Professor Dershowitz: Six ways the Democrat House violated the Constitution

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

But impeachment is based on criminal activity. It's a penalty for a President who commits the acts of bribery, high crimes, or misdemeanors.

When they impeach somebody, what they are doing is going against the will of the majority that elected that person. Therefore it has to be pretty serious to remove a President that people chose through our electoral process. Now the commies are using it as a political tool to make sure a strong opponent doesn't run against them in the future. Our founders never intended impeachment to be used this way.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

True. And there was Trump encouraging their anger over and over again. Not just on the 6th but for weeks and months.

Many politicians do, but they can't be held responsible for the actions of criminals unless they gave them a direct order to attack. It violates the first amendment repeatedly. Again, what the Democrats have said in the past was much worse than what Trump has said. Nobody held them accountable.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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!).

When people get into politics (especially on the Democrat side) you have to work your way up. You start out small, work your way to Governor or Congress, scratch a lot of backs, do a lot of favors, get a lot of favors done for you, and it's like a private club. Yes, they bicker and fight, but much of it is theater for the public. The highest office in the land is a dream most of those politicians would love to have.

Trump was never a member of that club, nor was he invited. He didn't work his way up. He just busted down the doors to the club and took the highest seat in the place. Many (including some Republicans) didn't like that very much.

Their dictatorial proceedings against Trump is not only a message to him, but a message to any potential outsider that may try to do what Trump did. You just don't do that here. You are in my town breathing my air. You pay your dues or you don't come.

You should send your son the link in the OP and see what he says about Professor Dershowitz's opinion.

 

[colfax_m]

True. And there was Trump encouraging their anger over and over again. Not just on the 6th but for weeks and months.

Many politicians do, but they can't be held responsible for the actions of criminals unless they gave them a direct order to attack. It violates the first amendment repeatedly. Again, what the Democrats have said in the past was much worse than what Trump has said. Nobody held them accountable.

Who was the last politician that gave a speech that lead directly to a riot on their behalf?

 

[DrLove]

And with that, good ol' Dirty Dersh solidifies his position as the Trumpiest Constitutional Law Professor in the country!

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Who was the last politician that gave a speech that lead directly to a riot on their behalf?

What difference does it make? First of all, there is no evidence that what Trump said miles away had anything to do with the riot. In fact most evidence points to the riot had nothing to do with Trump's speech. Of course now that you on the left are aware of this, your claim now is what Trump has said in other venues. Okay, so let's address my earlier comparison:

I'm talking with a guy at the bar. I tell him I really need the money and would do just about anything to get it. The other guy at the bar goes out and robs a bank for me so he cold give me the money I need. The cops know exactly who he is and picks him up. Do they come and arrest me because they believe it's my words that led him to do the crime? I said something and he took it the wrong way. They don't go after me, they arrest and charge him.

Did the Republicans hold Bernie Sanders responsible for what one of his followers did at that baseball field? Of course not because Republicans respect freedom of speech and have dignity. Not only did nothing happen to Sanders, but he was allowed to run for President again, and in his campaign repeatedly said Trump was a racist. In spite of the shooting that almost killed a man, his words during his second run were even more caustic.

Look at the riot that took place at the Supreme Court after the commies created this rape story. Were any Democrats held responsible for that? The only reason it didn't turn out like the Capital is because they couldn't get through the doors.

Bottom line is this: either we are allowed to use abrasive words and phrases or we are not. Our founders said we are, and wrote an amendment to protect us from retaliation if we do. When Trump spoke, when Sander's spoke, when Schumer spoke, none of them could have known how others might respond. Waters actually instructed her followers to accost anybody related to Trump in any and every public place.

 

[colfax_m]

What difference does it make?

A LOT.
Temporal relationship is quite important to establishing causality.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

A LOT.
Temporal relationship is quite important to establishing causality.

I see, so what you are saying is a person can say incendiary things as long as some people don't take it the wrong way and commit crimes, but if they do, then the person who said those things is responsible for their actions? Okay, then how does one know if people will take their words the wrong way?

 

[colfax_m]

I see, so what you are saying is a person can say incendiary things as long as some people don't take it the wrong way and commit crimes, but if they do, then the person who said those things is responsible for their actions? Okay, then how does one know if people will take their words the wrong way?

It’d be hard to convict someone or inciting a riot of the riot never happened.

It’s a judgement as to whether someone should have known that their rhetoric would inspire acts of violence. “Take it the wrong way” is an attempt to weasel out of responsibility and can be claimed or anyone who inspires violence.

Anyone could claim they were speaking metaphorically.

 

[Care4all]

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.

But impeachment is based on criminal activity. It's a penalty for a President who commits the acts of bribery, high crimes, or misdemeanors.

When they impeach somebody, what they are doing is going against the will of the majority that elected that person. Therefore it has to be pretty serious to remove a President that people chose through our electoral process. Now the commies are using it as a political tool to make sure a strong opponent doesn't run against them in the future. Our founders never intended impeachment to be used this way.

It doesn't have to be a crime under criminal code, it just has to be a major abuse of power, or a major incident that brings distrust in our public office holder, or that they failed to abide by their oath of office, or ignored the constitution.

Jan 6ths planned revolt and insurrection and his handling, meets those requirements imo....

If not that, then what?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

It doesn't have to be a crime under criminal code, it just has to be a major abuse of power, or a major incident that brings distrust in our public office holder, or that they failed to abide by their oath of office, or ignored the constitution.

Jan 6ths planned revolt and insurrection and his handling, meets those requirements imo....

Really? I can check my Constitution but I don't recall it saying about distrust in public office or abuse of power. It says bribery, high crimes, or misdemeanors.

How is a planned insurrection Trump's fault?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

It’d be hard to convict someone or inciting a riot of the riot never happened.

It’s a judgement as to whether someone should have known that their rhetoric would inspire acts of violence. “Take it the wrong way” is an attempt to weasel out of responsibility and can be claimed or anyone who inspires violence.

Anyone could claim they were speaking metaphorically.

You totally avoided the question. Trump spoke no differently than many Democrats do all the time, yet only Trump is to be held responsible for how others took his words and not the Democrats?

'Folks, Democrats have two sets of rules: One set for them, and another set for the rest of us."
Rush Limbaugh

 

[colfax_m]

You totally avoided the question. Trump spoke no differently than many Democrats do all the time, yet only Trump is to be held responsible for how others took his words and not the Democrats?

Something was different because the outcome was a riot for Trump.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Something was different because the outcome was a riot for Trump.

It doesn't change anything. Again, you avoided the question: Is incendiary speech permitted or is it not? You can't say it's not if it leads to violence because when people speak, they have no idea if it will lead to violence or not. If you say they should be allowed to speak freely, then this is yet a second scam impeachment and totally unconstitutional.

 

[colfax_m]

Something was different because the outcome was a riot for Trump.

It doesn't change anything. Again, you avoided the question: Is incendiary speech permitted or is it not? You can't say it's not if it leads to violence because when people speak, they have no idea if it will lead to violence or not. If you say they should be allowed to speak freely, then this is yet a second scam impeachment and totally unconstitutional.

It absolutely does. Proving cause and effect is much easier when the cause immediately precedes the effect.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

It absolutely does. Proving cause and effect is much easier when the cause immediately precedes the effect.

Fine, then what you are saying is you don't believe in our constitutional right to free speech, is that correct? Because free speech is all speech. I mean, if we all only used speech that everybody agreed with, then there would be no need for a free speech right. The right to free speech also means any speech you disagree with or even hate.

 

[colfax_m]

Fine, then what you are saying is you don't believe in our constitutional right to free speech, is that correct?

I see. So are you now arguing against the constitutionality of laws against inciting a riot?

 

[WEATHER53]

This might just be easy enough for the revenge addled
In order to impeach a President he has to Be a President.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I see. So are you now arguing against the constitutionality of laws against inciting a riot?

No, I'm arguing the right of free speech. It's speculation what caused the riot, and we also know it was planned and not reactionary to Trump's speech. In other words from this point on, any representative that uses similar or harsher language than Trump should be thrown out of office. Why wait until there is a riot to make the case?

 

[daveman]

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.

But impeachment is based on criminal activity. It's a penalty for a President who commits the acts of bribery, high crimes, or misdemeanors.

When they impeach somebody, what they are doing is going against the will of the majority that elected that person. Therefore it has to be pretty serious to remove a President that people chose through our electoral process. Now the commies are using it as a political tool to make sure a strong opponent doesn't run against them in the future. Our founders never intended impeachment to be used this way.

It doesn't have to be a crime under criminal code, it just has to be a major abuse of power, or a major incident that brings distrust in our public office holder, or that they failed to abide by their oath of office, or ignored the constitution.

Jan 6ths planned revolt and insurrection and his handling, meets those requirements imo....

If not that, then what?

Who planned it? Trump?

Hint: No.