Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
If he doesn’t perform meaningful acts as part of his official duties, then what in the world could he be bribed for?Wrong. He is charged with CRIMES like taking bribes. Not remotely the same thing. And not “clearly” in any way.
You’re simply ridiculous.
Nonsense. Senators aren’t allowed to take bribes. You don’t seem to grasp what a “crime” is.
Nobody said you did. You can't help making shit up.I don’t recall saying that any president was ever convicted in an impeachment trial.
apnews.com
If he doesn’t perform meaningful acts as part of his official duties, then what in the world could he be bribed for?
Honestly, claiming Senators don’t perform official acts is one of the stupidest things you’ve said.
I’m not impressed by this indictment. Did you know they can indict a ham sandwich? How can a senator do their job when any prosecutor can come after them with any indictment they dream of?
Votes. That’s different. Do you grasp the distinction between legislative branch and executive branch?If he doesn’t perform meaningful acts as part of his official duties, then what in the world could he be bribed for?
Honestly, claiming Senators don’t perform official acts is one of the stupidest things you’ve said.
I’m not impressed by this indictment.
So goes the old saying. It’s not entirely true, though. Sometimes it is. Are you saying that Sen. Scumbag didn’t take solid gold kilo bars?Did you know they can indict a ham sandwich?
Well, for one thing, they could reject bribe offers.How can a senator do their job when any prosecutor can come after them with any indictment they dream of?
Only WMD's and scorched earth will end this. And it will come when the pensions and benefits get stifled.Nobody said you did. You can't help making shit up.
Now,
Menendez is being tried during an election season!!!
ELECTION INTERFERENCE? What does MAGA say?
New Jersey Sen. Bob Menendez says he won't run in Democratic primary
Sen. Bob Menendez is leaving open the possibility that he would reenter the race as an independent later this year if he is exonerated at a trial.
Nobody said you did. You can't help making shit up.
A lesson you should apply to your own twatwaffle posting efforts at some point.Now,
Menendez is being tried during an election season!!!
By a DIM Admin’s DOJ of a DIM Senator. Lol. Yeah, dipshit. You’ve got a “point.”ELECTION INTERFERENCE? What does MAGA say?
“That’s different”, because you say so?Votes. That’s different. Do you grasp the distinction between legislative branch and executive branch?
Evidently not.
No. Your denial is what’s stupid. Par for you though.
Nobody cares what you do or don’t find impressive.
So goes the old saying. It’s not entirely true, though. Sometimes it is. Are you saying that Sen. Scumbag didn’t take solid gold kilo bars?
Well, for one thing, they could reject bribe offers.
Stupid you.
“That’s different”, because you say so?
Just admit you dont have the slightest clue what Mendndez is actually indicted for because its not just “votes”.
Uh, the reason for prosecutorial immunity is because the Senator is scared of doing their job because they could be accused by some malicious prosecutor of doing something they never actually did like taking bribes.
One simple question (ignoring the personal attacks of the Liabilities here), is the Menendez defense team using your argument?Sen. Bob Menendez (D-NJ) has been INDICTED by the UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK, for alleged criminal Acts - accepting bribes as a Senator of the United States, and illegally acting as a foreign agent, on behalf of Egypt and Qatar – which violate his office of public trust. His trial begins today 9/15/2024 in the UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
In fact, the UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK has no prosecutorial jurisdiction over Senator Menendez because the due process procedure agreed upon in our Constitution to try a federal officer who is accused of criminal conduct affecting his office of public trust, was intentionally placed in the Senate’s hands and not a federal district court, unless being first convicted by the Senate.
Hamilton confirms the above in Federalist 65:
.
"Where else than in the Senate could have been found a tribunal sufficiently dignified, or sufficiently independent? What other body would be likely to feel CONFIDENCE ENOUGH IN ITS OWN SITUATION, to preserve, unawed and uninfluenced, the necessary impartiality between an INDIVIDUAL accused, and the REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PEOPLE, HIS ACCUSERS?
Could the Supreme Court have been relied upon as answering this description? It is much to be doubted, whether the members of that tribunal would at all times be endowed with so eminent a portion of fortitude, as would be called for in the execution of so difficult a task; and it is still more to be doubted, whether they would possess the degree of credit and authority, which might, on certain occasions, be indispensable towards reconciling the people to a decision that should happen to clash with an accusation brought by their immediate representatives… .
. . . These considerations seem alone sufficient to authorize a conclusion, that the Supreme Court would have been an improper substitute for the Senate, as a court of impeachments."
.
Some provisions of our Constitution relevant to the due process to be afforded to those holding an office of public trust and are charged with violating that trust are:
Article I, Section 2, Clause 5:
“The House of Representatives . . . shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.”
Article I; Section 3, Clause, 6:
“The Senate shall have the sole power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be in Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.”
Article I; 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."
If a Senator is found guilty by the Senate of violating his office of public trust, then, and only then, is the door opened for that Senator to be … liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law."
Why are so many determined to subvert the due process procedure agreed upon in our Constitution, to deal with a federal office holder who is accused of criminal acts which violate their office of public trust?
JWK
Those who reject abiding by the text of our Constitution, and the intentions and beliefs under which it was agree to, as documented from historical records _ its framing and ratification debates which give context to its text _ wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.
Parody Lost -- a suggested title for your Biography.So you brought up the fact that Trump was impeached but omitted his acquittals because being impeached is meaningful?
The dainty, you always make a fool of yourself. That’s a given. But you’re really doing a number on yourself at this point.
A lesson you should apply to your own twatwaffle posting efforts at some point.
Tough shit.
By a DIM Admin’s DOJ of a DIM Senator. Lol. Yeah, dipshit. You’ve got a “point.”
What a chuckle-headed moron you always are. Keep up the retarded work.
Simple minded question. There. Fixed it for the dainty.One simple question (ignoring the personal attacks of the Liabilities here), is the Menendez defense team using your argument?
Simple minded question. There. Fixed it for the dainty.
My replies have been relative to the absolutely ridiculous claim that congresspeople are ever validly subject to impeachment.
Pussies like the dainty — who cannot engage in intelligent debate — would falsely claim that such arguments are therefore “personal attacks.” They aren’t.
Meaning never lived here: the title for your empty skull.Parody Lost -- a suggested title for your Biography.
Meaning never lived here: the title for your empty skull.
Now, enough with your perpetually off-topic, petty and failed efforts at ad hominem.
On the highly amusing hypothetical that the dainty gave a shit about being topical, is he agreeing with jw that Congress people have any susceptibility to being “impeached?”
Once again ^ deliberately off topic and dishonestDeliberately and repeatedly off topic posting with personal attacks.
I have read them which is why I mirrored the argument in those cases with a senator, which you reject out of hand because you think it’s somehow different.Please post some more nonsensical and dishonest gibberish.
I’m quite sure you have never read any of the Trump briefs seeking to extend Presidential immunity (which already exists as to civil cases) to criminal prosecutions.
The nonsense you absurdly spew trying to somehow equate that issue with a new “Congressional privilege” has absolutely zero basis in law or fact or logic.
Mock you more later.
No. You didn’t read them and you sure as fuck didn’t understand them.I have read them which is why I mirrored the argument in those cases with a senator, which you reject out of hand because you think it’s somehow different.
Aside from the fact that your claims are false on their face, you have no serious counter argument.
The closest you came was saying that a senator doesn’t have to worry about prosecution if they don’t take bribes.
But the essential point about Trump’s desire for immunity isn’t that he needs protection from legitimate crimes, but that he needs protection from prosecution for things that aren’t crimes.
There’s no part of his argument that says immunity doesn’t apply if he actually did the crime. That would be absurd. The argument is that we can’t even find out if he committed a crime because the risk of those evil prosecutors is greater than the risk to the country from a president without accountability to the law.
the senate did not impeach him though they used the power granted them in the constitution to expel him.
The House action was Constitutionally illicit. And the Senate dismissed it accordingly.Of course, the Senate did not impeach Blount. That power is exclusively vested in the House. And the House exercised that power and impeached Blount under the following ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT
.
How could a senator possibly do their job when they have the thought of malicious prosecutors breathing down their necks wanting to levy unfair accusations and indictments against them?
