Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
After the attack on the Capital, you still advocate for letting trump be trump, regardless of the norms, laws, or oaths taken and broken? NO. No American should approve of inciting riot or insurrection directed at the Capital and the United States Government and certainly not by the highest elected official in the land.I still think the main reason is that the second impeachment validates (they suppose) the first one. The left picked up a lot of hate from conservatives for that malicious move.
I suppose there is some hope that a second impeachment will prevent him from running again, but it sure won't if they lose it, and they are going to lose it. And it may just make us all mad.
Trump knows fully well why they are pulling this stunt. You know how Trump is. When you attack him, he gets even.
If they would have let things alone, perhaps in four years Trump might not consider running, but now???? He's going to do whatever possible to make them regret their commie little game they played.
After the attack on the Capital, you still advocate for letting trump be trump, regardless of the norms, laws, or oaths taken and broken? NO. No American should approve of inciting riot or insurrection directed at the Capital and the United States Government and certainly not by the highest elected official in the land.
Water is a representative because she was elected and no action taken against her.After the attack on the Capital, you still advocate for letting trump be trump, regardless of the norms, laws, or oaths taken and broken? NO. No American should approve of inciting riot or insurrection directed at the Capital and the United States Government and certainly not by the highest elected official in the land.
At the sake of being repetitive, why don't we do the same for Democrats then? Why is Waters still a rep? Why was Commie Whorris allowed to run as VP? Why was Sander's? Why is Schumer still there?
Again, Trump is not responsible for what other people did. He never told them to do any of that. He told them they should march peacefully and patriotically to the Capital and let their views be known.
Water is a representative because she was elected and no action taken against her.
I do not actually know who Whorris is. The name does not come up in the headlines much in Tennessee and I did not feel like looking it up. The other names mentioned are still there for the same reasons and to my knowledge, none of them sent a mob to march on the Capital and then left them to their own devices to attack Congress or shout "Hang Pence" because he would not join in going against The Constitution.
If only serious crimes were required for impeachment then why did the following people face impeached for low crimes and non-criminal acts. Many bills of impeachment included articles that are not violations of the law at all such abuse of power.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.
.
history.house.gov
There are logical and moral limits to how you rile up supporters and how much and the environment in which you do it. You know this.Water is a representative because she was elected and no action taken against her.
I do not actually know who Whorris is. The name does not come up in the headlines much in Tennessee and I did not feel like looking it up. The other names mentioned are still there for the same reasons and to my knowledge, none of them sent a mob to march on the Capital and then left them to their own devices to attack Congress or shout "Hang Pence" because he would not join in going against The Constitution.
What I'm saying is that if we can no longer rile up our supporters, then we no longer have the right to free speech. Is that the way you want it?
Waters told her followers to accost Trump affiliates anywhere you see them in public. Schumer and the other commies riled their people up about Kavanaugh and caused a riot at the Supreme Court. The things Democrats said about Trump led to a Sanders supporter taking a rifle, go to a baseball field where Republican representatives were practicing, and he tried to kill as many as he could. Harris Tweeted to her followers where they can send money to a go-fund-me account to bailout the arrested rioters so they could go out to hurt more people and damage more property.
If you are going to hold Trump accountable for the riot even with zero evidence he had anything to do with it, hold all representatives accountable for their participation in those other events.
There are logical and moral limits to how you rile up supporters and how much and the environment in which you do it. You know this.
Waters can and has been vile. Nobody stormed the Supreme Court, built a gallows on the lawn and broke into building while they were meeting, shouting hang any justices or killing 4 or 5 in the process. Sanders never sent anyone anywhere. Harris should have kept her mouth shut, though she did not advocate for burning or looting, her job was not to give aide and comfort, though nobody said "Kamala sent me."
No matter how you slice it, the riots are not the same as the attack on our capital with congress in session, in a last ditch attemp to overthrow the results of free and fair election, lost by DJT.
Did not remember it. Still do not know who Whorris is or was or what they said. Guess I missed it. Not sure why the would attack the Supreme Court as they do no appoint members.There are logical and moral limits to how you rile up supporters and how much and the environment in which you do it. You know this.
Waters can and has been vile. Nobody stormed the Supreme Court, built a gallows on the lawn and broke into building while they were meeting, shouting hang any justices or killing 4 or 5 in the process. Sanders never sent anyone anywhere. Harris should have kept her mouth shut, though she did not advocate for burning or looting, her job was not to give aide and comfort, though nobody said "Kamala sent me."
No matter how you slice it, the riots are not the same as the attack on our capital with congress in session, in a last ditch attemp to overthrow the results of free and fair election, lost by DJT.
Either we allow abrasive language or not. Nobody has a crystal ball (regardless what liberals think) so there is no way anybody can predict if their caustic words will lead to action. So it's pure stupidity to say if words lead to something like the Capital, whoever spoke the words should be held accountable, and if it doesn't then they are not accountable. We either allow such speech or we don't.
You mean to say this didn't happen in the Supreme Court?
View attachment 449752
View attachment 449753
Whorris didn't advocate for burning or looting, but she encouraged people to bail out the people who did so they could continue. What's worse?
You support action against Trump when he never told people to do what they did, but say that Democrats are not responsible for the actions of people who acted (or likely acted) on their words. Don't be a hypocrite for crying out loud.
Inflammatory language is not necessary to inspire people. Look at Martin Luther King's "I had a dream speech", one of the most persuasive speeches of all times yet not a hint of a need for violence. Although Trump is certainly not a gifted orator that is no excuse for his continuing suggestions of the need for violence, praise for those that commit violent acts.Water is a representative because she was elected and no action taken against her.
I do not actually know who Whorris is. The name does not come up in the headlines much in Tennessee and I did not feel like looking it up. The other names mentioned are still there for the same reasons and to my knowledge, none of them sent a mob to march on the Capital and then left them to their own devices to attack Congress or shout "Hang Pence" because he would not join in going against The Constitution.
What I'm saying is that if we can no longer rile up our supporters, then we no longer have the right to free speech. Is that the way you want it?
Waters told her followers to accost Trump affiliates anywhere you see them in public. Schumer and the other commies riled their people up about Kavanaugh and caused a riot at the Supreme Court. The things Democrats said about Trump led to a Sanders supporter taking a rifle, go to a baseball field where Republican representatives were practicing, and he tried to kill as many as he could. Harris Tweeted to her followers where they can send money to a go-fund-me account to bailout the arrested rioters so they could go out to hurt more people and damage more property.
If you are going to hold Trump accountable for the riot even with zero evidence he had anything to do with it, hold all representatives accountable for their participation in those other events.
I still think the main reason is that the second impeachment validates (they suppose) the first one. The left picked up a lot of hate from conservatives for that malicious move.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.Well, it does seem unlikely Cruz would go that way to me, too. I guess we'll see as this progresses along its crazy way, as it is doing even today. I can't see how this is constitutional, and Justice Roberts agrees with that, I see from the paper today. But whether something is constitutional no longer matters, as we have seen with all the oppressive COVID rules.I don't see Cruz even considering such a thing. The poster you quoted is an idiot.
Correct. The Nazis just impeached a US President for exercising his first amendment 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.
I suppose there is some hope that a second impeachment will prevent him from running again, but it sure won't if they lose it, and they are going to lose it. And it may just make us all mad.
What kind of arrogance does it take to presume to speak for "us all"? No one speaks for "us all".
Yes, that is exactly what I was guessing.If they would have let things alone, perhaps in four years Trump might not consider running, but now???? He's going to do whatever possible to make them regret their commie little game they played.
The other names mentioned are still there for the same reasons and to my knowledge, none of them sent a mob to march on the Capital and then left them to their own devices to attack Congress or shout "Hang Pence" because he would not join in going against The Constitution.
Right, the riots are substantially worse. Many more killed, much, much more violence and destruction.No matter how you slice it, the riots are not the same as the attack on our capital with congress in session, in a last ditch attemp to overthrow the results of free and fair election, lost by DJT.
The framers of constitution first used the term misadministration but they wanted a more general term. High Crimes and Misdemeanors fit their needs better because at the time it described a full range of bad behavior. The framers wanted to give congress the power to remove those from office whose actions had proved them unfit to serve. In essence they were setting the bar for holding office much higher than just not being a criminal.who, changed what, to HIGH crimes???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.
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.
High Crime today is often considered to be a serious crime. The actual meaning of high crime is one that can be done only by someone in a unique position of authority. A misdemeanor in colonial times was either a minor violation of the law or unacceptable behavior. As used in the constitution the phrase High Crimes and Misdemeanors covers serious crimes, minor crimes, and just plain bad behavior that makes a person unfit to serve in the office. It gave congress a wide latitude in formulating charges of impeachment which they used many times.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."
.High crimes and misdemeanors - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
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.
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.
.
en.wikipedia.org
Inflammatory language is not necessary to inspire people. Look at Martin Luther King's "I had a dream speech", one of the most persuasive speeches of all times yet not a hint of a need for violence. Although Trump is certainly not a gifted orator that is no excuse for his continuing suggestions of the need for violence, praise for those that commit violent acts.
No they did not give examples. Notice the wording of the phrase in the impeachment clause, “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” By using the wording "or other", they were specifying the 3 reasons for impeachment. Had they meant to list examples they would have used the phrase "such as" which was in common use in the 18th century for listing examples.It's interesting that the phrase High Crimes does not refer to serious crimes but rather crimes committed by those of high rank.
YOU'RE SO FULL OF CRAP. Do you make it up or get all your facts from a children's book. The Constitution says:
The President shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
Yep they gave examples and their intent was clear. Leave it to the commies to try to bastardize a concept so simple.
.
Thats dumb. Basically youre saying someone can legally own a nuclear weapon because its not specified in the constitution. Not everything is in the constitution. All you need is to look back in history where they impeached a dude after he resigned and was a private citizen.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?
.
Legal scholars, including at Federalist Society, say Trump can be convicted
Some Republicans have argued a former president can't be the target of an impeachment trial.www.politico.com
Former President Donald Trump can be convicted in an impeachment trial for his role in inciting the Capitol insurrection on Jan. 6 even though he is no longer in office, a bipartisan group of constitutional law scholars wrote in a letter Thursday.
“We differ from one another in our politics, and we also differ from one another on issues of constitutional interpretation,” wrote the signatories, which include the co-founder and other members of the conservative Federalist Society legal group. “But despite our differences, our carefully considered views of the law lead all of us to agree that the Constitution permits the impeachment, conviction, and disqualification of former officers, including presidents.”
Seems pretty solid to me
I don't want opinions, I can provide just as many opposite opinions. Show me in the Constitution.
.
Did not remember it. Still do not know who Whorris is or was or what they said. Guess I missed it. Not sure why the would attack the Supreme Court as they do no appoint members.
I do not agree with intentional radical (especially using lies or proganda) to incite the masses ain't right. I have heard the thing about shouting fire in a movie house is a myth. That does not make it right to do so.
