Professor Dershowitz: Six ways the Democrat House violated the Constitution

BWK

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 20, 2018
Messages
16,033
Reaction score
3,613
Points
255
All-right! Now according to Dershowitz you can say anything you want even if it causes people to riot...There is now no limitations on speech and all terroristic threatening charges must be dismissed that are on file and being being processed in the USA.

There is evidence that the break in was pre- planned. Now if that is the case, how is it that Trumps speech caused a riot? I listened again to that speech and he was talking about being peaceful and standing outside the Capitol Building to cheer on Senators to cast the right vote.

Now if Trump simply protesting the election results is considered sparking a riot then a lot of Democrats should be held liable for deaths and injuries across the country when they supported "peaceful protests" including the one that marched on the White House and putting criminals back on the street during it all, without bail.
It wasn’t simply protesting election results when they stormed the Capitol. It was violent.


Did you read my post? Trump protested the election results. Trump did not storm the Capitol building or tell ANYONE else to do so.

Whoever it was who decided to storm the Capitol owns it and they are guilty themselves.
Like Pelosi herself said when it came to mobs acting badly "people are going to do what they are going to do"
Otherwise are you going to criminalize anyone who speaks out that they believe the election was stolen? Until there is an investigation there are no grounds to impeach Trump either. We all know this is the same group who wanted to find a way to impeach him the moment he was elected.
There is nothing impartial or objective about any of this right now.
I just think it’s weird that a thousand Trump supporters stormed the Capitol all at the same time despite each and everyone of them supposedly deciding to do so without anyone telling them they should do it.

It’s like, a pretty big coincidence.

Sometimes in a massive crowd, as in any demonstration, people will get caught up in the excitement and follow the person in front of them. I think this was a part of it, though its clear that people who brought zip ties and built some sort of gallows had previously thought this thing through.

If it was really a planned over throw by a larger group with any type of sophistication they would have had actual weapons.... like guns and completely took the place over. That didnt happen either.
They sure did, all the way to Pelosi's office and five people were killed.
 

Yarddog

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2014
Messages
11,484
Reaction score
4,031
Points
350
All-right! Now according to Dershowitz you can say anything you want even if it causes people to riot...There is now no limitations on speech and all terroristic threatening charges must be dismissed that are on file and being being processed in the USA.

There is evidence that the break in was pre- planned. Now if that is the case, how is it that Trumps speech caused a riot? I listened again to that speech and he was talking about being peaceful and standing outside the Capitol Building to cheer on Senators to cast the right vote.

Now if Trump simply protesting the election results is considered sparking a riot then a lot of Democrats should be held liable for deaths and injuries across the country when they supported "peaceful protests" including the one that marched on the White House and putting criminals back on the street during it all, without bail.
It wasn’t simply protesting election results when they stormed the Capitol. It was violent.


Did you read my post? Trump protested the election results. Trump did not storm the Capitol building or tell ANYONE else to do so.

Whoever it was who decided to storm the Capitol owns it and they are guilty themselves.
Like Pelosi herself said when it came to mobs acting badly "people are going to do what they are going to do"
Otherwise are you going to criminalize anyone who speaks out that they believe the election was stolen? Until there is an investigation there are no grounds to impeach Trump either. We all know this is the same group who wanted to find a way to impeach him the moment he was elected.
There is nothing impartial or objective about any of this right now.
Oh yes he did. Ask his supporters who are in jail. They said it was under his direction. The play by play by Don Jr. is all the evidence you need; US Capitol riots: Footage of the Trumps celebrating at rally before riots - NZ Herald

OMG what a crock. What evidence is that video supposed to be? are you joking? They were celebrating the turnout.You could clearly see that on their screen in the tent. "go fight" when used in political terms especialy in D.C. is used ALL THE TIME. All the time! its got nothing to do with promoting a riot. Show some evidence or you got nothing.

They were celebrating before the March so they all thought. Not the break in to the Capitol. Prove by your video that they knew there was going to be a pre-meditated break in of the Capitol.

Furthermore supposing somehow Trump was behind a premeditated break in of the Capitol building... what practical purpose would that serve him? Trump was always seeking a legal remedy to what he saw as corrupt election practices.
Those States in question changed their election procedures without input from their state legislatures. That is a constitutional violation and Trump has every right to protest that without being called for sedition or making a coup attempt. This is pretty ridiculous but it is the Democrats here we are talking about.
:auiqs.jpg: :auiqs.jpg: :auiqs.jpg: Celebrating the turnout? Wow, now that's the best lie of the day. Didn't you hear what pussy ass Jr. was saying? T minus a few seconds, while watching them storm the capitol you lying ass moron. Awesome patriots sick of the bs Jr. said. We heard fight, combat, don't concede, kick ass and take names, etc. That's not celebrating a turn out.

Again, complete bullshit from YOU. Show where they were talking about Breaking into the capitol building. The March was just about to take place. Thats why people were there . For a political march you fucking moron. the fact that someone else from the hundreds of thousands of people decided to break the law and overpower capitol police had nothing to do with what the March was all about. Listen to Trumps damn speech again and find the place where it says to break into the Capitol.

So Trump decided to throw a coup attempt using some wire ties and some thugs with clubs huh?? big elaborate plan huh? Don't be a complete sheep and moron. Use your brain and any logic that you might posses.
 
OP
Ray From Cleveland

Ray From Cleveland

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
Messages
69,071
Reaction score
17,237
Points
2,290
Sometimes in a massive crowd, as in any demonstration, people will get caught up in the excitement and follow the person in front of them. I think this was a part of it, though its clear that people who brought zip ties and built some sort of gallows had previously thought this thing through.

If it was really a planned over throw by a larger group with any type of sophistication they would have had actual weapons.... like guns and completely took the place over. That didnt happen either.
I guess they think that after Trump made his speech, they went back to their vehicles and made all those pipe bombs they found in the area.
 
OP
Ray From Cleveland

Ray From Cleveland

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
Messages
69,071
Reaction score
17,237
Points
2,290
I just think it’s weird that a thousand Trump supporters stormed the Capitol all at the same time despite each and everyone of them supposedly deciding to do so without anyone telling them they should do it.

It’s like, a pretty big coincidence.
When people are pissed off enough, all it takes is a few to start something and others follow.
 

MadDog

Platinum Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2009
Messages
800
Reaction score
426
Points
908
“We all hear that the president is not above the law, but Congress is not above the law: When Congress impeached the president earlier this week, they committed six independent violations of the Constitution,” Dershowitz said on “Saturday Report.”

“First, it violated the First Amendment, which prohibits the government from abridging free speech. By impeaching Trump for free speech that was protected by the unanimous Supreme Court decision in the case of Brandenburg versus Ohio, the First Amendment was violated.”


“Second, the House violated the substantive impeachment criteria in the Constitution, which limits impeachment to ‘treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.’ It cannot be a high crime or misdemeanor for a president to deliver remarks protected by the Constitution.

If Congress can pass no law abridging free speech, then it certainly cannot pass one impeachment resolution abridging free speech of a president.”


“Third, it violated due process by giving the president and his legal team no opportunity to present a defense or to formally challenge the articles of impeachment.”


“Fourth, by trying to put Trump on trial in the Senate after he leaves office, the House violated the provision that allows Congress to remove a sitting president [emphasis added] and, only if the Senate decides to remove him by a vote, could it add the sanction of future disbarment from running for office.

Congress has no authority over any president once he leaves office. If Congress had the power to impeach a private citizen to prevent him from running in the future, it could claim jurisdiction over millions of Americans eligible to be candidates for president in 2024.

This would be a dangerous reading of the Constitution that would allow the party in Control of Congress to impeach a popular candidate and preclude him from running.”


“Fifth, if the Senate were to conduct a trial of a private citizen, including a former president, then it would violate both the spirt and the letter of the prohibition against bills of attainder.

In Great Britain, Parliament had the authority to try kings, other officials and private citizens. The Framers of the Constitution rejected that power of Congress and also limited its trial jurisdiction to impeaching government officials only while they served in office and could be removed.

To conduct a show trial of a past president would be in violation of the prohibition against bills of attainder.”


“Sixth, Congress voted in favor of a resolution calling on [then] Vice President Mike Pence to violate the 25th Amendment of the Constitution by falsely declaring that Trump is unable to continue to perform his duties.

It is clear that the Framers of the 25th Amendment had intended it to apply on to presidents disrupted by physical illnesses, such as a stroke or by obvious mental incapacity, such as advanced Alzheimer’s, or by being unconscious after having been shot.

To call on the vice president to improperly invoke the 25th Amendment was to act in violation of the Constitution.”




You'll have to on the click on the link to see the various comments of what the Professor said, but two I'd like to point out: One is that Dershoitz is correct. If they can impeach a private citizen which would stop anybody they targeted from running for the office of the presidency, then the Democrats could impeach any threatening contender from running against such a misfit like Joe Biden. And don't say Democrats would never do such a thing because these power hungry SOB"s will do anything they can get away with. Secondly is the fact that the reason Trump couldn't mass deport illegals in the country is because our law allows those invaders the right to defend themselves from such actions. So how is it invaders get the right of defense and a US President doesn't?

The congressional oath of office:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God."

Nancy Piglosi without a doubt violated her oath of office, and she should be removed.
If Dershowitz is right, why doesn’t Trump just file suit to SCOTUS to stop the trial?
 

WEATHER53

Platinum Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2017
Messages
11,553
Reaction score
3,671
Points
360
They are vengeful out of control children who failing to have all other tantrums recognized and failing to get the Supreme Court to give them candy either are now going to create their very own special Kangaroo Court and UnPresident the past President by “impeaching” him .
 

MadDog

Platinum Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2009
Messages
800
Reaction score
426
Points
908
There is evidence that the break in was pre- planned. Now if that is the case, how is it that Trumps speech caused a riot? I listened again to that speech and he was talking about being peaceful and standing outside the Capitol Building to cheer on Senators to cast the right vote.
Not saying he’s solely responsible. But he invited them to DC. He urge the people to fight and take back the country WHILE his supports were “Take the Capitol”. “storm the Capitol”. People were calling for violence and he told them to march on the Capitol. And he was celebrating during part of the riot - couldnt understand why nobody on his staff was excited.
 

MadDog

Platinum Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2009
Messages
800
Reaction score
426
Points
908
So freedom of speech doesn't exist in the Constitution in your leftist world?
Freedom of speech isn’t absolute! As with pretty much everything in the Constitution, there are limits.

Inciting to riot is not protected speech. It will be up to the trial to determine if Trump rose to the level of incitement. It’s a close call.
 
OP
Ray From Cleveland

Ray From Cleveland

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
Messages
69,071
Reaction score
17,237
Points
2,290
It will be once they testify. I've heard them myself that they went there under his direction to storm the Capitol. That's what they understood, it's what I understand, and it's what Don Jr. understood. He was giving us the play by play; US Capitol riots: Footage of the Trumps celebrating at rally before riots - NZ Herald
You did? Then why don't you show us the video of what you seen? The video you posted is meaningless and offers nothing to any of your claims. That aside, WTF does Trump JR have to do with what Donald said? He was talking to a video camera, not a public.

As to your claim the rioters said they were only obeying Donald Trump, what happened if there was no riot? Would you be okay with Trump giving a speech? Because if people assume something another person said when they really didn't say it, and that other person is penalized for it, WTF kind of justice system is that? If that's the case, then nobody will be allowed to say anything that may result in somebody being hurt or killed.

Now as an anti-constitution leftists, I'm sure nothing would make you more happy. But remember that goes both ways. Think of what Sanders' said that may have led to the baseball field shooting. Think of what Waters said when she instructed people to accost anybody from team Trump. Think of what Shoemaker said about Kavanugh at his rally. If you think Trump should have been silenced, where were you when these commies were making more caustic remarks than Trump did?
 

BS Filter

Platinum Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2018
Messages
16,307
Reaction score
5,912
Points
360
All-right! Now according to Dershowitz you can say anything you want even if it causes people to riot...There is now no limitations on speech and all terroristic threatening charges must be dismissed that are on file and being being processed in the USA.
Go hang yourself. If words caused people to riot, let's see if my words will cause you to hang yourself.
 
OP
Ray From Cleveland

Ray From Cleveland

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
Messages
69,071
Reaction score
17,237
Points
2,290
Freedom of speech isn’t absolute! As with pretty much everything in the Constitution, there are limits.

Inciting to riot is not protected speech. It will be up to the trial to determine if Trump rose to the level of incitement. It’s a close call.
Never happen in your wildest dreams. Five RINO's and TDS Republicans voted against Trump today, you're not going to get anymore of them, and in fact, in the final vote, probably less after their constituents voice their anger.

Now if Trump actually did incite a riot, show me how he did that. Because no matter how many times I ask, none of you leftists can show me anywhere in Trump's speech where he told people to act uncivilized, break the laws, attack the Capital building. He said "We are going to march to the Capital peacefully and patriotically."

And please, don't provide me generic terms that could mean a number of things, because before the commies came along, we were a country where empirical evidence was need to assume guilt.
 
OP
Ray From Cleveland

Ray From Cleveland

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
Messages
69,071
Reaction score
17,237
Points
2,290
If Dershowitz is right, why doesn’t Trump just file suit to SCOTUS to stop the trial?
Nobody can file a suit for constitutional violations until they can prove damage for one doing so. Secondly, if you read the OP, Dershowitz clearly states there is no retribution for federal leaders as they are protected in their positions.
 

BWK

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 20, 2018
Messages
16,033
Reaction score
3,613
Points
255
It will be once they testify. I've heard them myself that they went there under his direction to storm the Capitol. That's what they understood, it's what I understand, and it's what Don Jr. understood. He was giving us the play by play; US Capitol riots: Footage of the Trumps celebrating at rally before riots - NZ Herald
You did? Then why don't you show us the video of what you seen? The video you posted is meaningless and offers nothing to any of your claims. That aside, WTF does Trump JR have to do with what Donald said? He was talking to a video camera, not a public.

As to your claim the rioters said they were only obeying Donald Trump, what happened if there was no riot? Would you be okay with Trump giving a speech? Because if people assume something another person said when they really didn't say it, and that other person is penalized for it, WTF kind of justice system is that? If that's the case, then nobody will be allowed to say anything that may result in somebody being hurt or killed.

Now as an anti-constitution leftists, I'm sure nothing would make you more happy. But remember that goes both ways. Think of what Sanders' said that may have led to the baseball field shooting. Think of what Waters said when she instructed people to accost anybody from team Trump. Think of what Shoemaker said about Kavanugh at his rally. If you think Trump should have been silenced, where were you when these commies were making more caustic remarks than Trump did?
I saw the video of Trump, Jr, Mo Brooks, Tommy Tuberville, and Giuliani all sending the same message.

PolitiFact - A timeline of what Trump said before Jan. 6 Capitol riot You tell Trumps Sheep for weeks all this garbage, what could possibly go wrong?
 
OP
Ray From Cleveland

Ray From Cleveland

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
Messages
69,071
Reaction score
17,237
Points
2,290
I saw the video of Trump, Jr, Mo Brooks, Tommy Tuberville, and Giuliani all sending the same message.

PolitiFact - A timeline of what Trump said before Jan. 6 Capitol riot You tell Trumps Sheep for weeks all this garbage, what could possibly go wrong?
And what they did had nothing to do with a riot, or are you going to claim they are all responsible now?

What you myopic leftists don't understand is how your insanity is viewed on by normal people.

* Trump is responsible for the riots in leftist cities by leftists because a police officer in a leftist city had a suspect die in his custody.
* Trump is responsible for California wild fires.
* Trump is responsible for a worldwide virus out of China.
* Citizen Trump is responsible for Russia running ads on Facebook and the DNC getting hacked under the leadership of Obama.
* Trump is responsible for people attacking the Capital building when he said nothing of the sort.
 

jackflash

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 18, 2020
Messages
1,344
Reaction score
1,053
Points
1,908
Location
USA
“We all hear that the president is not above the law, but Congress is not above the law: When Congress impeached the president earlier this week, they committed six independent violations of the Constitution,” Dershowitz said on “Saturday Report.”

“First, it violated the First Amendment, which prohibits the government from abridging free speech. By impeaching Trump for free speech that was protected by the unanimous Supreme Court decision in the case of Brandenburg versus Ohio, the First Amendment was violated.”


“Second, the House violated the substantive impeachment criteria in the Constitution, which limits impeachment to ‘treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.’ It cannot be a high crime or misdemeanor for a president to deliver remarks protected by the Constitution.

If Congress can pass no law abridging free speech, then it certainly cannot pass one impeachment resolution abridging free speech of a president.”


“Third, it violated due process by giving the president and his legal team no opportunity to present a defense or to formally challenge the articles of impeachment.”


“Fourth, by trying to put Trump on trial in the Senate after he leaves office, the House violated the provision that allows Congress to remove a sitting president [emphasis added] and, only if the Senate decides to remove him by a vote, could it add the sanction of future disbarment from running for office.

Congress has no authority over any president once he leaves office. If Congress had the power to impeach a private citizen to prevent him from running in the future, it could claim jurisdiction over millions of Americans eligible to be candidates for president in 2024.

This would be a dangerous reading of the Constitution that would allow the party in Control of Congress to impeach a popular candidate and preclude him from running.”


“Fifth, if the Senate were to conduct a trial of a private citizen, including a former president, then it would violate both the spirt and the letter of the prohibition against bills of attainder.

In Great Britain, Parliament had the authority to try kings, other officials and private citizens. The Framers of the Constitution rejected that power of Congress and also limited its trial jurisdiction to impeaching government officials only while they served in office and could be removed.

To conduct a show trial of a past president would be in violation of the prohibition against bills of attainder.”


“Sixth, Congress voted in favor of a resolution calling on [then] Vice President Mike Pence to violate the 25th Amendment of the Constitution by falsely declaring that Trump is unable to continue to perform his duties.

It is clear that the Framers of the 25th Amendment had intended it to apply on to presidents disrupted by physical illnesses, such as a stroke or by obvious mental incapacity, such as advanced Alzheimer’s, or by being unconscious after having been shot.

To call on the vice president to improperly invoke the 25th Amendment was to act in violation of the Constitution.”




You'll have to on the click on the link to see the various comments of what the Professor said, but two I'd like to point out: One is that Dershoitz is correct. If they can impeach a private citizen which would stop anybody they targeted from running for the office of the presidency, then the Democrats could impeach any threatening contender from running against such a misfit like Joe Biden. And don't say Democrats would never do such a thing because these power hungry SOB"s will do anything they can get away with. Secondly is the fact that the reason Trump couldn't mass deport illegals in the country is because our law allows those invaders the right to defend themselves from such actions. So how is it invaders get the right of defense and a US President doesn't?

The congressional oath of office:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God."

Nancy Piglosi without a doubt violated her oath of office, and she should be removed.
My son is an attorney(needless to say he is my attorney as well) & in our weekly discussions we discuss various legal topics from being stopped & arrested by an officer of the law to contract law, & from business law to constitutional law & about anything & everything in-between except for maritime law/international law. When I asked my son about what he thought about prez Trumps 2nd impeachment he replied back to me & I quote; "There was no due process of law so this latest impeachment of Trump is totally invalidated". I looked @ him & said, "is that all?" He replied back immediately & SHARPLY as he said "Is that all? Dad, what do you mean is that all?" I simply replied with: "No other laws broken?" He quickly informed me that with no due process there is no law @ all, as with no due process all law is replaced with a mob mentality(might is right) which he related to vigilantism(more than once!).
 

wamose

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 15, 2019
Messages
7,479
Reaction score
6,933
Points
2,015
Location
Pennsylvania
This bullshit impeachment shows terrible judgement on the part of everyone who voted for it. Support for this impeachment is definitely a sign that the person isn't qualified to serve in government.
 

colfax_m

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 18, 2019
Messages
22,838
Reaction score
7,300
Points
265
When people are pissed off enough, all it takes is a few to start something and others follow.
True. And there was Trump encouraging their anger over and over again. Not just on the 6th but for weeks and months.
 

Care4all

Warrior Princess
Joined
Mar 24, 2007
Messages
57,455
Reaction score
15,777
Points
2,220
Location
Maine
“We all hear that the president is not above the law, but Congress is not above the law: When Congress impeached the president earlier this week, they committed six independent violations of the Constitution,” Dershowitz said on “Saturday Report.”

“First, it violated the First Amendment, which prohibits the government from abridging free speech. By impeaching Trump for free speech that was protected by the unanimous Supreme Court decision in the case of Brandenburg versus Ohio, the First Amendment was violated.”


“Second, the House violated the substantive impeachment criteria in the Constitution, which limits impeachment to ‘treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.’ It cannot be a high crime or misdemeanor for a president to deliver remarks protected by the Constitution.

If Congress can pass no law abridging free speech, then it certainly cannot pass one impeachment resolution abridging free speech of a president.”


“Third, it violated due process by giving the president and his legal team no opportunity to present a defense or to formally challenge the articles of impeachment.”


“Fourth, by trying to put Trump on trial in the Senate after he leaves office, the House violated the provision that allows Congress to remove a sitting president [emphasis added] and, only if the Senate decides to remove him by a vote, could it add the sanction of future disbarment from running for office.

Congress has no authority over any president once he leaves office. If Congress had the power to impeach a private citizen to prevent him from running in the future, it could claim jurisdiction over millions of Americans eligible to be candidates for president in 2024.

This would be a dangerous reading of the Constitution that would allow the party in Control of Congress to impeach a popular candidate and preclude him from running.”


“Fifth, if the Senate were to conduct a trial of a private citizen, including a former president, then it would violate both the spirt and the letter of the prohibition against bills of attainder.

In Great Britain, Parliament had the authority to try kings, other officials and private citizens. The Framers of the Constitution rejected that power of Congress and also limited its trial jurisdiction to impeaching government officials only while they served in office and could be removed.

To conduct a show trial of a past president would be in violation of the prohibition against bills of attainder.”


“Sixth, Congress voted in favor of a resolution calling on [then] Vice President Mike Pence to violate the 25th Amendment of the Constitution by falsely declaring that Trump is unable to continue to perform his duties.

It is clear that the Framers of the 25th Amendment had intended it to apply on to presidents disrupted by physical illnesses, such as a stroke or by obvious mental incapacity, such as advanced Alzheimer’s, or by being unconscious after having been shot.

To call on the vice president to improperly invoke the 25th Amendment was to act in violation of the Constitution.”




You'll have to on the click on the link to see the various comments of what the Professor said, but two I'd like to point out: One is that Dershoitz is correct. If they can impeach a private citizen which would stop anybody they targeted from running for the office of the presidency, then the Democrats could impeach any threatening contender from running against such a misfit like Joe Biden. And don't say Democrats would never do such a thing because these power hungry SOB"s will do anything they can get away with. Secondly is the fact that the reason Trump couldn't mass deport illegals in the country is because our law allows those invaders the right to defend themselves from such actions. So how is it invaders get the right of defense and a US President doesn't?

The congressional oath of office:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God."

Nancy Piglosi without a doubt violated her oath of office, and she should be removed.
My son is an attorney(needless to say he is my attorney as well) & in our weekly discussions we discuss various legal topics from being stopped & arrested by an officer of the law to contract law, & from business law to constitutional law & about anything & everything in-between except for maritime law/international law. When I asked my son about what he thought about prez Trumps 2nd impeachment he replied back to me & I quote; "There was no due process of law so this latest impeachment of Trump is totally invalidated". I looked @ him & said, "is that all?" He replied back immediately & SHARPLY as he said "Is that all? Dad, what do you mean is that all?" I simply replied with: "No other laws broken?" He quickly informed me that with no due process there is no law @ all, as with no due process all law is replaced with a mob mentality(might is right) which he related to vigilantism(more than once!).
I agree with your son, if this were a criminal proceeding, but Impeachment is a Political proceeding, no one convicted can be stripped of their freedom and imprisoned, where the Constitution does give free reigns for Congress to decide when and how to impeach, with just a majority...

But, the constitution then gives restraints.... and due process and protections, when on trial in the Senate ....where it takes 2/3s of the Senators, to Convict.

Please ask your son, about that.... I'd love to hear his answer... ty.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top