Serious Question

OP
OKTexas

OKTexas

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
51,949
Reaction score
10,824
Points
2,070
Location
Near Magnolia, TX
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?

.
My grandfather was a 32nd degree master mason.

I had some of his old stuff around after he passed away. Did you ever wonder why so many politicians and lawyers were masons that went beyond the 32nd degree?

Do you really understand what the BAR is, and what it is for? :dunno:

Here is your background plebeian explanation.

Bar association - Wikipedia

How about why all these lawyers and judges seem to be political in the administration of law and finance?

Internet search this term; "AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION by Augustus Blackstone"

That really doesn't answer my question.

.
Well. . . that is the most I am going to give you.

. . . if I gave you anymore, you would either be blinded by cognitive dissonance, or call me a conspiracy theorist.

I will give you a hint. The problem is not in the language of the document, but the actual document itself. It is legalese, and how it is interpreted in Admiralty Law.

It is a document meant for the oligarchs, the owners of this nation, NOT the people of this nation.

You are interpreting it through the eyes of Common Law.

Yet the founders said the Constitution was written with language that even the simplest farmer could understand it.

.
 

BlindBoo

Platinum Member
Joined
Sep 28, 2010
Messages
36,250
Reaction score
5,577
Points
1,130
Let's not pretend that trials in the Senate haven't been partisan affairs. It's not like a real court.
 

Ray From Cleveland

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
Messages
68,985
Reaction score
17,147
Points
2,290
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.
You are blaming the actions of a small group of people on another person; a person that told his followers to protest legally and peacefully. If you told your neighbor you'd like to rob a bank because you really needed the money, and your neighbor robs a bank instead, do the cops arrest you or your neighbor?

The Democrats created this "It's always somebody else's fault" society. People are fat, so they blame McDonald's. People are on social programs, but they blame Walmart for not paying enough. People get gunned down in the street, and they blame the gun instead of the shooter. A lot of black people are poor, but we blame Jim Crow and slavery. When are we going to hold individuals exclusively responsible for their own actions, or is that era gone in our country thanks to Democrats?

Our founders didn't design the impeachment process for political revenge or to make sure a strong opponent doesn't return. They created the impeachment process as a mechanism to remove representatives from power. In other topics, we pointed out that the FBI was well aware of this possibility days before, and they even warned Capital police about the upcoming problem. So now the leftists switched the complaint from the speech Trump gave that day to all the things Trump said until that riot.
 

MisterBeale

Platinum Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2012
Messages
29,350
Reaction score
11,102
Points
900
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?

.
My grandfather was a 32nd degree master mason.

I had some of his old stuff around after he passed away. Did you ever wonder why so many politicians and lawyers were masons that went beyond the 32nd degree?

Do you really understand what the BAR is, and what it is for? :dunno:

Here is your background plebeian explanation.

Bar association - Wikipedia

How about why all these lawyers and judges seem to be political in the administration of law and finance?

Internet search this term; "AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION by Augustus Blackstone"

That really doesn't answer my question.

.
Well. . . that is the most I am going to give you.

. . . if I gave you anymore, you would either be blinded by cognitive dissonance, or call me a conspiracy theorist.

I will give you a hint. The problem is not in the language of the document, but the actual document itself. It is legalese, and how it is interpreted in Admiralty Law.

It is a document meant for the oligarchs, the owners of this nation, NOT the people of this nation.

You are interpreting it through the eyes of Common Law.

Yet the founders said the Constitution was written with language that even the simplest farmer could understand it.

.


If Donald J. Trump were to go before the Senate? No, they have no power to indict him. But he will not go before them.

OTH. DONALD JOHN TRUMP will. :heehee:
 

Grampa Murked U

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2011
Messages
84,989
Reaction score
25,429
Points
2,205
Location
Kansas City
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?

.

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 :dunno:
Zero evidence he incited any riots
Well ultimately, yours is just a wildly partisan radical's opinion, instead of one that actually matters :dunno:
His speech never called for any violence !!
In fact , it was Nancy pelousy and others who have incited the leftist mobs
Yup

"YOU SEE THEM IN PUBLIC YOU GET IN THEIR FACE. TELL THEM THEY AREN'T WELCOME"
 

Ray From Cleveland

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
Messages
68,985
Reaction score
17,147
Points
2,290
Article 1, Section 3, Clause 6

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

He has been impeached. Where the paperwork sits right now makes no difference. The Senate has the Power to try all impeachments.

There are no exclusions in that clause. Removal from office is only one possible penalty but is not the only one. When someone is indicted, you don't have to seek all possible penalties to proceed.

I'm sure there will be a lot of debate from both sides but the literal interpretation is that if a President is impeached, the Senate has the power to try the case. The Articles of Impeachment have been signed and they are not voided, under the Constitution, if the President leaves office.
The Senate trial like the House trial is to make judgement on a President. Trump is no longer President.
 

TheGreatSatan

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 17, 2019
Messages
4,494
Reaction score
4,896
Points
1,970
If you want to post violent things to Democrats, take post Democrats say about "white people" and "Trump supporters", repost it, but change "white people" and "Trump supporters" to Democrats.
 

Ray From Cleveland

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
Messages
68,985
Reaction score
17,147
Points
2,290
Guess we will find out, though I think the answer is yes as Presidents were not mean to be above review, condemnation and possibly punishment in reduction of benefits as anyone else. Looks like Mitch wants to start the trial in February.
It won't go anywhere even if it does. First of all, if convicted, even the Democrat constitutional expert Alan Dershowitz said there is no way the Supreme Court will allow it to stand, and he'd be willing to represent Trump if that actually happened. Secondly, Trump got 74 million votes, which is 12 million more he got in his first election, and rumor is that Trump is considering the formation of his own party. The Republicans know if that happens, and they lose a good portion of those 74 million voters, it's over for the GOP.

The Republican Senators who vote for conviction will be committing political suicide, and even if they don't care, the GOP knows they may be committing suicide. So this will never happen.
 
OP
OKTexas

OKTexas

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
51,949
Reaction score
10,824
Points
2,070
Location
Near Magnolia, TX
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?

.
My grandfather was a 32nd degree master mason.

I had some of his old stuff around after he passed away. Did you ever wonder why so many politicians and lawyers were masons that went beyond the 32nd degree?

Do you really understand what the BAR is, and what it is for? :dunno:

Here is your background plebeian explanation.

Bar association - Wikipedia

How about why all these lawyers and judges seem to be political in the administration of law and finance?

Internet search this term; "AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION by Augustus Blackstone"

That really doesn't answer my question.

.
Well. . . that is the most I am going to give you.

. . . if I gave you anymore, you would either be blinded by cognitive dissonance, or call me a conspiracy theorist.

I will give you a hint. The problem is not in the language of the document, but the actual document itself. It is legalese, and how it is interpreted in Admiralty Law.

It is a document meant for the oligarchs, the owners of this nation, NOT the people of this nation.

You are interpreting it through the eyes of Common Law.

Yet the founders said the Constitution was written with language that even the simplest farmer could understand it.

.


If Donald J. Trump were to go before the Senate? No, they have no power to indict him. But he will not go before them.

OTH. DONALD JOHN TRUMP will. :heehee:

Can you provide an English translation for that?

.
 

Ray From Cleveland

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
Messages
68,985
Reaction score
17,147
Points
2,290
I keep forgetting that the military and the public service employee are supposed to have an oath to the constitution and NOT any particular administration.
Which is why Piglosi should be thrown out of office yet alone leadership. She conducted an impeachment on a President who exercised his first amendment rights.
 

antontoo

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2016
Messages
18,409
Reaction score
3,015
Points
290
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?
.
This is an ADMINISTRATIVE trial, not a civil or criminal proceeding.

This trial's possible outcomes is removal of Trump as a president (moot), his post-presidency entitlements, and his future eligibility for Federal office. Which is different from financial penalties, jail, or capital punishment.
 
Last edited:
OP
OKTexas

OKTexas

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
51,949
Reaction score
10,824
Points
2,070
Location
Near Magnolia, TX
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?
.
This is an ADMINISTRATIVE trial, not a civil or criminal proceeding.

It still requires jurisdiction. I don't see where the senate has it.

.
 

hadit

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2013
Messages
27,629
Reaction score
5,922
Points
280
Naturally, the democrats have not thought this through. By going after TRUMP! even after he's left office, they've merely opened the door to one of theirs being hounded by a hostile Congress after he/she leaves office. It will happen, just like every other rule change and political hit job they've done for short term gain. They already eliminated the super majority requirement to appoint SC justices as we've seen. They've made inevitable their SC picks to be subjected to having their entire personal histories being dragged into the spotlight and spurious charges being endlessly yelled about, followed by partisan votes. They've cheapened impeachment to the point it will be used by a hostile House just to make political points. They've made inevitable endless investigations over the flimsiest of excuses. Now that Republicans are starting to figure out how to fight back, it's only going to get dirtier.

Oh well.
 

blackhawk

Platinum Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2012
Messages
28,663
Reaction score
8,992
Points
900
Location
Deep in the heart of Texas.
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?

.
Once the House passed the articles of impeachment to the Senate, that put the Senate in a position to act, the impeachment is just a part, the issue facing the Senate is whether to allow Trump to hold a public office.

I’d be interested in what a judicial decision would look like.

The house didn't present the article of impeachment before Trump left office.


Article 2, Section 4

The President, Vice President and all Civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

Funny I don't see disqualification for office listed here and he's already gone.

.
The following is my opinion but this whole second impeachment is not and never was about the Capitol Hill riot but about the 2024 election in case Trump should decide to run again. They want to have he was the twice impeached President to use against him that in my view is what this has always been about pure politics.
 

Ray From Cleveland

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
Messages
68,985
Reaction score
17,147
Points
2,290
Naturally, the democrats have not thought this through. By going after TRUMP! even after he's left office, they've merely opened the door to one of theirs being hounded by a hostile Congress after he/she leaves office. It will happen, just like every other rule change and political hit job they've done for short term gain. They already eliminated the super majority requirement to appoint SC justices as we've seen. They've made inevitable their SC picks to be subjected to having their entire personal histories being dragged into the spotlight and spurious charges being endlessly yelled about, followed by partisan votes. They've cheapened impeachment to the point it will be used by a hostile House just to make political points. They've made inevitable endless investigations over the flimsiest of excuses. Now that Republicans are starting to figure out how to fight back, it's only going to get dirtier.

Oh well.
It's almost guaranteed that after 2022 when the Republicans take the House, they will impeach slow Joe, maybe even twice or three times. They set the precedent that you no longer need to be guilty of a high crime or misdemeanor. They set the precedent that words are irrelevant, but only how the opposition defines the words.

The left is following the guidelines of their Bible--the book 1984. Two impeachments using the Thought Police, and people like AOC and many others discussing de-programming Trump followers, although in 1984, they used the term reprogramming. Same thing really.
 

hadit

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2013
Messages
27,629
Reaction score
5,922
Points
280
Naturally, the democrats have not thought this through. By going after TRUMP! even after he's left office, they've merely opened the door to one of theirs being hounded by a hostile Congress after he/she leaves office. It will happen, just like every other rule change and political hit job they've done for short term gain. They already eliminated the super majority requirement to appoint SC justices as we've seen. They've made inevitable their SC picks to be subjected to having their entire personal histories being dragged into the spotlight and spurious charges being endlessly yelled about, followed by partisan votes. They've cheapened impeachment to the point it will be used by a hostile House just to make political points. They've made inevitable endless investigations over the flimsiest of excuses. Now that Republicans are starting to figure out how to fight back, it's only going to get dirtier.

Oh well.
It's almost guaranteed that after 2022 when the Republicans take the House, they will impeach slow Joe, maybe even twice or three times. They set the precedent that you no longer need to be guilty of a high crime or misdemeanor. They set the precedent that words are irrelevant, but only how the opposition defines the words.

The left is following the guidelines of their Bible--the book 1984. Two impeachments using the Thought Police, and people like AOC and many others discussing de-programming Trump followers, although in 1984, they used the term reprogramming. Same thing really.
This country's greatness, IMO, has always been its adherence to certain standards of fair play in politics, specifically around accepting loss. When an opposition president appointed a SC justice, the Senate examined his/her record and left his/her personal life pretty much out of it. When a president left office, he was generally left alone and he didn't make a lot of waves for the new administration. If you didn't have the votes to get something done, it didn't get done. Of course there were always battles to obtain and keep power, but there was a point beyond which they did not go. But once you break those standards, you don't get them back. Harry Reid made sure, without realizing it, that the party in power in the Senate will be the lone arbiter on which judges and justices are seated. Nancy Pelosi has ensured that every president who faces a hostile House will undoubtedly be impeached, probably repeatedly, and that impeachment will mean very little unless the Senate also opposes the president. IOW, Quid Pro had better hope that the democrats don't take an Obama level shellacking in the mid terms. He might get bounced out of office because his day ends at 10:00 am.

We've always been able to correct ourselves, but the latest democrat shenanigans designed to ensure their perpetual grasp on power has been steadily eroding that ability.
 

Ray From Cleveland

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
Messages
68,985
Reaction score
17,147
Points
2,290
We've always been able to correct ourselves, but the latest democrat shenanigans designed to ensure their perpetual grasp on power has been steadily eroding that ability.
True, we can always correct ourselves, but the problem is the damage this country will have to endure before we can make that correction. Gasoline already went up 20 cents a gallon here after they determined Biden was the winner, and he didn't even do anything to energy with the exception of the Keystone pipeline, which put yet another 14 thousand more Americans out of a job, plus the harm it caused to associated businesses like stores, restaurant and hotels. The people who worked on the pipeline don't live there, they live out of their suitcases. I have no idea how many hundreds of workers also lost their job by Biden putting a stop to wall construction.
 

White 6

Platinum Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2019
Messages
12,178
Reaction score
6,243
Points
940
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.
You are blaming the actions of a small group of people on another person; a person that told his followers to protest legally and peacefully. If you told your neighbor you'd like to rob a bank because you really needed the money, and your neighbor robs a bank instead, do the cops arrest you or your neighbor?

The Democrats created this "It's always somebody else's fault" society. People are fat, so they blame McDonald's. People are on social programs, but they blame Walmart for not paying enough. People get gunned down in the street, and they blame the gun instead of the shooter. A lot of black people are poor, but we blame Jim Crow and slavery. When are we going to hold individuals exclusively responsible for their own actions, or is that era gone in our country thanks to Democrats?

Our founders didn't design the impeachment process for political revenge or to make sure a strong opponent doesn't return. They created the impeachment process as a mechanism to remove representatives from power. In other topics, we pointed out that the FBI was well aware of this possibility days before, and they even warned Capital police about the upcoming problem. So now the leftists switched the complaint from the speech Trump gave that day to all the things Trump said until that riot.
BS. You know some of crowd dynamics, whether you can stoke a crowd or not. Donnie is on the hot plate. The people are individually responsible, but does not let donnie off the hook. Founders desigened impeachment to punish presidents for high crimes and misdemeanors. This is not political revenge. He committed high crimes and misdemeanors. Donnie should have kept his mouth shut. Nobody has pulled this crap before.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top