So why did his father-in-law say he knew of no heart problems, and why did the coroner’s office say he hadn’t seen a doctor for over a year? You don’t have a week-long stay in the hospital following a heart attack a year ago without your father-in-law knowing and without seeing a doctor for over a year.
It’s the discrepancies that raise the questions.
And the timing. As was mentioned here, if there were medical issues Breitbart’s enemies would have known that. Heck, the government knows what’s in MY e-mails; they sure as heck know what’s in Breitbart’s. If he had a heart condition his enemies would have simply known to use that particular form of assassination rather than something that would cause a different medical crisis.
Ultimately we’re never gonna know for sure. But we may as well acknowledge that there are discrepancies in the claims and it looks fishy.
And we have a duty to address null and void’s basic question: Is it currently legal for the POTUS to assassinate somebody he views as “belligerent”, which could be defined by him as simply being a danger to his administration?
Does the law in any way prohibit the POTUS from defining “belligerent” or “terrorist” as “somebody who threatens my administration”? If so, show me where the law prohibits the POTUS from using that definition?