Federal Court in New York lacks prosecutorial jurisdiction over Senator Menendez’s alleged crimes

[johnwk]

No. According to the Constitution, itself, it’s a fact.

Your denial is based on your inability to acknowledge your own obvious mistake.

Go with that. It will make you look very shmart.

EIEIO


.

Once again you offer your interpretations of our Constitution, while I offer a FULLY DOCUMENTED ACCOUNT of the Senator Blount affair.

So there.

 

[BackAgain]

Once again you offer your interpretations of our Constitution, while I offer a FULLY DOCUMENTED ACCOUNT of the Senator Blount affair.

Again, you dishonest twerp, the Senate dismissed the “case” against Blount.

And, unlike you, I proved my position by quoting the Constitution itself.

Run along now, child.

EIEIO




;

 

[johnwk]

Again, you dishonest twerp, the Senate dismissed the “case” against Blount.

;

Which has nothing to do with the question . . . can a member of Congress be impeached?

 

[BackAgain]

Which has nothing to do with the question . . . can a member of Congress be impeached?

Lie.

What I posted (quoting the relevant articles and sections of the Constitution, itself), unquestionably answers your nonsensical question.

No member of Congress can be impeached under the very terms of the Constitution. It’s beyond obvious and crystal clear.

So your lack of comprehension is a reflection of your minimal level of intelligence. Is pity you. But you’re not worth the investment of any time or emotion of that kind.

I prefer to just continue to expose you. And laugh at you.

 

[Jets]

As usual the OP presents a specious argument and gets called out on it. No matter how many times it is explained to him why he is incorrect, he just keeps repeating the same nonsense till you cannot bother responding to him.

 

[johnwk]

Lie.

What I posted (quoting the relevant articles and sections of the Constitution, itself), unquestionably answers your nonsensical question.

No member of Congress can be impeached under the very terms of the Constitution. It’s beyond obvious and crystal clear.

According to you, but the fact is, Senator William Blount was impeached by the House and the House presented the following ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT AGAINST WILLIAM BLOUNT to the Senate.

Why must you make stuff up?

 

[BackAgain]

According to you, but the fact is, Senator William Blount was impeached by the House

And the Senate recognized that it was nonsense.

and the House presented the following ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT AGAINST WILLIAM BLOUNT to the Senate.

Again. Rejected by the Senate. For the very reason I noted.

Why must you make stuff up?

I haven’t. You simply deny reality.

You’re so petty, little EIEIO, that you won’t even admit that Congress persons are not “civil officers” of the United States despite having that Constitutional provision shoved under your nose — very publicly — several times.

 

[johnwk]

You’re so petty, little EIEIO, that you won’t even admit that Congress persons are not “civil officers” of the United States despite having that Constitutional provision shoved under your nose — very publicly — several times.

The idea that members of Congress are not civil officers within the meaning of the Constitution is an unsubstantiated contention.

One compelling argument made by Senator Bayard, that a member of Congress was within the meaning of “civil officer” was because of existing legislation. That Legislation was enacted, March 1, 1792—An Act relative to the Election of a President and Vice President of the United States, and declaring the Officer who shall act as President in case of Vacancies in the offices both of President and Vice President. LINK

According to the legislation the “officers” eligible were first the president pro tempore of the Senate, and Speaker of the House second, and as such, they clearly fall within the definition of being officers of the United States.


With respect to the currently unresolved question - if a member of Congress is within the constitutional meaning of a civil officer - and to avoid supplanting our personal opinions as the rule of law, our only legitimate recourse it to do our best to uncover the evil which our founders were trying to address when including the process of impeachment in our Constitution.

The historical record during the making of our Constitution, along with the ratification debates of our Constitution, provide documentation of the evil being addressed and is shown to be, by a PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE, that the impeachment provisions were intentionally adopted by our Founders to deal with anyone who abuses their federal public trust.

 

[BackAgain]

The idea that members of Congress are not civil officers within the meaning of the Constitution is an unsubstantiated contention.

No. It is fully supported by the Constitutional article I quoted.

You’re just lying again now.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

According to you, but the fact is, Senator William Blount was impeached by the House and the House presented the following ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT AGAINST WILLIAM BLOUNT to the Senate.

Why must you make stuff up?

the senate did not impeach him though they used the power granted them in the constitution to expel him.

 

[Dante]

You are talking about impeachment.

This is a criminal case.

Criminal case? Like what Trump is facing in multiple jurisdictions?

He was also impeached -- twice.

 

[BackAgain]

Criminal case?

Like the persecutions without valid basis.

Sure, the dainty. Sure

Like what Trump is facing in multiple jurisdictions?

Zzz. Orchestrated partisan political persecutions don’t really count any more than the old Soviet Union show trials.

He was also impeached -- twice.

So? The Senate dispatched those bullshit impeachment cases, readily.

 

[BackAgain]

The same legal arguments would apply to senators.

Thats why it’s such a stupid legal argument.

No, they wouldn’t.

 

[Marener]

No, they wouldn’t.

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?

 

[BackAgain]

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?

Anything they say as a Senator while Congress is in session already gives them immunity.

They, unlike civil officers, do not perform meaningful “acts” as part of their official and Constitutional duty.

Your feeble swing is just another laughable whiff.

 

[Marener]

Anything they say as a Senator while Congress is in session already gives them immunity.

They, unlike civil officers, do not perform meaningful “acts” as part of their official and Constitutional duty.

Your feeble swing is just another laughable whiff.

Clearly they do perform many meaningful and prosecutable acts as part of their official duties given Menendez is now being prosecuted for these very acts.

If what you said was true, this prosecution wouldn’t even be happening.

 

[Dante]

Like the persecutions without valid basis.

Sure, the dainty. Sure


Zzz. Orchestrated partisan political persecutions don’t really count any more than the old Soviet Union show trials.

So? The Senate dispatched those bullshit impeachment cases, readily.

A simple usmb search with your name and "impeachment" turns up quite the case that you can't help being a Yuge liar, as well as a welcher.

The Senate did not convict Bill Clinton either, yet you...

 

[BackAgain]

Clearly they do perform many meaningful and prosecutable acts as part of their official duties given Menendez is now being prosecuted for these very acts.

Wrong. He is charged with CRIMES like taking bribes. Not remotely the same thing. And not “clearly” in any way.

You’re simply ridiculous.

If what you said was true, this prosecution wouldn’t even be happening.

Nonsense. Senators aren’t allowed to take bribes. You don’t seem to grasp what a “crime” is.

 

[Dante]

Clearly they do perform many meaningful and prosecutable acts as part of their official duties given Menendez is now being prosecuted for these very acts.

If what you said was true, this prosecution wouldn’t even be happening.

But, but, but Hunter!

Trump is being indicted because of his own actions. All spelled out in multiple indictments.

 

[BackAgain]

A simple usmb search with your name and "impeachment" turns up quite the case that you can't help being a Yuge liar, as well as a welcher.

Another ^ completely false claim by the dainty, under any of its usernames.

The Senate did not convict Bill Clinton either, yet you...

I don’t recall saying that any president was ever convicted in an impeachment trial.

So, your deflection is just you being a liar again.