". . .Rioters Entered The Capitol. . .Wrought Unprecedented Havoc, Mayhem, And Death!" Trumped Up-Defense, Stipulated!

[mascale]

So Moving On: "What Did They Know, And When Did They Know It!"

Read: Former President Donald Trump's defense team's legal brief

In a pretrial brief ahead of former President Donald Trump's impeachment trial in the Senate, Trump's legal team accused House Democrats of engaging in "political theater" and argued that the upcoming trial is unconstitutional because Trump is no longer president.

www.cnn.com

Everything else goes to pattern and behavior.

So for a good time, start with page 2, in the link!

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(Stipulated, prayerful: Tends not to be regarded a winning strategy--going back Millennia: Matt 25: 14-30!)

 

[ColonelAngus]

I almost died in Orlando. It was an insurrection.

This guy was the President for an hour.

 

[kyzr]

1. The 2nd impeachment is unconstitutional, all we'd need to do is ask the USSC.
2. Trump's 1/6/21 speech had nothing illegal or prosecutable, i.e. no indictable crime, just ask the DOJ.
3. Did the democrats have time to clean their soiled pants yet?
4. Trump will be acquitted twice for two non-crime impeachments
5. I hope the trial lasts two years.

 

[ColonelAngus]

1. The 2nd impeachment is unconstitutional, all we'd need to do is ask the USSC.
2. Trump's 1/6/21 speech had nothing illegal or prosecutable, i.e. no indictable crime, just ask the DOJ.
3. Did the democrats have time to clean their soiled pants yet?
4. Trump will be acquitted twice for two non-crime impeachments
5. I hope the trial lasts two years.

Id like 75 million witnesses.

 

[mascale]

Illiterate as usual poster, kyzr: Claims that the Supreme Court, and not the Senate, conducts Impeachment trials. That is nowhere in any wording.

The question of the OP: "What did they know, and When did they know it," commences subsequent November 3 and goes on until Jan 6. Head Rito-Inciter-In-Charge was ranting and inciting in sufficiency so as to create a belief of the storming troopers that they were acting under a Presidential Directive!

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(Stipulated, prayerful: Tends not to be regarded a winning strategy--going back Millennia: Matt 25: 14-30!)

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

The Democrats have lost all credibility with any reasonable people.
The gears in the Progressive Propaganda Mill are making loud clanking noises.

 

[kyzr]

LOL!! You still won't say what shithole country you're from, so no wonder you can't understand my posts.

1. I did not say that the USSC conducts the impeachment trial, duh.
2. The USSC is the ultimate interpreter of the US Constitution, what they say is constitutional or unconstitutional is final.
3. Can the US senate hold a trial to "impeach" a private citizen? That is the constitutional question.
4. The question of incitement is a legal question, DOJ lawyers say Trump said nothing prosecutable.
5. The democrats want to put on a show trial, so let them have their fun, then Republicans will vote for acquittal.
6. Its all Kabuki theater.

I know you won't understand my post, So what shithole country are you from?????

 

[mascale]

Czarist poster, illiterate kyzr: Even posts that the illiteracy wasn't even posted(?)! Going back decades and centuries, the actual U.S. interpretation is that the trial of an impeachment is not subject to judicial review, and even recently affirmed.
____________________

Tt was long assumed that no judicial review of the impeachment process was possible, that impeachment presents a true “political question” case, i. e. , that the Constitution’s conferral on the Senate of the “sole” power to try impeachments is a textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of trial procedures to the Senate to decide without court review. That assumption was not contested until very recently, when Judges Nixon and Hastings challenged their Senate convictions.907

In the Judge Nixon case, the Court held that a claim to judicial review of an issue arising in an impeachment trial in the Senate presents a nonjusticiable “political question.”908 Specifically, the Court rejected a claim that the Senate had departed from the meaning of the word “try” in the impeachment clause by relying on a special committee to take evidence, including testimony. But the Court’s “political question” analysis has broader application, and appears to place the whole impeachment process off limits to judicial review.
___________________
"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(Stipulated, prayerful: Tends not to be regarded a winning strategy--going back Millennia: Matt 25: 14-30!)

 

[kyzr]

Czarist poster, illiterate kyzr: Even posts that the illiteracy wasn't even posted(?)! Going back decades and centuries, the actual U.S. interpretation is that the trial of an impeachment is not subject to judicial review, and even recently affirmed.
____________________

Tt was long assumed that no judicial review of the impeachment process was possible, that impeachment presents a true “political question” case, i. e. , that the Constitution’s conferral on the Senate of the “sole” power to try impeachments is a textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of trial procedures to the Senate to decide without court review. That assumption was not contested until very recently, when Judges Nixon and Hastings challenged their Senate convictions.907

In the Judge Nixon case, the Court held that a claim to judicial review of an issue arising in an impeachment trial in the Senate presents a nonjusticiable “political question.”908 Specifically, the Court rejected a claim that the Senate had departed from the meaning of the word “try” in the impeachment clause by relying on a special committee to take evidence, including testimony. But the Court’s “political question” analysis has broader application, and appears to place the whole impeachment process off limits to judicial review.
___________________
"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(Stipulated, prayerful: Tends not to be regarded a winning strategy--going back Millennia: Matt 25: 14-30!)

An "impeachment", a real one, is to remove a sitting president from office. That is what it is, it is NOT putting a private citizen on trial in the US senate, for a non-crime show trial. The "punishment" for being convicted in the senate is "removal from office", then after that the senate can bar him from future office. That's it, no prison time, just removal from office. Trump is NOT in office, so how the fuck can he be removed? (hint: he can't)

The USSC cannot review the senate's verdict of a real impeachment of a sitting president, but they sure as hell can rule if the senate's kangaroo court is constitutional or not.
1. The senate's "sole power to try" is for a sitting president. That's why chief justice Roberts said he will NOT preside at this kangaroo court. Because its unconstitutional. Otherwise why isn't he presiding?

2. The Constitution says what the USSC says it says, period. If the USSC takes the case, their verdict is FINAL. There is no other legal "interpreter" of the Constitution.

3. What shithole country are you from?

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. The 2nd impeachment is unconstitutional, all we'd need to do is ask the USSC.
2. Trump's 1/6/21 speech had nothing illegal or prosecutable, i.e. no indictable crime, just ask the DOJ.
3. Did the democrats have time to clean their soiled pants yet?
4. Trump will be acquitted twice for two non-crime impeachments
5. I hope the trial lasts two years.

The fear of Trump running again is palpable.


That is the reason for continuing this charade.

 

[Oddball]

Rioters Entered The Capitol. . .Wrought Unprecedented Havoc, Mayhem, And Death!


That was Madison, Wisconsin, in 2011.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Rioters Entered The Capitol. . .Wrought Unprecedented Havoc, Mayhem, And Death!


That was Madison, Wisconsin, in 2011.

And one more.

. Completely ignored behind the pretense that this was an insurrection, a rebellion, an attack on democracy itself, was the real such attack on America: The three day siege of the White House in May of 2020, occupation of Lafayette Park, and the burning of the historic St. John's Church.



“More than 60 Secret Service officers and special agents sustained multiple injuries in three days worth of violent clashes stemming from protests demanding justice for George Floyd in Washington, D.C.



The uprisings overflowed from Lafayette Park and continued near the White House on Saturday night and early into Sunday morning. Protesters in the area had taken to the streets since Friday to condemn police brutality.”

At least 60 Secret Service members injured during George Floyd protests in DC



“St. John's Church Near White House Set on Fire ….fire crews were able to get to the scene to save the historic structure where every president since James Madison has attendended services,…” St. John's Church Near White House Set on Fire