Congress has already disqualified Trump from the ballot

[Faun]

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.

WTF is wrong with you?? Neither the House nor the Senate are in the Judicial branch of government.

 

[WEATHER53]

100 indictments and other election interference attempts with Zero convictions or rulings prevailing in their favor
Yet lib loons still claim the upper hand of “No way he runs”

 

[Foxfyre]

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?

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.

Fifth Amendment​

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

 

[Foxfyre]

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​

Try reading the OP again dear and get back to me. You are arguing something entirely different from what I am arguing. And ANY action by the government that deprives a person of his/her property, life, liberty better be by a judicial process. There is a limit to what the Congress is allowed to do re indictment and conviction in the impeachment process yes--they can't send somebody to jail or impose a fine for instance--but it is very definitely a judicial process.

 

[Foxfyre]

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​

Clinton was held in contempt of a NY court for lying to that court unrelated to the impeachment process. They did use evidence presented by the special counsel Ken Starr as their justification for doing that. Likewise the Arkansas Bar revoked his law license/disbarred him using the same evidence unrelated to the impeachment and SCOTUS revoked his privileges to argue before the high court.

 

[Foxfyre]

WTF is wrong with you?? Neither the House nor the Senate are in the Judicial branch of government.

That does not mean that impeachment and trial are not judicial processes involving law, justice, crime, right and wrong.

 

[para bellum]

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.

Bill Clinton was acquitted by the Senate on perjury and obstruction, but he still entered into the plea agreement with the DOJ to avoid a criminal prosecution on those same charges.

You would have to give him a pass, since your rule means the acquittal in the Senate exonerates him of any further consequences.

Can you tell me if the same would apply to convictions under your rule? Can someone be convicted in the Senate and later in a court of law for the same offense?

--------------------------------

I don't dispute that there is a judicial aspect to impeachment- after all, the role of the Senate in impeachment proceedings is that of judge and jury. So yes- in that respect it is a judicial process.

The Framers were well aware of that, and that is one reason the remedy in impeachments is limited to removal from office and disqualification to hold positions of trust. Any sanction beyond loss of office was reserved for the judicial branch, where they vested the power to deprive a person of life, liberty, and property.

Federalist 65 and 66 are a little flowery for our modern way of talking, but Hamilton argued eloquently for the way impeachment is organized under the Constitution. It's good reading if you're so inclined.

 

[Foxfyre]

Bill Clinton was acquitted by the Senate on perjury and obstruction, but he still entered into the plea agreement with the DOJ to avoid a criminal prosecution on those same charges.

You would have to give him a pass, since your rule means the acquittal in the Senate exonerates him of any further consequences.

Can you tell me if the same would apply to convictions under your rule? Can someone be convicted in the Senate and later in a court of law for the same offense?

--------------------------------

I don't dispute that there is a judicial aspect to impeachment- after all, the role of the Senate in impeachment proceedings is that of judge and jury. So yes- in that respect it is a judicial process.

The Framers were well aware of that, and that is one reason the remedy in impeachments is limited to removal from office and disqualification to hold positions of trust. Any sanction beyond loss of office was reserved for the judicial branch, where they vested the power to deprive a person of life, liberty, and property.

Federalist 65 and 66 are a little flowery for our modern way of talking, but Hamilton argued eloquently for the way impeachment is organized under the Constitution. It's good reading if you're so inclined.

Yes. Even though Clinton was indicted for real verifiable crimes, the Senate judged those crimes did not rise to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors and therefore they acquitted him. And any further efforts to convict him of or punish him for those crimes in my opinion would have violated the letter and intent of the U.S. Constitution. What the NY Court, Arkansas Bar, and SCOTUS acted on were crimes committed that were not included in the impeachment process.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Do you really believe that Trump had no right to witnesses aka due process as guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution? No wonder we are headed hell bent on doing away with all constitutional protections and becoming a totalitarian state. People who think like you think will get us there.

It's not a belief. It's a fact. The Senate can vote at any time to block witnesses. Here are the Republicans blocking witnesses:

Republicans Block Impeachment Witnesses, Clearing Path for Trump Acquittal (Published 2020)

The narrow vote came after Republican senators said they did not need to hear more evidence, and pressed toward acquitting President Trump next week.

www.nytimes.com

So yeah, sorry, it's not a court of law. It's a political process.

So settle down, drama queen. No need to grab the prepper backpack just yet.

 

[para bellum]

Yes. Even though Clinton was indicted for real verifiable crimes, the Senate judged those crimes did not rise to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors and therefore they acquitted him. And any further efforts to convict him of or punish him for those crimes in my opinion would have violated the letter and intent of the U.S. Constitution.

I disagree. Your rule violates the intent of the Framers because the legislative branch is not vested with the power to insulate someone from criminal prosecution. The legislative branch can only remove someone from office and disqualify them from holding a position of trust.

A person could commit a serious crime, and his political faction would potentially have the power to impeach and acquit him, thereby leaving him untouchable to justice. All it would take is a simple majority in the House and 1/3+1 Senators.

What the NY Court, Arkansas Bar, and SCOTUS acted on were crimes committed that were not included in the impeachment process.

There were 2 articles of impeachment, the first was lying on a deposition about Lewinsky during the Paula Jones suit. The second was obstruction, for telling his secretary to lie about it if she was questioned.

His plea deal with the independent prosecutor required him to sign a statement acknowledging that he "gave false answers in his Jones deposition" and he "knowingly engaged in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice". Those were the same two acts that made up the articles of impeachments.

 

[Foxfyre]

I disagree. Your rule violates the intent of the Framers because the legislative branch is not vested with the power to insulate someone from criminal prosecution. The legislative branch can only remove someone from office and disqualify them from holding a position of trust.

A person could commit a serious crime, and his political faction would potentially have the power to impeach and acquit him, thereby leaving him untouchable to justice. All it would take is a simple majority in the House and 1/3+1 Senators.

There were 2 articles of impeachment, the first was lying on a deposition about Lewinsky during the Paula Jones suit. The second was obstruction, for telling his secretary to lie about it if she was questioned.

His plea deal with the independent prosecutor required him to sign a statement acknowledging that he "gave false answers in his Jones deposition" and he "knowingly engaged in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice". Those were the same two acts that made up the articles of impeachments.

Perhaps you would like to start a thread to discuss that? I will stand by my post and have read the history of the debates that went into the impeachment clauses in the Constitution.

 

[Faun]

Fifth Amendment​

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

There's no grand jury in an impeachment because it's NOT a criminal trial. That section of the Constitution does not apply to impeachments

 

[Faun]

Try reading the OP again dear and get back to me. You are arguing something entirely different from what I am arguing. And ANY action by the government that deprives a person of his/her property, life, liberty better be by a judicial process. There is a limit to what the Congress is allowed to do re indictment and conviction in the impeachment process yes--they can't send somebody to jail or impose a fine for instance--but it is very definitely a judicial process.

Not matter how many times you repeat it, impeachment will never be a Judicial process. Judicial trials take place in courtrooms. Impeachment trial does not. Judicial trials which result in a conviction can lead to a prison sentence and/or probation and/or a fine. Impeachment convictions can not lead to any of that. You are talking out of your ass which is why your words stink.

 

[Faun]

Clinton was held in contempt of a NY court for lying to that court unrelated to the impeachment process. They did use evidence presented by the special counsel Ken Starr as their justification for doing that. Likewise the Arkansas Bar revoked his law license/disbarred him using the same evidence unrelated to the impeachment and SCOTUS revoked his privileges to argue before the high court.

No, Clinton never faced state charges. He faced federal charges and made a deal with a federal independent councel. Yet again, you prove you don't know what the fuck you're yammering about.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/2001/01/20/in-a-deal-clinton-avoids-indictment/bb80cc4c-e72c-40c1-bb72-55b2b81c3065/

 

[Faun]

That does not mean that impeachment and trial are not judicial processes involving law, justice, crime, right and wrong.

Of course it means that. It means exactly that. Judicial processes fall solely under the jurisdiction of the Judicial branch. The Constitution demands this, you idiot...

Article III, Section 2

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;​

 

[jc456]

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...

​

​

​

View attachment 912364​

yep, wrote it, there's a thing that's called a trial. I explained in the very next post. And, the verdict from the trial can be appealed referencing the grand jury indictment procedure. Again, educate yourself son. Why stay so stupid?

 

[jc456]

No, Clinton never faced state charges. He faced federal charges and made a deal with a federal independent councel. Yet again, you prove you don't know what the fuck you're yammering about.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/2001/01/20/in-a-deal-clinton-avoids-indictment/bb80cc4c-e72c-40c1-bb72-55b2b81c3065/

did he say state charges? hmmmmmmmm Highlight that part for us.

 

[Faun]

yep, wrote it, there's a thing that's called a trial. I explained in the very next post. And, the verdict from the trial can be appealed referencing the grand jury indictment procedure. Again, educate yourself son. Why stay so stupid?

LOL

So now you're admitting you did say it after denying you said it. Yet more proof that even you don't know what the fuck you're saying. And still, grand jury proceedings can't be appealed.

 

[Faun]

did he say state charges? hmmmmmmmm Highlight that part for us.

I believe Foxfyre is a she. Yet more ignorance on your part. And she said, "Clinton was held in contempt of a NY court"

Emphasis mine to highlight your ignorance.

 

[jc456]

I believe Foxfyre is a she. Yet more ignorance on your part. And she said, "Clinton was held in contempt of a NY court"

Emphasis mine to highlight your ignorance.

you don't think there are federal courts in NY?