross on someone else’s lawn is at the very least trespass and a more serious offense in some jurisdictions.

          • So you lack any discernment, discretion, or agency in your decision-making process where your scenario seems a likely outcome or are you just being disingenuous again?

        • Honestly that endorsement will do more to help Trump than anything else the libertarian party could do as it will get their commies to vote for their commie instead of Biden.

        • People thought it before, but now it’s official. The Libertarian Party is officially a joke.

          This nomination seems right to me. It’s the inevitable conclusion of an ideology that I see as classical liberalism without any care of the societal consequences of actions by individuals.

    • “OK now can we please have a national divorce.” Doubt that will happen. But you can do your best to boycott New York.

    • Just subjecting themselves to enhanced exit visa tariffs. Always read up on what I could pack without a remote chance of some corrupt/incompetent foreign official finding an expensive fee (payday) at my expense and mailing anything legal but questionable back home. But I am on the highly distrustful side of my own government which is substantially more rule abiding than most of the rest of the world.

  10. I feel like this kinda situation warrants a sternly worded letter politely stating that the prisoners be released in 24 hours or the islands become the newest American territory.

    Thanks and have a wonderful day…

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here