Serious Question

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Stand by, because I'm sure to care about what the likes of you thinks is American any time now.

Maybe you should hold your breath while you wait.

 

[j-mac]

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

Bi partisan? not hardly....That group is about as Bi partisan as Chuck Todd's panels....

 

[Ringtone]

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.

.

The matter comes down to the First Amendment, Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, and Article 1, Sections 2 & 3 of the Constitution. Taken together, a former president can be impeached by the House, and then convicted and barred from holding office by the Senate if it so decides. Congressional power in this wise does not extend beyond impeachment, conviction, removal and disqualification. As for any subsequent criminal charges, which you seem to be conflating with the pertinent congressional proceedings, those would be adjudicated by the courts.

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.​

But Trump is not going to be convicted by the Senate, as the charge is utter bullshit in the first place, both in terms of fact and lawful free speech, and it is not politically feasible. But do most especially take note of which Republicans, if any, vote to convict.

 

[White 6]

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.

Yelling fire in a movie theater is not protected by the Constitution because your right to free speech applies to government not stopping you or taking action against you when you do. The court was attacked in an attempt to stop the swearing in of Kavanaugh after the lie Democrats created that he was a rapist with no evidence whatsoever. They got one of their leftist college teachers to make up the entire thing in desperation to stop a conservative judge from taking seat.

Since you don't catch on very quick or are playing dumb, I call Kamalia Harris Kamalia Whorris because she slept her way to where she is today. If you don't approve of lies or propaganda to work people up, then apply the same to the Democrat party as you do Trump, because all they do is lie and try to get people to be destructive.

After the afternoon session of the hearing, I was OK with Kavanaugh. Only thing I could say about him was when young and probably now, he liked to drink beer. OK, sometimes, so do I.
No I did not understand the Whorris thing. Doubt it will catch on. Not at all sure it is accurate. Biden has incited nobody. Not his style. She (Harris) kneads to watch, take cues from Joe and would be completely off base to advocate for crowd action and was completely F#ck up as an elected political figure, to speak for raising money to bail out violent prostestor or her support for organization that were willing to step in with bail for peaceful disobedient protestors if they also we willing to step in to post bail for violent or destructive protestors (feel free to read that as violent looting criminal mother f#ckers) caught or video taped at the scene of violence.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

After the afternoon session of the hearing, I was OK with Kavanaugh. Only thing I could say about him was when young and probably now, he liked to drink beer. OK, sometimes, so do I.
No I did not understand the Whorris thing. Doubt it will catch on. Not at all sure it is accurate. Biden has incited nobody. Not his style. She (Harris) kneads to watch, take cues from Joe and would be completely off base to advocate for crowd action and was completely F#ck up as an elected political figure, to speak for raising money to bail out violent prostestor or her support for organization that were willing to step in with bail for peaceful disobedient protestors if they also we willing to step in to post bail for violent or destructive protestors (feel free to read that as violent looting criminal mother f#ckers) caught or video taped at the scene of violence.

Only rioters were arrested. They didn't bother the protesters; perhaps one or two past a curfew or something, but yes, that's what she did. Not only was she never reprimanded for it, she was allowed to run for VP and actually won. You see, this is what I'm talking about. There are two standards here, the Democrats created both of them, and we're all just supposed to accept it. Well I don't accept it when they go after a President in my party for doing similar things that they did, and you shouldn't support it either in the name of fairness.

Politicians from both parties say things to rile up their supporters all the time, especially in a conflict. When they say we need to fight, what they're talking about is writing your representatives, making sure you vote to defeat them, and yes, perhaps protests. If somebody takes their words the wrong way, attacks Trump supporters, tries to kill representatives, it's just accepted as nut cases as we always have in the past. It should be no different with President Trump. Taking our country back means defeating the opposition, not physically attack them.

Even the commies know that what Trump said doesn't make him responsible for what those people did. They were looking for any reason to have Trump disqualified from ever running again. They asked Mike Pence to use the 25th amendment to have Trump removed from office a month before he was going to leave. If they didn't impeach him for the riot, they would have found something else to impeach him on. This is now Nazis think. The riot was just an excuse to try and blame Trump for it for the phony impeachment.

 

[White 6]

After the afternoon session of the hearing, I was OK with Kavanaugh. Only thing I could say about him was when young and probably now, he liked to drink beer. OK, sometimes, so do I.
No I did not understand the Whorris thing. Doubt it will catch on. Not at all sure it is accurate. Biden has incited nobody. Not his style. She (Harris) kneads to watch, take cues from Joe and would be completely off base to advocate for crowd action and was completely F#ck up as an elected political figure, to speak for raising money to bail out violent prostestor or her support for organization that were willing to step in with bail for peaceful disobedient protestors if they also we willing to step in to post bail for violent or destructive protestors (feel free to read that as violent looting criminal mother f#ckers) caught or video taped at the scene of violence.

Only rioters were arrested. They didn't bother the protesters; perhaps one or two past a curfew or something, but yes, that's what she did. Not only was she never reprimanded for it, she was allowed to run for VP and actually won. You see, this is what I'm talking about. There are two standards here, the Democrats created both of them, and we're all just supposed to accept it. Well I don't accept it when they go after a President in my party for doing similar things that they did, and you shouldn't support it either in the name of fairness.

Politicians from both parties say things to rile up their supporters all the time, especially in a conflict. When they say we need to fight, what they're talking about is writing your representatives, making sure you vote to defeat them, and yes, perhaps protests. If somebody takes their words the wrong way, attacks Trump supporters, tries to kill representatives, it's just accepted as nut cases as we always have in the past. It should be no different with President Trump. Taking our country back means defeating the opposition, not physically attack them.

Even the commies know that what Trump said doesn't make him responsible for what those people did. They were looking for any reason to have Trump disqualified from ever running again. They asked Mike Pence to use the 25th amendment to have Trump removed from office a month before he was going to leave. If they didn't impeach him for the riot, they would have found something else to impeach him on. This is now Nazis think. The riot was just an excuse to try and blame Trump for it for the phony impeachment.

It is a matter of degree and opinion. place and circumstance. It is unlikely I will make you happy. She will probably be fine as a Vice-President, though not at the top of my list for either job, though when the ticket came down I supported it and still do. Hope I can say the same if 4 years, but not nearly naive enough to predict, just hopeful.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

It is a matter of degree and opinion. place and circumstance. It is unlikely I will make you happy. She will probably be fine as a Vice-President, though not at the top of my list for either job, though when the ticket came down I supported it and still do. Hope I can say the same if 4 years, but not nearly naive enough to predict, just hopeful.

You must have not read Biden's platform. I did. It's revolting. What it spells out is making nothing but problems for the country. Within his first six days, he's already destroyed thousands of jobs with the potential of tens of thousands of jobs, pissed off an Indian tribe, pissed off the people of New Mexico, pissed off parents with daughters in school who participate in athletics, pissed off tens of thousands in our military I'm sure, pissed off our northern border ally, pissed off our border patrol, he's done nothing but piss people off, and that's only less than a week, and we have another 207 to go.

 

[White 6]

It is a matter of degree and opinion. place and circumstance. It is unlikely I will make you happy. She will probably be fine as a Vice-President, though not at the top of my list for either job, though when the ticket came down I supported it and still do. Hope I can say the same if 4 years, but not nearly naive enough to predict, just hopeful.

You must have not read Biden's platform. I did. It's revolting. What it spells out is making nothing but problems for the country. Within his first six days, he's already destroyed thousands of jobs with the potential of tens of thousands of jobs, pissed off an Indian tribe, pissed off the people of New Mexico, pissed off parents with daughters in school who participate in athletics, pissed off tens of thousands in our military I'm sure, pissed off our northern border ally, pissed off our border patrol, he's done nothing but piss people off, and that's only less than a week, and we have another 207 to go.

Yes, yes, yes, I'm sure his approval ratings will drop any minute, though probably not to 36% like some of donnies. I didn't want anybody drilling in that Arctic National Wildlife Refuges, on of the largest rain forest outside of South America. Probably did piss off parents with daughters in sports or previously headed for sport. Doubt Troudeau any more pissed than dealing with donnie. Pretty sure there are not tens of thousands of military pissed off by anything done since inauguration. No big border patrol issue either as they do not set policy, only carry it out. Little early to start whining. Changes nothing, but looks impotent.

 

[Flopper]

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.

I don't recall Trump ever praising people who committed acts of violence outside of the troublemakers that came to his rallies to......well......start trouble. Two impeachments with the charge of "we think" is allowing the left to turn us into the former USSR. We have freedom of speech guaranteed to us by our US Constitution, and now the communists are impeaching a person who exercised that right.

It's time this country separates. We need two countries because we can no longer live as one. If we don't separate, it will only get worse to the point of another civil war. We need one country for the liberals, and the other country for true American constitutionalists, and it can't come soon enough as far as I'm concerned.
[/QUOTE

There are two major problems with separating.

First being, the ideologic divided does not follow any geological boundary. The east and west are blue but there are plenty of exceptions. Georgia, North Carolina, and Florida swing. West Virginia was traditional blue but is now more red. The middle of country might seem red but most large cities blue. And most of the rest of the country is mixed.

Second, we are much more alike than we are different. It just doesn't seem that way do to stereotyping. For example, about 25% of the democrat party is black but when republican are asked how much of the democrat party is black, the average was 40%. On the flip side, just 2% of Republicans earn at least $250,000 per year, however when democrats were asked what percent of republican earn at least $250,000 a year the average response was 30%. When asked about religion, Republicans overestimated democrat atheist by a factor of 3. And when democrats were asked about religion, they over estimated the number of evangelical republicans by a factor of 4. Whether people are thinking about their own party or another, their beliefs tend to fall inline with the stereotypes associated with with that party. In short most people perceived much larger differences than there actually are due to party stereotyping.

 

[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.

.

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.

John Pickering 1803 charged with intoxication on the bench and unlawful handling
Samuel Chase 1804 charged with arbitrary and oppressive conduct of trials
James H Peck 1830 charged with abuse of the contempt power
Andrew Johnson 1868 charged with violation of Tenure of Office Act
William Delahay 1874 charged with intoxication
William Belknap 1876 charged with accepting payment for appointments
George English 1926 charged with abuse of power
Harold Lauderback 1933 charged with favoritism in making appointments

The framers of Constitution substituted "High Crimes and Misdemeanors: for for "Maladministration" because they wanted a term which would cover all manner of crimes as well as bad behavior. The founders believed that the purpose of impeachment was to determine whether the actions of public official was such as to bar them from serving in public office. In effect they were setting the criteria very high by allowing congress to impeachment for all manner of crimes and bad behavior, not just serious crimes.

Impeachable Offenses: Historical Background | Constitution Annotated | Congress.gov | Library of Congress

An annotation about Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution of the United States.

constitution.congress.gov

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

You went to a lot of trouble to tell so many lies of omission. I also notice you left Blount off you list because it verifies the dismissal for lack of jurisdiction. Also did you notice how many were dismissed because the individual left or resigned from office? You're such a fucking putz. LMAO

.

 

[OKTexas]

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.

Yeah, kneepads harriss just helped raise money to get her soldiers back on the streets ASAP.

.

 

[Flopper]

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.

I don't recall Trump ever praising people who committed acts of violence outside of the troublemakers that came to his rallies to......well......start trouble. Two impeachments with the charge of "we think" is allowing the left to turn us into the former USSR. We have freedom of speech guaranteed to us by our US Constitution, and now the communists are impeaching a person who exercised that right.

It's time this country separates. We need two countries because we can no longer live as one. If we don't separate, it will only get worse to the point of another civil war. We need one country for the liberals, and the other country for true American constitutionalists, and it can't come soon enough as far as I'm concerned.

When Trump told his people to go home, he certainly praised them when he called them very special people.

 

[OKTexas]

I don't see Cruz even considering such a thing. The poster you quoted is an idiot.

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.

Correct. The Nazis just impeached a US President for exercising his first amendment rights.

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.

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.

What kind of arrogance does it take to presume to speak for "us all"? No one speaks for "us all".

I meant conservatives who supported Trump.

Same question?

And it's the commies that are going to butt hurt when Trump is acquitted again.

.

 

[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."

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.

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.

.

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.

High crimes and misdemeanors - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

.

Yeah, that's why specifically said treason and bribery, anyone can commit those crimes, you don't even have to be in a position of authority. Put your doggie down, he won't hunt.

.

 

[Flopper]

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.

.

The matter comes down to the First Amendment, Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, and Article 1, Sections 2 & 3 of the Constitution. Taken together, a former president can be impeached by the House, and then convicted and barred from holding office by the Senate if it so decides. Congressional power in this wise does not extend beyond impeachment, conviction, removal and disqualification. As for any subsequent criminal charges, which you seem to be conflating with the pertinent congressional proceedings, those would be adjudicated by the courts.

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.​

But Trump is not going to be convicted by the Senate, as the charge is utter bullshit in the first place, both in terms of fact and lawful free speech, and it is not politically feasible. But do most especially take note of which Republicans, if any, vote to convict.

You're correct but not because of the reason you cited. Trump will not be convicted because it takes 17 republicans voting yes. The articles of impeachment could have said he shot Biden on 5th Ave and they would have still voted no.

 

[OKTexas]

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.

.

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.

So treason and bribery aren't examples? I think you're more incompetent than quid pro joe.

.

 

[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?

.

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.

.

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.

There are more examples where they didn't, and said it was for lack of jurisdiction.

.

 

[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."

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.

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.

.

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.

High crimes and misdemeanors - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

.

Yeah, that's why specifically said treason and bribery, anyone can commit those crimes, you don't even have to be in a position of authority. Put your doggie down, he won't hunt.

.

You still don't understand what High crimes and misdemeanors are nor do you understand why they used that phrase and I'm tired explaining it to you and giving you links you don't read.

 

[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?

.

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.

.

The matter comes down to the First Amendment, Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, and Article 1, Sections 2 & 3 of the Constitution. Taken together, a former president can be impeached by the House, and then convicted and barred from holding office by the Senate if it so decides. Congressional power in this wise does not extend beyond impeachment, conviction, removal and disqualification. As for any subsequent criminal charges, which you seem to be conflating with the pertinent congressional proceedings, those would be adjudicated by the courts.

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.​

But Trump is not going to be convicted by the Senate, as the charge is utter bullshit in the first place, both in terms of fact and lawful free speech, and it is not politically feasible. But do most especially take note of which Republicans, if any, vote to convict.

Get back to me when you get that puzzle piece put backe in you head. I never conflated anything. And you're right, he won't be convicted, but the commies will put on a spectacle, just like last time. And from what I've seen in some interviews they are going to try to include crap not in the single article of impeachment.

.

 

[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?

.

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.

.

The matter comes down to the First Amendment, Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, and Article 1, Sections 2 & 3 of the Constitution. Taken together, a former president can be impeached by the House, and then convicted and barred from holding office by the Senate if it so decides. Congressional power in this wise does not extend beyond impeachment, conviction, removal and disqualification. As for any subsequent criminal charges, which you seem to be conflating with the pertinent congressional proceedings, those would be adjudicated by the courts.

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.​

But Trump is not going to be convicted by the Senate, as the charge is utter bullshit in the first place, both in terms of fact and lawful free speech, and it is not politically feasible. But do most especially take note of which Republicans, if any, vote to convict.

You're correct but not because of the reason you cited. Trump will not be convicted because it takes 17 republicans voting yes. The articles of impeachment could have said he shot Biden on 5th Ave and they would have still voted no.

Article (singular), remember that when your comrades start trying to throw other shit in the pile.

.