If Trump is guilty of inciting a riot it would be easy for USMB Democrats to prove it

[toobfreak]

Posting it twice doesn't make it true, Bucky.

There is no way that you Rumpsters will ever accept the truth so we shouldn't even bother.

You won't bother because you don't know it is the truth. You won't bother because you know you really DON'T know or have any proof that the election was honest! You haven't even a clue. You just want Biden in office. If any of you lying idiot fucks did really KNOW the fraud allegations were a LIE, one of you would have taken up my challenge to go over the evidence line by line in structured debate and let you show us how all of it didn't happen or was a great lie.

You never will because you can't.

Biden didn't win JACK.

 

[bodecea]

It's goddamn sickening to see those filthy fucking marxist animals trot up there with all their criminal baggage and parrot the talking points from their organized crime syndicate. Every one of them is a lowlife piece of shit masquerading as something important.... which it's not.

trump loves you. You're very Special.

 

[hunarcy]

So, prove it.

Don't show me the heavily edited video the Democrats presented.

I want to see evidence that Trump made a statement that incited a riot.

Declaring the election was stolen is not proof Trump incited a riot.

The show trial is to stop anyone with Trump's ideas from becoming President and to silence any questioning of the 2020 election that put Thief in Chief Biden in office.

The videos of the trump Qultist violence will be very useful during the next few elections.

"if you dont fight like hell, you wont have a country any more"

It's interesting how BR is admitting over and over how naturally violent criminals trump Qultists are.

Violent? How many buildings have Trump supporters tried to burn down? How many cars have Trump supporters burned? Honestly, why you people always want to vilify your opponents by accusing them of behaving just like your supporters behave is beyond me.

 

[basquebromance]

Donald Trump summoned the mob. He assembled the mob and he lit the flame

that's what i call treason!

it's not our burden to bring any evidence, just OPEN YOUR EYES.

 

[hunarcy]

Donald Trump summoned the mob. He assembled the mob and he lit the flame

that's what i call treason!

it's not our burden to bring any evidence, just OPEN YOUR EYES.

You undermine the rule of law by saying evidence doesn't have to be brought, which makes you more of a treasonous lout than Trump.

 

[dudmuck]

Donald Trump summoned the mob. He assembled the mob and he lit the flame

that's what i call treason!

it's not our burden to bring any evidence, just OPEN YOUR EYES.

You undermine the rule of law by saying evidence doesn't have to be brought, which makes you more of a treasonous lout than Trump.

 

[bodecea]

Donald Trump summoned the mob. He assembled the mob and he lit the flame

that's what i call treason!

it's not our burden to bring any evidence, just OPEN YOUR EYES.

Their eyes are open....they condone the violence.

 

[Dirk the Daring]

So, prove it.

Don't show me the heavily edited video the Democrats presented.

I want to see evidence that Trump made a statement that incited a riot.

Declaring the election was stolen is not proof Trump incited a riot.

If it weren’t for Trump, there would have been no riot. Everyone agrees.

What an idiotic comment.

If there had been no AIR, there would have been no riot. Therefore, AIR is responsible for the riot.

And you had TWO people give 'thanks' for such an idiotic comment. That's sad.

 

[colfax_m]

What an idiotic comment.

If there had been no AIR, there would have been no riot. Therefore, AIR is responsible for the riot.

And you had TWO people give 'thanks' for such an idiotic comment. That's sad.

Well, air didn't invite thousands of people to DC and fill their heads with toxic nonsense about a stolen election.

So we can start with the differences there.

 

[Dirk the Daring]

He is not in office. Impeachment is to remove someone from office. Nothing could be plainer.

It’s also to forbid them from holding office ever again. Is it not?

That is a consequence of having been impeached twice, but the Constitution is crystal clear on what impeachment is (emphasis mine);

Article II, Section 4:

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

 

[Dirk the Daring]

What an idiotic comment.

If there had been no AIR, there would have been no riot. Therefore, AIR is responsible for the riot.

And you had TWO people give 'thanks' for such an idiotic comment. That's sad.

Well, air didn't invite thousands of people to DC and fill their heads with toxic nonsense about a stolen election.

So we can start with the differences there.

I know, let's ALSO indict the airline pilots, bus drivers, and cab drivers who enabled the rioters to GET TO the capitol! H3ll, why stop there? Let's ALSO indict the owners, CEOs, shareholders and any one who owns stock in those same companies! After all, if those companies GREEDY CORPORATIONS didn't exist, the rioters would have had no way of getting to the capitol!

 

[colfax_m]

He is not in office. Impeachment is to remove someone from office. Nothing could be plainer.

It’s also to forbid them from holding office ever again. Is it not?

That is a consequence of having been impeached twice, but the Constitution is crystal clear on what impeachment is (emphasis mine);

Article II, Section 4:

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

There's a bit more in Article 1 section 3:
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:

Removal from office is not the only effect of impeachment.

 

[Rambunctious]

Two failed impeachment attempts by a dem run house says more about the dems than it ever will about Trump...Trump broke no laws and incited nothing but American greatness...and that's what these anti American board members really fear...American greatness...MAGA

 

[Dirk the Daring]

He is not in office. Impeachment is to remove someone from office. Nothing could be plainer.

It’s also to forbid them from holding office ever again. Is it not?

That is a consequence of having been impeached twice, but the Constitution is crystal clear on what impeachment is (emphasis mine);

Article II, Section 4:

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

There's a bit more in Article 1 section 3:
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:

Removal from office is not the only effect of impeachment.

(emphasis mine)

EXACTLY as I said, a consequence of having been impeached

 

[colfax_m]

(emphasis mine)

EXACTLY as I said, a consequence of having been impeached

It is one, but not the only consequence and in the case of former officials, unnecessary.

 

[Dirk the Daring]

(emphasis mine)

EXACTLY as I said, a consequence of having been impeached

It is one, but not the only consequence and in the case of former officials, unnecessary.

Actually, I'm wrong, it's not even a direct consequence;

Judgment in Cases of Impeachment: Overview | Constitution Annotated | Congress.gov | Library of Congress

An annotation about Article I, Section 3, Clause 7 of the Constitution of the United States.

constitution.congress.gov

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.

The immediate effect of conviction upon an article of impeachment is removal from office,1 although the Senate may subsequently vote on whether the official shall be disqualified from again holding an office of public trust under the United States.2 If this latter option is pursued, a simple majority vote by the Senate is required.3 If not, an individual who has been impeached and removed may remain eligible to serve in an office in the future, including as a Member of Congress.4

 

[colfax_m]

Actually, I'm wrong, it's not even a direct consequence;

It's not a direct consequence, but it's a remedy available to Congress, which means impeachment of a former official is perfectly constitutional.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

He is not in office. Impeachment is to remove someone from office. Nothing could be plainer.

It’s also to forbid them from holding office ever again. Is it not?

That is a consequence of having been impeached twice, but the Constitution is crystal clear on what impeachment is (emphasis mine);

Article II, Section 4:

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

There's a bit more in Article 1 section 3:
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:

Removal from office is not the only effect of impeachment.

You need to look at the intent. Our Found Fathers NEVER met a Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin or Rump. In polite societies back then, these types of people were just locked up, shot or put out into the wilderness. There was never any facility made for a President losing an election and find so many slimeballs in congress to blindly follow him to an attempt at an armed insurrection and invasion of the Congress Facility.

 

[Devils_Advocate]

My evidence is simple and just listen to Mitch McConnell and he even believe Donald John Trump is guilty of his words that caused the insurrection on January 6th 2021...

 

[Devils_Advocate]

He is not in office. Impeachment is to remove someone from office. Nothing could be plainer.

It’s also to forbid them from holding office ever again. Is it not?

That is a consequence of having been impeached twice, but the Constitution is crystal clear on what impeachment is (emphasis mine);

Article II, Section 4:

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

There's a bit more in Article 1 section 3:
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:

Removal from office is not the only effect of impeachment.

You need to look at the intent. Our Found Fathers NEVER met a Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin or Rump. In polite societies back then, these types of people were just locked up, shot or put out into the wilderness. There was never any facility made for a President losing an election and find so many slimeballs in congress to blindly follow him to an attempt at an armed insurrection and invasion of the Congress Facility.

Napoleon says hello and remind you before all those there was him...

Look the Founding Fathers understood that the majority of citizens were dumb and ignorant and that is why they put the safeguards in place as they did...