Congress has already disqualified Trump from the ballot

[Faun]

What post number?

Alteady told you where to find it, retard. It's literally on this page. All you have to do is scroll up. Is that too much of a mental challenge for ya?

 

[jc456]

Alteady told you where to find it, retard. It's literally on this page. All you have to do is scroll up. Is that too much of a mental challenge for ya?

Saw no link in any of your posts

 

[para bellum]

Do you really believe that Trump had no right to witnesses aka due process as guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution?

It's true. The House has sole authority over it's rules of impeachment, and the Senate has sole authority over it's rules for trial. The only Constitutional protection for Trump was the requirement for a 2/3 majority for conviction.

This is how is should be, since the impeachment power is exercised over both the judicial and executive branches of gov't. The only exception to the legislature's exclusive authority is when the POTUS is impeached- the Chief Justice is the presiding officer rather than the VPOTUS. The Framers believed it was not appropriate for a VPOTUS to preside over a trial that could elevate him to POTUS upon a conviction.

The argument in the OP that the Congress has already disqualified Trump is wrong. It's correct that the vote to disqualify only needs a simple majority, but that option is only available after a conviction by a 2/3 majority. Since Trump was acquitted, that vote never took place, and he was never disqualified.

Impeachment is a political remedy, not a legal one. It's only punishments are removal and barring from future office. A person who is impeached is still subject to prosecution under common law, and that is where the due process applies.

Trump's argument that charging him after acquittal amounts to double jeopardy, I believe will not hold up. Since a person can still be criminally charged after impeachment and removal, it does not make sense to me that acquittal should provide a shield from criminal prosecution. Double jeopardy applies to criminal proceedings, not political ones.

 

[Foxfyre]

It's true. The House has sole authority over it's rules of impeachment, and the Senate has sole authority over it's rules for trial. The only Constitutional protection for Trump was the requirement for a 2/3 majority for conviction.

This is how is should be, since the impeachment power is exercised over both the judicial and executive branches of gov't. The only exception to the legislature's exclusive authority is when the POTUS is impeached- the Chief Justice is the presiding officer rather than the VPOTUS. The Framers believed it was not appropriate for a VPOTUS to preside over a trial that could elevate him to POTUS upon a conviction.

The argument in the OP that the Congress has already disqualified Trump is wrong. It's correct that the vote to disqualify only needs a simple majority, but that option is only available after a conviction by a 2/3 majority. Since Trump was acquitted, that vote never took place, and he was never disqualified.

Impeachment is a political remedy, not a legal one. It's only punishments are removal and barring from future office. A person who is impeached is still subject to prosecution under common law, and that is where the due process applies.

Trump's argument that charging him after acquittal amounts to double jeopardy, I believe will not hold up. Since a person can still be criminally charged after impeachment and removal, it does not make sense to me that acquittal should provide a shield from criminal prosecution. Double jeopardy applies to criminal proceedings, not political ones.

I made absolutely no argument even close to the concept that Congress has already disqualified Trump in the OP. Come on. You're making a reasoned argument here and you should read better than that.

I said Congress has already INDICTED Trump and ACQUITTED him of the purported 'crime.' That should end the matter.

I hope SCOTUS will rule that this makes Trump safe from further prosecution on that issue from government or the private sector. I hope SCOTUS rules that the President is immune from prosecution for all activities within the scope of the presidency unless it is the PEOPLE'S representative, i.e. CONGRESS who indicts and tries him for misconduct.

 

[para bellum]

I made absolutely no argument even close to the concept that Congress has already disqualified Trump in the OP. Come on. You're making a reasoned argument here and you should read better than that.

I was not accusing you of that. I specifically said the OP, not you.

I was addressing your question regarding due process, that part of my post was directed at you.

The last 3 paragraphs were just comments on the OP wrt "already disqualified", and the double jeopardy claim that Trump is bringing to the SCOTUS as part of his immunity claim. None of that is aimed at you- sorry if you got that impression.

 

[Foxfyre]

I was not accusing you of that. I specifically said the OP, not you.

I was addressing your question regarding due process, that part of my post was directed at you.

The last 3 paragraphs were just comments on the OP wrt "already disqualified", and the double jeopardy claim that Trump is bringing to the SCOTUS as part of his immunity claim. None of that is aimed at you- sorry if you got that impression.

Every word in the OP I wrote without referring to any source, and is my opinion on the matter though. The OP does NOT say Congress disqualified Trump. It infers Congress tried to disqualify Trump but failed to do so.

And a person does not have to be guilty to be safe from prosecution via double jeopardy. If a murderer, however guilty, is acquitted of that murder in a court of law, he is forever safe from prosecution for that murder. That is why we need honorable prosecutors, defense attorneys, judges and juries who will come to the most correct conclusions possible.

 

[Faun]

as stated before, my debate with you is all there for anyone to see.

Yeah, and everyone here sees you're too stupid to recognize a link on a website where you post almost every day. Let me show you where the link is that you couldn't find...

 

[CrusaderFrank]

An excellent opinion piece from Tristan Snell on CNN explains that in the course of Trump's second impeachment, a majority of the House and of the Senate voted that the events of January 6 were an insurrection and that Trump incited it. If the Supreme Court does not obey the clear text of our Constitution, this democracy is at an end.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/08/opinions/trump-supreme-court-oral-arguments-election-snell/index.html

Our Mockracy ended a long time ago

 

[para bellum]

I said Congress has already INDICTED Trump and ACQUITTED him of the purported 'crime.' That should end the matter.

I wasn't addressing you in particular in my post, but I did touch on this. Indictment is when a Grand Jury or a prosecutor brings a criminal charge, and the Congress does not have that authority. So the Congress has not indicted Trump, they impeached him.

The acquittal (imo) does not shield him from indictment, but it should inform a prosecutor or grand jury as to whether or not criminal charges should be brought for the same act.

I hope SCOTUS will rule that this makes Trump safe from further prosecution on that issue from government or the private sector. I hope SCOTUS rules that the President is immune from prosecution for all activities within the scope of the presidency unless it is the PEOPLE'S representative, i.e. CONGRESS who indicts and tries him for misconduct.

I think they will say the President has something more than qualified immunity, but less than the absolute immunity that he is arguing for. Acts that are part of his duties as President, even if only peripherally, he will have immunity. Acts that are unrelated to his office, no immunity.

There is another very important case you should watch. That is the case of US v. Joseph Fisher. Fisher is a J6 defendant that was charged under 18 USC 1512(c)(2). This is the "obstructing an official proceeding" charge. There are about 100 people who have been hit with this charge from J6.

The D.C. Circuit just ruled that these charges were improperly applied, the statute is about interfering with judicial process, not Congressional processes. It's basically a witness and evidence tampering statute, under Title 73 (which is Obstructing Justice).

This is a felony charge that carries a 20 year sentence, and the DOJ used it prolifically against the J6 defendants. US. v. Joseph Fisher is the case that will settle this question- SCOTUS granted cert and will rule on this case this year. If the SCOTUS agrees with the D.C. Circuit, it will kill Jack Smith's case against Trump and vacate most of the felony convictions of the J6 defendants.

 

[para bellum]

Every word in the OP I wrote without referring to any source, and is my opinion on the matter though. The OP does NOT say Congress disqualified Trump. It infers Congress tried to disqualify Trump but failed to do so.

Check your thread my dear. Crick is the OP.

Your thread is the immunity thread...

 

[Foxfyre]

I wasn't addressing you in particular in my post, but I did touch on this. Indictment is when a Grand Jury or a prosecutor brings a criminal charge, and the Congress does not have that authority. So the Congress has not indicted Trump, they impeached him.

The acquittal (imo) does not shield him from indictment, but it should inform a prosecutor or grand jury as to whether or not criminal charges should be brought for the same act.

I think they will say the President has something more than qualified immunity, but less than the absolute immunity that he is arguing for. Acts that are part of his duties as President, even if only peripherally, he will have immunity. Acts that are unrelated to his office, no immunity.

There is another very important case you should watch. That is the case of US v. Joseph Fisher. Fisher is a J6 defendant that was charged under 18 USC 1512(c)(2). This is the "obstructing an official proceeding" charge. There are about 100 people who have been hit with this charge from J6.

The D.C. Circuit just ruled that these charges were improperly applied, the statute is about interfering with judicial process, not Congressional processes. It's basically a witness and evidence tampering statute, under Title 73 (which is Obstructing Justice).

This is a felony charge that carries a 20 year sentence, and the DOJ used it prolifically against the J6 defendants. US. v. Joseph Fisher is the case that will settle this question- SCOTUS granted cert and will rule on this case this year. If the SCOTUS agrees with the D.C. Circuit, it will kill Jack Smith's case against Trump and vacate most of the felony convictions of the J6 defendants.

That's what an impeachment is. An indictment for a crime assigned by the House of Representatives. The House has no authority to go beyond that indictment but must turn the matter over to the Senate to try the person and either acquit him/her or find him/her guilty.

J6 defendants are a whole different discussion as they are not protected by the constitution that does specify who can prosecute and convict a President of the USA for high crimes and misdemeanors.

I wouldn't put any credibility on the DC circuit for ANYTHING. I hope if re-elected, President Trump either pardons ALL J6 accused if they want that and whose only crime was rhetoric or walking through the doors into the Capitol building. He should commute the sentences of those who were actually guilty of minor vandalism or not injurious assault. The others can be evaluated on a case by case basis but there would at most be only a few dozen left.

And I suspect THAT is what the Biden Administration and its weaponized DOJ fears most, that the truth of malicious prosecution will come out and perhaps their culpability in the riot itself. That and losing their power and possibly gravy train of course. But a SCOTUS ruling in favor of immunity would protect not only Trump but Biden as well.

 

[WEATHER53]

When you can’t compete then cheat
See thinkers know 9-0 is a loss. Non competitive safe spacer participation trophy geeks don't know what 9-0 is about. It’s about defeat and not about wishes of otherwise

 

[Faun]

That's what an impeachment is. An indictment for a crime assigned by the House of Representatives. The House has no authority to go beyond that indictment but must turn the matter over to the Senate to try the person and either acquit him/her or find him/her guilty.

J6 defendants are a whole different discussion as they are not protected by the constitution that does specify who can prosecute and convict a President of the USA for high crimes and misdemeanors.

I wouldn't put any credibility on the DC circuit for ANYTHING. I hope if re-elected, President Trump either pardons ALL J6 accused if they want that and whose only crime was rhetoric or walking through the doors into the Capitol building. He should commute the sentences of those who were actually guilty of minor vandalism or not injurious assault. The others can be evaluated on a case by case basis but there would at most be only a few dozen left.

And I suspect THAT is what the Biden Administration and its weaponized DOJ fears most, that the truth of malicious prosecution will come out and perhaps their culpability in the riot itself. That and losing their power and possibly gravy train of course. But a SCOTUS ruling in favor of immunity would protect not only Trump but Biden as well.

Impeachment is a political process, not a judicial process. Therefore, an individual impeached in the House, regardless of the outcome in the Senate, can still face criminal or civil charges. That's in accordance to our Constitution.

 

[WEATHER53]

They won’t because they cant
Another pipe dream from the children that their magic senators will set aside the will of 75 million + Americans

 

[para bellum]

That's what an impeachment is. An indictment for a crime assigned by the House of Representatives. The House has no authority to go beyond that indictment but must turn the matter over to the Senate to try the person and either acquit him/her or find him/her guilty.

You should not conflate the two. Impeachment is a Legislative act, Indictment is a Judicial one. Article 1 Section 3, clause 7:

"Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States; but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law."

J6 defendants are a whole different discussion as they are not protected by the constitution that does specify who can prosecute and convict a President of the USA for high crimes and misdemeanors.

Trump is out of office and Impeachment is not a factor.

The reason I mentioned it is because Trump is being charged with two counts of that same federal felony by Jack Smith.

If the SCOTUS rules in favor of Fisher, it kills Smith's case against Trump, regardless of how the SCOTUS rules on the immunity claim.

I wouldn't put any credibility on the DC circuit for ANYTHING.

I normally don't. They did however get this one right, and it has a very large bearing on Jack Smith's case against Trump. Without those felony charges, all he has are a couple shaky misdemeanors.

 

[Foxfyre]

Impeachment is a political process, not a judicial process. Therefore, an individual impeached in the House, regardless of the outcome in the Senate, can still face criminal or civil charges. That's in accordance to our Constitution.

Impeachment is very much a judicial process. I am hoping SCOTUS will make the outcome of the Senate trial unequivocally definitive that if the President is acquitted he is immune from further prosecution for that particular crime. That is how it should be.

 

[Foxfyre]

You should not conflate the two. Impeachment is a Legislative act, Indictment is a Judicial one. Article 1 Section 3, clause 7:

"Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States; but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law."

Trump is out of office and Impeachment is not a factor.

The reason I mentioned it is because Trump is being charged with two counts of that same federal felony by Jack Smith.

If the SCOTUS rules in favor of Fisher, it kills Smith's case against Trump, regardless of how the SCOTUS rules on the immunity claim.

I normally don't. They did however get this one right, and it has a very large bearing on Jack Smith's case against Trump. Without those felony charges, all he has are a couple shaky misdemeanors.

If the Senate process is judicial then so is the House process. Both are legal processes necessary to remove a President from office.

I won't repeat my other arguments that address everything else you said and I hate having to type all that over and over. SCOTUS should absolutely set the DC circuit back on its ear because the DOJ should not be able to maliciously prosecute a political opponent for no other reason than the person is a political opponent. Most especially when the 'crimes' are something nobody else is prosecuted for. It violates every concept of separation of powers, due process, equal justice under the law, malicious prosecution, excessive fines/punishment et al.

The Biden administration has so turned justice on its ear and controls the Senate so SCOTUS is pretty much our only hope to make things right.

 

[para bellum]

If the Senate process is judicial then so is the House process. Both are legal processes necessary to remove a President from office.

Neither the House or Senate proceedings are Judicial proceedings. They are authorized under Article 1, Judicial proceedings fall under Article 3. This is why Trump was not afforded due process* in the impeachments. Get it?

I won't repeat my other arguments that address everything else you said and I hate having to type all that over and over. SCOTUS should absolutely set the DC circuit back on its ear because the DOJ should not be able to maliciously prosecute a political opponent for no other reason than the person is a political opponent. Most especially when the 'crimes' are something nobody else is prosecuted for. It violates every concept of separation of powers, due process, equal justice under the law, malicious prosecution, excessive fines/punishment et al.

The Biden administration has so turned justice on its ear and controls the Senate so SCOTUS is pretty much our only hope to make things right.

Look, I agree with all that about the malicious prosecutions, etc. If the SCOTUS overrules the D.C. Circuit in this matter, it validates what the DOJ is doing to the J6 defendants and Trump.

For once, the D.C. Circuit GOT IT RIGHT! Don't trash the decision just because it came from them! They are saying the DOJ has over-reached. We both agree on that!

*due process in this context meaning the right to confront your accusers, present evidence, offer witnesses, etc.

 

[Rawley]

That's what an impeachment is. An indictment for a crime assigned by the House of Representatives. The House has no authority to go beyond that indictment but must turn the matter over to the Senate to try the person and either acquit him/her or find him/her guilty.

J6 defendants are a whole different discussion as they are not protected by the constitution that does specify who can prosecute and convict a President of the USA for high crimes and misdemeanors.

I wouldn't put any credibility on the DC circuit for ANYTHING.

The DC Circuit's opinion actually helps Trump

 

[Faun]

Impeachment is very much a judicial process. I am hoping SCOTUS will make the outcome of the Senate trial unequivocally definitive that if the President is acquitted he is immune from further prosecution for that particular crime. That is how it should be.

Impeachment is very much a judicial process.

You're nuts.

Clinton had to take a plea deal to avoid prosecution for lying under oath even though he was acquitted in his impeachment.

In a Deal, Clinton Avoids Indictment​