Serious Question

[White 6]

Where does the Senate get the jurisdiction to put a private citizen on trial? From what I can find only the Article 3 courts have that authority.

Your thoughts?

.

Not surprising at all, as it goes along with:
Supreme Court: Retirees Can Be Court-Martialed for Crimes Committed After Service
You ain't free and clear, with the piper paid, by getting out just in time.

So you believe committed a crime after he was President? Didn't the Capitol protest happen before Biden was allegedly sworn in? What crime is he accused of committing? Can Congress impeach a private citizen? Crazy.

Most experts agree. It is happening. You are in for another reality check. The question is not whether it is happening, but whether there are 17 Republicans that are not aghast, Donnie sent the mob into their chamber screaming "Hang Pence" and got 5 people killed in the process of his little insurrection.

If the Senate rules (set by the Senate itself) call for a secret ballot in the trial, your gonna see a stampede of Republican to convict and get out of their way so the can run in 2024.

That is quite possible. I certainly will not shed a tear. He should have known better. Anybody else would have. It was gross neglet of duty to his oath, inexcusable negligence of judgement and his sending them to the capital after firing them up, sparked an insurrection on the Capital Building with both houses of Congress in session. We are damned lucky no more than 5 were killed, with a gallows erected on the Capital lawn and his trumpist mob storming the halls chanting "Hang Pence", his own Vice President of 4 years. Trump must pay for this outrage against our country, the rule of law, free elections in this country.

It was gross neglet of duty to his oath, inexcusable negligence of judgement
Right. Maybe we should consider that right after we see justice done for those same crimes committed in the Benghazi clusterfug which really did get people killed.

Not the same. Good luck with that. But, thanks for your help keep The Hill off the hill.

 

[Dadoalex]

Where does the Senate get the jurisdiction to put a private citizen on trial? From what I can find only the Article 3 courts have that authority.

Your thoughts?

.

Is Trump still receiving benefits from his time as president?

Then:

" 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 Constitution does not require a person to be holding office to be impeached. Since Trump is still receiving benefits now and into the future and can run for office again impeachment is the sole political solution to the allegations against him.

Well, there's always the political solution of just beating him fairly in elections. Setting a new Constitutional precedent of holding impeachments after a person has left office, and inventing laughably flimsy justifications for it, is only the "sole political solution" if you believe you're entitled to never, ever, EVER lose elections and political power.

All you've really told us is, "This is the only possible way we can punish him and keep him from challenging us!" And I for one have no sympathy with your "problem".

He's already been beaten in a fair election.
His response to that humiliation is why he committed these crimes.
His abuse of federal power in his attempts to overthrow the legal government of the US
His attempts to corrupt the federal judiciary
His attempts to corrupt the DoJ
His refusal to send protection when the Congress was under attack.

He was impeached in office.
If you look you will find precedence for holding an impeachment trial AFTER the accused has left office.

As for "challenging" us?
That will be difficult from the bottom floor of a super-max.

What the fuck does "he's already been beaten" have to do with the topic, aside from your desperate desire to claim legitimacy for that travesty of an election? Did I miss some point at which politicians aren't allowed to ever run for office again after losing an election? Because if so, that means Grandpa Badfinger had no business running for President last year.

He hasn't committed any crimes, and you don't get to declare that he did unless you're prepared to extend that same "outrage" to every Democrat and media member - but I repeat myself - who covered for and excused endless riots all last year. Your attempt to assume some sort of moral high ground here doesn't work on me, because I've seen enough of you to laugh at any notion of you having morals.

Ditto for the rest of your self-serving "This is true, because I want to believe it" crap. You want to declare something as settled fact, you prove it. I will treat any blank, unsubstantiated declaration from you as a lie from an idiot, so just save us both some time and don't bother hoping that if you assert it over and over, it'll become accepted.

Where does the Senate get the jurisdiction to put a private citizen on trial? From what I can find only the Article 3 courts have that authority.

Your thoughts?

.

Is Trump still receiving benefits from his time as president?

Then:

" 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 Constitution does not require a person to be holding office to be impeached. Since Trump is still receiving benefits now and into the future and can run for office again impeachment is the sole political solution to the allegations against him.

Well, there's always the political solution of just beating him fairly in elections. Setting a new Constitutional precedent of holding impeachments after a person has left office, and inventing laughably flimsy justifications for it, is only the "sole political solution" if you believe you're entitled to never, ever, EVER lose elections and political power.

All you've really told us is, "This is the only possible way we can punish him and keep him from challenging us!" And I for one have no sympathy with your "problem".

He's already been beaten in a fair election.
His response to that humiliation is why he committed these crimes.
His abuse of federal power in his attempts to overthrow the legal government of the US
His attempts to corrupt the federal judiciary
His attempts to corrupt the DoJ
His refusal to send protection when the Congress was under attack.

He was impeached in office.
If you look you will find precedence for holding an impeachment trial AFTER the accused has left office.

As for "challenging" us?
That will be difficult from the bottom floor of a super-max.

What the fuck does "he's already been beaten" have to do with the topic, aside from your desperate desire to claim legitimacy for that travesty of an election? Did I miss some point at which politicians aren't allowed to ever run for office again after losing an election? Because if so, that means Grandpa Badfinger had no business running for President last year.

He hasn't committed any crimes, and you don't get to declare that he did unless you're prepared to extend that same "outrage" to every Democrat and media member - but I repeat myself - who covered for and excused endless riots all last year. Your attempt to assume some sort of moral high ground here doesn't work on me, because I've seen enough of you to laugh at any notion of you having morals.

Ditto for the rest of your self-serving "This is true, because I want to believe it" crap. You want to declare something as settled fact, you prove it. I will treat any blank, unsubstantiated declaration from you as a lie from an idiot, so just save us both some time and don't bother hoping that if you assert it over and over, it'll become accepted.

Why don't you unwad those skidmark stained panties and try reading the post to which I was responding.

It may, although I doubt it, help make you look a little less stupid.

It was my own post you were responding to. You just tried to pussy out of answering the point by arrogantly instructing me to "try reading" my own fucking post.

Now, are you quite done utterly humiliating yourself? Because if not, I'm perfectly happy to keep laughing derisively.

If it was your own post, fool, then why are YOU NOT ON TOPIC YOU FUCKING MORON?!?!?

I was responding to your post. So if it went "off topic", that would be a problem with YOUR post.

We can do this all day while you try to twist and squirm to a point where you haven't made a fool of yourself.

And I was responding to another post.

You got a problem take it up with the OP.

 

[Flopper]

It's purpose is to remove the person from office and to bar him from serving again,

So where does the constitution say removal OR disqualification? Removal has to precede disqualification, that's not possible here.

I doesn't.

It's purpose is to remove the person from office and to bar him from serving again,

So where does the constitution say removal OR disqualification? Removal has to precede disqualification, that's not possible here.

.

The Senate will vote on Trump articles of impeachment. A 2/3 vote will be required to pass the Senate. Whether he has left office by losing an election or resignation is irrelevant. If the articles are passed, the Senate will then decide whether he should be barred from holding future office which requires only a majority vote.

The issue of impeachment of a person who has left office was decided by the Senate in 1876. William Belknap, Secretary of War was impeached by the House and prior to his trial he resigned from office. The trial began in April 1876. For several weeks Senators argued over whether the Senate had jurisdiction to put Belknap on trial since he had already resigned his office in March. Belknap's defense managers argued that the Senate had no jurisdiction; the Senate ruled by a vote of 37–29 that it did.

IMHO, this trial is a Democrat attempt to drag Trump's part in the attack on the White House before the public once again. If the republicans in the Senate vote the way they did in the House impeachment, democrats will not have the 17 republican votes needed for conviction. thus there will be no vote on barring him from office.

William W. Belknap - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Nice deflection, your example is contradicted by the attempted impeachment of William Blount. The senate decided then they didn't have the jurisdiction to try someone no longer in office.

Now would you care to actually address my point?

.

No, the Senate voted 14 to 11 to dismiss the impeachment of Blount, arguing that impeachment did not extend to senators. It was not about jurisdiction.

William Blount - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I've already posted this, but I'll do it again.


The second resolution passed, 14-11, on January 11, 1799:

The court is of opinion that the matter alleged in the plea of the defendant is sufficient in law to show that this court ought not to hold jurisdiction of the said impeachment, and that the said impeachment is dismissed.

Guides and Resources: Impeachment : Senator William Blount

Provides an overview of the Congressional power ofimpeachment, impeachment procedures, and past presidential and other executive branch impeachments.

law-richmond.libguides.com

.

The case was dismissed and the trial brought to an end on January 14, 1799. While the grounds for the Senate's conclusion that it lacked jurisdiction remain unclear, the Senate's action in the Blount case has been interpreted to mean that a Senator cannot be impeached. It seems highly unlikely that the framers of the constitution would have created a loophole that allowed the guilty to escape both impeachment and the barring of holding a future office by leaving leaving the office before conviction.

Seems likely to me, since the purpose of impeachment is to remove the person from office. If they resign instead, then mission accomplished. And the Constitution clearly mentions the possibility of criminal prosecution after that point, if needed. So it seems unlikely to ME that they were planning for the Senate to have jurisdiction to politically pursue people who are no longer holding office.

There is also a 2nd purpose, barring a person from serving in public office again.

This is one of those things that is not completely clear in the constitution.

• Did the founders mean exactly what they wrote in the constitution which leaves no room for excluding impeachment if the person leaves office?
• Or did they really mean leaving office is a replacement for impeachment and barring future holding of the office? If we accept this as the intent of founders then they meant to create a loophole allowing a person who is obviously guilty, the option of resigning and then running for office again office.

 

[OKTexas]

Where does the Senate get the jurisdiction to put a private citizen on trial? From what I can find only the Article 3 courts have that authority.

Your thoughts?

.

Not surprising at all, as it goes along with:
Supreme Court: Retirees Can Be Court-Martialed for Crimes Committed After Service
You ain't free and clear, with the piper paid, by getting out just in time.

So you believe committed a crime after he was President? Didn't the Capitol protest happen before Biden was allegedly sworn in? What crime is he accused of committing? Can Congress impeach a private citizen? Crazy.

Most experts agree. It is happening. You are in for another reality check. The question is not whether it is happening, but whether there are 17 Republicans that are not aghast, Donnie sent the mob into their chamber screaming "Hang Pence" and got 5 people killed in the process of his little insurrection.

If the Senate rules (set by the Senate itself) call for a secret ballot in the trial, your gonna see a stampede of Republican to convict and get out of their way so the can run in 2024.

That is quite possible. I certainly will not shed a tear. He should have known better. Anybody else would have. It was gross neglet of duty to his oath, inexcusable negligence of judgement and his sending them to the capital after firing them up, sparked an insurrection on the Capital Building with both houses of Congress in session. We are damned lucky no more than 5 were killed, with a gallows erected on the Capital lawn and his trumpist mob storming the halls chanting "Hang Pence", his own Vice President of 4 years. Trump must pay for this outrage against our country, the rule of law, free elections in this country.

It was gross neglet of duty to his oath, inexcusable negligence of judgement
Right. Maybe we should consider that right after we see justice done for those same crimes committed in the Benghazi clusterfug which really did get people killed.

Or the hildabitch!

.

 

[Oddball]

Where does the Senate get the jurisdiction to put a private citizen on trial? From what I can find only the Article 3 courts have that authority.

Your thoughts?

.

Not surprising at all, as it goes along with:
Supreme Court: Retirees Can Be Court-Martialed for Crimes Committed After Service
You ain't free and clear, with the piper paid, by getting out just in time.

Trump isn't military and impeachment isn't a court-martial, dizzy.

 

[Oddball]

The Constitution is not explicit enough to prevent a second sham Impeachment trial unfortunately. The Democrats have essentially made a mockery of Impeachment as well as our election process.

The democrats -and 95% or republicans for that matter- are cafeteria constitutionalists.

 

[Flopper]

Nope. The 1st amendment right of freedom of speech bars congress from making a law that would limit such. However, that does not mean that a person can say whatever they chose and be immune from the legal consequences due to such speech, for example inciting insurrection or rioting or damages to property or persons due exercising those rights.

Also keep mind, articles of impeachment are not a criminal charge but a pollical charge that the office holder is not fit to hold office. The FBI is looking at the attack on the capitol to determine who will face criminal charges which could go much higher up than just those that broke into the capitol.

This entire thread is rather meaningless since there is essential no way 17 republicans are going to vote to convict. However, keep in mind this is a pollical process, not a legal process. Senate democrats will carry through with a trial for two reasons. First being it is their responsible to do so. Second, it lays out the entire case by both the prosecution and defense for the voters to deicide on whether Trump should be given a second go at the white house.

The first amendment guarantees you freedom of speech without retaliation from government. It has nothing to do with making new laws by Congress. The Constitution also tells us that the impeachment process is based on criminal activity listing bribery, high crimes, and misdemeanors. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say only Democrats can make the determination of what one said.

Inciting riots or insurrection can be defined by just about any speech a pissed off politician makes. We've seen the Democrats do that repeatedly. It led to the riot at the Supreme Court, and may have played a part in the baseball field shooting. The only legitimate way to charge Trump for the riot is if he told people to riot, which he obviously instructed just the opposite "We will march to the Capital peacefully and patriotically."

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Note the words carefully. Congress shall make no law prohibiting freedom of speech. That does not prohibit congress from making laws that hold a person responsible for damages done by that speech. Thus if you scream fire in a crowded auditorium when there is no fire, you can be legally held responsible for damages done exercising your freedom of speech in such a way that it hurts others. The same holds true for illegibly slandering a person. And it also applies to inciting riots and insurrection. Proving in court that a person words caused rioting or insurrection is difficult but it can be done, particular it is coming from a president.

And no, impeachment does not have to be based on criminal activity. “High crimes and misdemeanors” is surely the most troublesome, misleading phrase in the U.S. Constitution. Taken at face value, the words seem to say that impeachable conduct is limited to “crimes”—offenses defined by criminal statutes and punishable in criminal courts. That impression is reinforced by the fact that the phrase follows the obviously criminal “treason” and “bribery” in Article II’s list of the kinds of conduct for which the “President, Vice President and all civil officers” may be impeached. But this is not, in fact, what the Constitution requires. “High crimes and misdemeanors” is not, and has never been, limited to indictable criminality. In colonial days high crimes and misdemeanors was a term widely used for all sorts of bad behavior. We have impeached people for drunkenness, failure to supervise, and all sorts of bad conduct that makes them unfit for office.

The Common Misconception About ‘High Crimes and Misdemeanors’

The constitutional standard for impeachment is different from what’s at play in a regular criminal trial.

www.theatlantic.com

 

[Oddball]

Nope. The 1st amendment right of freedom of speech bars congress from making a law that would limit such. However, that does not mean that a person can say whatever they chose and be immune from the legal consequences due to such speech, for example inciting insurrection or rioting or damages to property or persons due exercising those rights.

Also keep mind, articles of impeachment are not a criminal charge but a pollical charge that the office holder is not fit to hold office. The FBI is looking at the attack on the capitol to determine who will face criminal charges which could go much higher up than just those that broke into the capitol.

This entire thread is rather meaningless since there is essential no way 17 republicans are going to vote to convict. However, keep in mind this is a pollical process, not a legal process. Senate democrats will carry through with a trial for two reasons. First being it is their responsible to do so. Second, it lays out the entire case by both the prosecution and defense for the voters to deicide on whether Trump should be given a second go at the white house.

The first amendment guarantees you freedom of speech without retaliation from government. It has nothing to do with making new laws by Congress. The Constitution also tells us that the impeachment process is based on criminal activity listing bribery, high crimes, and misdemeanors. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say only Democrats can make the determination of what one said.

Inciting riots or insurrection can be defined by just about any speech a pissed off politician makes. We've seen the Democrats do that repeatedly. It led to the riot at the Supreme Court, and may have played a part in the baseball field shooting. The only legitimate way to charge Trump for the riot is if he told people to riot, which he obviously instructed just the opposite "We will march to the Capital peacefully and patriotically."

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Note the words carefully. Congress shall make no law prohibiting freedom of speech. That does not prohibit congress from making laws that hold a person responsible for damages done by that speech. Thus if you scream fire in a crowded, you can be legally held responsible for damages done exercising your freedom of speech in such a way that it hurts others. The same holds true for illegibly slandering a person. And it also applies to inciting riots and insurrection. Proving in court that a person words caused rioting or insurrection is difficult but it can be done.

And no, impeachment does not have to be based on criminal activity. “High crimes and misdemeanors” is surely the most troublesome, misleading phrase in the U.S. Constitution. Taken at face value, the words seem to say that impeachable conduct is limited to “crimes”—offenses defined by criminal statutes and punishable in criminal courts. That impression is reinforced by the fact that the phrase follows the obviously criminal “treason” and “bribery” in Article II’s list of the kinds of conduct for which the “President, Vice President and all civil officers” may be impeached. But this is not, in fact, what the Constitution requires. “High crimes and misdemeanors” is not, and has never been, limited to indictable criminality. In colonial days it was term widely used for all sorts of bad behavior. We have impeached people for drunkenness, failure to supervise, and all sorts of bad conduct that makes them unfit for office.

The Common Misconception About ‘High Crimes and Misdemeanors’

The constitutional standard for impeachment is different from what’s at play in a regular criminal trial.

www.theatlantic.com

Trump's speech had barely begun when the capitol police allowed people into the building, numbnutz.

How are they supposed to be incited by a speech that hadn't yet been given?

Got-dammit are you moonbats stoopit AF!

 

[Care4all]

I believe because he was impeached by the House, a week before leaving office for an act the previous weeks, that there really isn't an issue with the mandatory Senate trial for the impeachment being a couple of weeks later and after he exited.

I don't think in this situation with the impeachment occurring before leaving that this issue would even make it in to the courts.

But if trump had been impeached after out of office like William Belknap, then it could have ended up in the SC Court...

 

[toobfreak]

The Common Misconception About ‘High Crimes and Misdemeanors’

The constitutional standard for impeachment is different from what’s at play in a regular criminal trial.

www.theatlantic.com

Your article is bullshit. They specifically changed the words to high crimes and . . . because they realized that lesser wording, that of something not with chargeable criminality in effect would leave a president essentially serving at the whims and pleasures of a hostile House to be impeached for anything at all it did not like.

And that is exactly the direction we see the democrats trying to take this.

Trump WILL NOT be convicted of impeachment.

 

[Flopper]

Nope. The 1st amendment right of freedom of speech bars congress from making a law that would limit such. However, that does not mean that a person can say whatever they chose and be immune from the legal consequences due to such speech, for example inciting insurrection or rioting or damages to property or persons due exercising those rights.

Also keep mind, articles of impeachment are not a criminal charge but a pollical charge that the office holder is not fit to hold office. The FBI is looking at the attack on the capitol to determine who will face criminal charges which could go much higher up than just those that broke into the capitol.

This entire thread is rather meaningless since there is essential no way 17 republicans are going to vote to convict. However, keep in mind this is a pollical process, not a legal process. Senate democrats will carry through with a trial for two reasons. First being it is their responsible to do so. Second, it lays out the entire case by both the prosecution and defense for the voters to deicide on whether Trump should be given a second go at the white house.

The first amendment guarantees you freedom of speech without retaliation from government. It has nothing to do with making new laws by Congress. The Constitution also tells us that the impeachment process is based on criminal activity listing bribery, high crimes, and misdemeanors. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say only Democrats can make the determination of what one said.

Inciting riots or insurrection can be defined by just about any speech a pissed off politician makes. We've seen the Democrats do that repeatedly. It led to the riot at the Supreme Court, and may have played a part in the baseball field shooting. The only legitimate way to charge Trump for the riot is if he told people to riot, which he obviously instructed just the opposite "We will march to the Capital peacefully and patriotically."

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Note the words carefully. Congress shall make no law prohibiting freedom of speech. That does not prohibit congress from making laws that hold a person responsible for damages done by that speech. Thus if you scream fire in a crowded, you can be legally held responsible for damages done exercising your freedom of speech in such a way that it hurts others. The same holds true for illegibly slandering a person. And it also applies to inciting riots and insurrection. Proving in court that a person words caused rioting or insurrection is difficult but it can be done.

And no, impeachment does not have to be based on criminal activity. “High crimes and misdemeanors” is surely the most troublesome, misleading phrase in the U.S. Constitution. Taken at face value, the words seem to say that impeachable conduct is limited to “crimes”—offenses defined by criminal statutes and punishable in criminal courts. That impression is reinforced by the fact that the phrase follows the obviously criminal “treason” and “bribery” in Article II’s list of the kinds of conduct for which the “President, Vice President and all civil officers” may be impeached. But this is not, in fact, what the Constitution requires. “High crimes and misdemeanors” is not, and has never been, limited to indictable criminality. In colonial days it was term widely used for all sorts of bad behavior. We have impeached people for drunkenness, failure to supervise, and all sorts of bad conduct that makes them unfit for office.

The Common Misconception About ‘High Crimes and Misdemeanors’

The constitutional standard for impeachment is different from what’s at play in a regular criminal trial.

www.theatlantic.com

Trump's speech had barely begun when the capitol police allowed people into the building, numbnutz.

How are they supposed to be incited by a speech that hadn't yet been given?

Got-dammit are you moonbats stoopit AF!

Trump's speech was reported about 12:30pm EST on CNN. It was released about 8 or 9am.
Protesters began storming the capitol about 2pm EST.
Although people concentrate on Trump's call to violence of the day of the insurrection, he had been stoking the fires for weeks before the siege.

Timeline: How pro-Trump protesters stormed the Capitol

A mob of violent pro-Trump protestors were able to storm the U.S. Capitol building while expressing anger over the results of the 2020 election.

abcnews.go.com

 

[Oddball]

Nope. The 1st amendment right of freedom of speech bars congress from making a law that would limit such. However, that does not mean that a person can say whatever they chose and be immune from the legal consequences due to such speech, for example inciting insurrection or rioting or damages to property or persons due exercising those rights.

Also keep mind, articles of impeachment are not a criminal charge but a pollical charge that the office holder is not fit to hold office. The FBI is looking at the attack on the capitol to determine who will face criminal charges which could go much higher up than just those that broke into the capitol.

This entire thread is rather meaningless since there is essential no way 17 republicans are going to vote to convict. However, keep in mind this is a pollical process, not a legal process. Senate democrats will carry through with a trial for two reasons. First being it is their responsible to do so. Second, it lays out the entire case by both the prosecution and defense for the voters to deicide on whether Trump should be given a second go at the white house.

The first amendment guarantees you freedom of speech without retaliation from government. It has nothing to do with making new laws by Congress. The Constitution also tells us that the impeachment process is based on criminal activity listing bribery, high crimes, and misdemeanors. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say only Democrats can make the determination of what one said.

Inciting riots or insurrection can be defined by just about any speech a pissed off politician makes. We've seen the Democrats do that repeatedly. It led to the riot at the Supreme Court, and may have played a part in the baseball field shooting. The only legitimate way to charge Trump for the riot is if he told people to riot, which he obviously instructed just the opposite "We will march to the Capital peacefully and patriotically."

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Note the words carefully. Congress shall make no law prohibiting freedom of speech. That does not prohibit congress from making laws that hold a person responsible for damages done by that speech. Thus if you scream fire in a crowded, you can be legally held responsible for damages done exercising your freedom of speech in such a way that it hurts others. The same holds true for illegibly slandering a person. And it also applies to inciting riots and insurrection. Proving in court that a person words caused rioting or insurrection is difficult but it can be done.

And no, impeachment does not have to be based on criminal activity. “High crimes and misdemeanors” is surely the most troublesome, misleading phrase in the U.S. Constitution. Taken at face value, the words seem to say that impeachable conduct is limited to “crimes”—offenses defined by criminal statutes and punishable in criminal courts. That impression is reinforced by the fact that the phrase follows the obviously criminal “treason” and “bribery” in Article II’s list of the kinds of conduct for which the “President, Vice President and all civil officers” may be impeached. But this is not, in fact, what the Constitution requires. “High crimes and misdemeanors” is not, and has never been, limited to indictable criminality. In colonial days it was term widely used for all sorts of bad behavior. We have impeached people for drunkenness, failure to supervise, and all sorts of bad conduct that makes them unfit for office.

The Common Misconception About ‘High Crimes and Misdemeanors’

The constitutional standard for impeachment is different from what’s at play in a regular criminal trial.

www.theatlantic.com

Trump's speech had barely begun when the capitol police allowed people into the building, numbnutz.

How are they supposed to be incited by a speech that hadn't yet been given?

Got-dammit are you moonbats stoopit AF!

Trump's speech was reported about 12:30pm EST on CNN. It was released about 8 or 9am.
Protesters began storming the capitol about 2pm EST.
Although people concentrate on Trump's call to violence of the day of the insurrection, he had been stoking the fires for weeks before the siege.

Timeline: How pro-Trump protesters stormed the Capitol

A mob of violent pro-Trump protestors were able to storm the U.S. Capitol building while expressing anger over the results of the 2020 election.

abcnews.go.com

Move the goalposts much?

 

[toobfreak]

Although people concentrate on Trump's call to violence

More bullshit fake news. I was watching everything live that day.

 

[9thIDdoc]

Where does the Senate get the jurisdiction to put a private citizen on trial? From what I can find only the Article 3 courts have that authority.

Your thoughts?

.

Not surprising at all, as it goes along with:
Supreme Court: Retirees Can Be Court-Martialed for Crimes Committed After Service
You ain't free and clear, with the piper paid, by getting out just in time.

Presidents can get impeached by Congress but Congress does not try criminal cases. Criminal trials and military court Marshalls are not impeachments and are not conducted by Congress. You can try an ex-president for a crime in criminal court but the Constitution states only Federal office holders can be impeached.

 

[Care4all]

The Common Misconception About ‘High Crimes and Misdemeanors’

The constitutional standard for impeachment is different from what’s at play in a regular criminal trial.

www.theatlantic.com

Your article is bullshit. They specifically changed the words to high crimes and . . . because they realized that lesser wording, that of something not with chargeable criminality in effect would leave a president essentially serving at the whims and pleasures of a hostile House to be impeached for anything at all it did not like.

And that is exactly the direction we see the democrats trying to take this.

Trump WILL NOT be convicted of impeachment.

who, changed what, to HIGH crimes???

 

[Flopper]

The Common Misconception About ‘High Crimes and Misdemeanors’

The constitutional standard for impeachment is different from what’s at play in a regular criminal trial.

www.theatlantic.com

Your article is bullshit. They specifically changed the words to high crimes and . . . because they realized that lesser wording, that of something not with chargeable criminality in effect would leave a president essentially serving at the whims and pleasures of a hostile House to be impeached for anything at all it did not like.

And that is exactly the direction we see the democrats trying to take this.

Trump WILL NOT be convicted of impeachment.

The phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors," used together, was a common phrase when the U.S. Constitution was written and did not require any stringent or difficult criteria for determining guilt but meant the opposite. The phrase was historically used to cover a very broad range of crimes. The Supreme Court has held that such phrases must be construed, not according to modern usage, but according to what the framers meant when they adopted them. Since 1386, the English parliament had used the term “high crimes and misdemeanors” to describe one of the grounds to impeach officials of the crown. Officials accused of “high crimes and misdemeanors” were accused of offenses as varied as misappropriating government funds, appointing unfit subordinates, not prosecuting cases, promoting themselves ahead of more deserving candidates, threatening a grand jury, disobeying an order from Parliament, arresting a man to keep him from running for Parliament, helping “suppress petitions to the King to call a Parliament,” etc.

The impeachment clause of the constitution has been used by congress to remove public officials for intoxication, unlawful handling of property claims, arbitrary and obsessive conduct of trials, improper business relationship, abuse of power, failure to supervise, etc.... In short, the term does not mean serious crimes or for that matter crimes at all but rather bad conduct would be a better definition. Remember impeachments are not criminal procedures. They are political procedures to determine if the actions of a public official has made him unfit for office.

List of Individuals Impeached by the House of Representatives | US House of Representatives: History, Art & Archives

The Constitution gives the House of Representatives “the sole Power of Impeachment” (Article I, Section 2) of federal officers and gives the Senate “the sole Power to try all Impeachments” (Article I, Section 3). In the constitutional procedure of impeachment and removal, the House serves in the...

history.house.gov

Impeachment in the United States - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[toobfreak]

The Common Misconception About ‘High Crimes and Misdemeanors’

The constitutional standard for impeachment is different from what’s at play in a regular criminal trial.

www.theatlantic.com

Your article is bullshit. They specifically changed the words to high crimes and . . . because they realized that lesser wording, that of something not with chargeable criminality in effect would leave a president essentially serving at the whims and pleasures of a hostile House to be impeached for anything at all it did not like.

And that is exactly the direction we see the democrats trying to take this.

Trump WILL NOT be convicted of impeachment.

The phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors," used together, was a common phrase when the U.S. Constitution was written and did not require any stringent or difficult criteria for determining guilt but meant the opposite. The phrase was historically used to cover a very broad range of crimes. The Supreme Court has held that such phrases must be construed, not according to modern usage, but according to what the framers meant when they adopted them. Since 1386, the English parliament had used the term “high crimes and misdemeanors” to describe one of the grounds to impeach officials of the crown. Officials accused of “high crimes and misdemeanors” were accused of offenses as varied as misappropriating government funds, appointing unfit subordinates, not prosecuting cases, promoting themselves ahead of more deserving candidates, threatening a grand jury, disobeying an order from Parliament, arresting a man to keep him from running for Parliament, helping “suppress petitions to the King to call a Parliament,” etc.

The impeachment clause of the constitution has been used by congress to remove public officials for intoxication, unlawful handling of property claims, arbitrary and obsessive conduct of trials, improper business relationship, abuse of power, failure to supervise, etc.... In short, the term does not mean serious crimes or for that matter crimes at all but rather bad conduct would be a better definition. Remember impeachments are not criminal procedures. They are political procedures to determine if the actions of a public official has made him unfit for office.

List of Individuals Impeached by the House of Representatives | US House of Representatives: History, Art & Archives

The Constitution gives the House of Representatives “the sole Power of Impeachment” (Article I, Section 2) of federal officers and gives the Senate “the sole Power to try all Impeachments” (Article I, Section 3). In the constitutional procedure of impeachment and removal, the House serves in the...

history.house.gov

Impeachment in the United States - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

AGAIN, it was worded that way to limit the House to actual CRIMES, and to avoid beating up presidents over the kind of bullshit the Democrats are trying to pull now, charging Trump with things which are actually LAUGHABLE.

 

[Flopper]

The Common Misconception About ‘High Crimes and Misdemeanors’

The constitutional standard for impeachment is different from what’s at play in a regular criminal trial.

www.theatlantic.com

Your article is bullshit. They specifically changed the words to high crimes and . . . because they realized that lesser wording, that of something not with chargeable criminality in effect would leave a president essentially serving at the whims and pleasures of a hostile House to be impeached for anything at all it did not like.

And that is exactly the direction we see the democrats trying to take this.

Trump WILL NOT be convicted of impeachment.

who, changed what, to HIGH crimes???

It's interesting that the phrase High Crimes does not refer to serious crimes but rather crimes committed by those of high rank. The actual term High Crimes and Misdemeanor is bet described as bad behavior by those of high rank which can be anything from bad language in front of ladies to murder.

 

[Flopper]

The Common Misconception About ‘High Crimes and Misdemeanors’

The constitutional standard for impeachment is different from what’s at play in a regular criminal trial.

www.theatlantic.com

Your article is bullshit. They specifically changed the words to high crimes and . . . because they realized that lesser wording, that of something not with chargeable criminality in effect would leave a president essentially serving at the whims and pleasures of a hostile House to be impeached for anything at all it did not like.

And that is exactly the direction we see the democrats trying to take this.

Trump WILL NOT be convicted of impeachment.

The phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors," used together, was a common phrase when the U.S. Constitution was written and did not require any stringent or difficult criteria for determining guilt but meant the opposite. The phrase was historically used to cover a very broad range of crimes. The Supreme Court has held that such phrases must be construed, not according to modern usage, but according to what the framers meant when they adopted them. Since 1386, the English parliament had used the term “high crimes and misdemeanors” to describe one of the grounds to impeach officials of the crown. Officials accused of “high crimes and misdemeanors” were accused of offenses as varied as misappropriating government funds, appointing unfit subordinates, not prosecuting cases, promoting themselves ahead of more deserving candidates, threatening a grand jury, disobeying an order from Parliament, arresting a man to keep him from running for Parliament, helping “suppress petitions to the King to call a Parliament,” etc.

The impeachment clause of the constitution has been used by congress to remove public officials for intoxication, unlawful handling of property claims, arbitrary and obsessive conduct of trials, improper business relationship, abuse of power, failure to supervise, etc.... In short, the term does not mean serious crimes or for that matter crimes at all but rather bad conduct would be a better definition. Remember impeachments are not criminal procedures. They are political procedures to determine if the actions of a public official has made him unfit for office.

List of Individuals Impeached by the House of Representatives | US House of Representatives: History, Art & Archives

The Constitution gives the House of Representatives “the sole Power of Impeachment” (Article I, Section 2) of federal officers and gives the Senate “the sole Power to try all Impeachments” (Article I, Section 3). In the constitutional procedure of impeachment and removal, the House serves in the...

history.house.gov

Impeachment in the United States - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

AGAIN, it was worded that way to limit the House to actual CRIMES, and to avoid beating up presidents over the kind of bullshit the Democrats are trying to pull now, charging Trump with things which are actually LAUGHABLE.

If that were the case, it has been serious misused
Impeachment is about deterring whether actions of a public offical makes him unfit for office. In fact one the most used articles of impeachment is abuse of power which is not even a federal crime.

 

[OKTexas]

Nope. The 1st amendment right of freedom of speech bars congress from making a law that would limit such. However, that does not mean that a person can say whatever they chose and be immune from the legal consequences due to such speech, for example inciting insurrection or rioting or damages to property or persons due exercising those rights.

Also keep mind, articles of impeachment are not a criminal charge but a pollical charge that the office holder is not fit to hold office. The FBI is looking at the attack on the capitol to determine who will face criminal charges which could go much higher up than just those that broke into the capitol.

This entire thread is rather meaningless since there is essential no way 17 republicans are going to vote to convict. However, keep in mind this is a pollical process, not a legal process. Senate democrats will carry through with a trial for two reasons. First being it is their responsible to do so. Second, it lays out the entire case by both the prosecution and defense for the voters to deicide on whether Trump should be given a second go at the white house.

The first amendment guarantees you freedom of speech without retaliation from government. It has nothing to do with making new laws by Congress. The Constitution also tells us that the impeachment process is based on criminal activity listing bribery, high crimes, and misdemeanors. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say only Democrats can make the determination of what one said.

Inciting riots or insurrection can be defined by just about any speech a pissed off politician makes. We've seen the Democrats do that repeatedly. It led to the riot at the Supreme Court, and may have played a part in the baseball field shooting. The only legitimate way to charge Trump for the riot is if he told people to riot, which he obviously instructed just the opposite "We will march to the Capital peacefully and patriotically."

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Note the words carefully. Congress shall make no law prohibiting freedom of speech. That does not prohibit congress from making laws that hold a person responsible for damages done by that speech. Thus if you scream fire in a crowded auditorium when there is no fire, you can be legally held responsible for damages done exercising your freedom of speech in such a way that it hurts others. The same holds true for illegibly slandering a person. And it also applies to inciting riots and insurrection. Proving in court that a person words caused rioting or insurrection is difficult but it can be done, particular it is coming from a president.

And no, impeachment does not have to be based on criminal activity. “High crimes and misdemeanors” is surely the most troublesome, misleading phrase in the U.S. Constitution. Taken at face value, the words seem to say that impeachable conduct is limited to “crimes”—offenses defined by criminal statutes and punishable in criminal courts. That impression is reinforced by the fact that the phrase follows the obviously criminal “treason” and “bribery” in Article II’s list of the kinds of conduct for which the “President, Vice President and all civil officers” may be impeached. But this is not, in fact, what the Constitution requires. “High crimes and misdemeanors” is not, and has never been, limited to indictable criminality. In colonial days high crimes and misdemeanors was a term widely used for all sorts of bad behavior. We have impeached people for drunkenness, failure to supervise, and all sorts of bad conduct that makes them unfit for office.

The Common Misconception About ‘High Crimes and Misdemeanors’

The constitutional standard for impeachment is different from what’s at play in a regular criminal trial.

www.theatlantic.com

Actually not only did the founders require crimes for impeachment, but HIGH Crimes at that. They specifically rejected maladministration as a cause, they figured the voters could take care of that.

.