Serious Question

[Ray From Cleveland]

First amendment rights restrict the congress from denying citizens their right to express themselves. Twitter may be muzzling Trump but I don't think congress is. When Trump incites an insurrection, that does fall under his right to free speech just as a man screaming fire in crowed auditorium.

Apples and oranges. First off, nobody can point to me anywhere in Trump's speech where he incited a riot. Not one mention of him instructing his followers to use violence, break laws, or bust down the doors of Congress in previous speeches or in his Tweets. In the speech during the riots, Trump told his people to protest peacefully and legally.

When somebody yells fire in a movie theater, their entire intent is to cause panic. That's not what Trump did. As I pointed out to Mustang, what Trump said is no more caustic than what Waters, Schumer, or Sander's said, and again, might have led to the baseball shooting since the shooter was a follower, and in documents the FBI found, he wrote letters to various Democrat politicians demanding Trump be removed from office and held on trial for treason. Now gee, where would he get an idea like that?

True, free speech can be limited to what one says, but if we limit it to how others construe the words, then we no longer have free speech because people can misinterpret what one is saying.

 

[MadDog]

The problem is the riots had nothing to do with Trump. Nazis are just being Nazis and using it as an excuse to try and stop a potential 2024 Trump run for President again. Like the first impeachment, as phony as a three dollar bill. No impeachable offense, no bribery, and no crime committed as the US Constitution outlines.

I thought you said you weren't a legal expert. Must have been somebody else. But I'm sure you know you should actually look at the evidence presented at trial before reaching you verdict. Not your own selective viewing.

 

[Flopper]

I doubt Trump will be a candidate in 2024 regardless of the outcome of the trial. The GOP leadership certainly has no use for him and looking at his drop in popularity after the attack on the capital, he has certainly lost support. 4 years as president has been hard on him and in 4 more years, the presidency will be out of his reach. His inability to carry on discussions and to speak accurately and fluently which is not very good now, will certainly get worse. I suspect he will remain in politics, probably campaigning for others and trying to reclaim his place again as a media personality. The Trump show or Trump TV may well become a reality.

Who knows, at his age 4 years means a lot. On the other hand look at confused Joe who was elected. He gets confused telling you his name. Trump lost support after the attack but it came back up, and his support will likely grow given what plans Biden has for this country and the likely outcome. Regrets are already in play with the unions, our northern neighbors, the American Indians, mothers with athletic daughters in school, and that was just one week. Think of how many millions of people he's going to piss off at the end of four years.

The Democrats know this of course which is why they are making idiots out of themselves trying to keep Trump from running again. As for the GOP, they will not refuse Trumps bid to be a contender in the primaries.

Biden isn't confused. Unlike Trump he choses his words careful because he does not want to be misinterpreted or mislead his audience. Trump simply didn't care. That's why he lied so much, often babbling and making no sense. You see the difference between the two everyday, no midnight raving and fame wars, professional weekly press briefing, and carefully worded statements. In other words, Biden, unlike Trump is going to be the kind of president that Americans have had for over 200 years, exercising leadership, dignity, honesty, and compassion.

 

[MadDog]

Apples and oranges. First off, nobody can point to me anywhere in Trump's speech where he incited a riot. Not one mention of him instructing his followers to use violence, break laws, or bust down the doors of Congress in previous speeches or in his Tweets. In the speech during the riots, Trump told his people to protest peacefully and legally.

He told people to fight. He told them to stop the certification. He stoked their anger. And he told them to march to the Capitol. If he didnt expect them to fight, what WAS he expecting them to do, have a picnic. Trumpers knew the members of Congress couldn't see or hear them. So quiet protests weren't going to stop the certification.

His followers felt they were being told to attack, as many of them have said. Words have to be put in context. If Trump had any reasonable expectation that there would be violence, then he was inciting. You don't just take the script. You put the whole thing in context.

He believed they would attack, he wanted them to attack, and he celebrated when they attacked.

By legal standards, that can be considered inciting.

Can Trump be charged with inciting a riot? Legal bar is high

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump's top White House lawyer has repeatedly warned the president that he could be held responsible for inciting Wednesday's riot at the Capitol, but the standard for legal liability is high under court decisions reaching back 50 years.

apnews.com

 

[OKTexas]

I doubt Trump will be a candidate in 2024 regardless of the outcome of the trial. The GOP leadership certainly has no use for him and looking at his drop in popularity after the attack on the capital, he has certainly lost support. 4 years as president has been hard on him and in 4 more years, the presidency will be out of his reach. His inability to carry on discussions and to speak accurately and fluently which is not very good now, will certainly get worse. I suspect he will remain in politics, probably campaigning for others and trying to reclaim his place again as a media personality. The Trump show or Trump TV may well become a reality.

Who knows, at his age 4 years means a lot. On the other hand look at confused Joe who was elected. He gets confused telling you his name. Trump lost support after the attack but it came back up, and his support will likely grow given what plans Biden has for this country and the likely outcome. Regrets are already in play with the unions, our northern neighbors, the American Indians, mothers with athletic daughters in school, and that was just one week. Think of how many millions of people he's going to piss off at the end of four years.

The Democrats know this of course which is why they are making idiots out of themselves trying to keep Trump from running again. As for the GOP, they will not refuse Trumps bid to be a contender in the primaries.

Biden isn't confused. Unlike Trump he choses his words careful because he does not want to be misinterpreted or mislead his audience. Trump simply didn't care. That's why he lied so much, often babbling and making no sense. You see the difference between the two everyday, no midnight raving and fame wars, professional weekly press briefing, and carefully worded statements. In other words, Biden, unlike Trump is going to be the kind of president that Americans have had for over 200 years, exercising leadership, dignity, honesty, and compassion.

Quid pro joes staff choses his words carefully for him and dutifully places them on a teleprompter. He gets himself in trouble when he goes off on his own.

.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

He told people to fight. He told them to stop the certification. He stoked their anger. And he told them to march to the Capitol. If he didnt expect them to fight, what WAS he expecting them to do, have a picnic. Trumpers knew the members of Congress couldn't see or hear them. So quiet protests weren't going to stop the certification.

His followers felt they were being told to attack, as many of them have said. Words have to be put in context. If Trump had any reasonable expectation that there would be violence, then he was inciting. You don't just take the script. You put the whole thing in context.

He believed they would attack, he wanted them to attack, and he celebrated when they attacked.

By legal standards, that can be considered inciting.

Again, liberal mind reading. How do you know Trump believed they would attack? Have any evidence of "what Trump knew" when he said those things? Fight does not necessarily mean to use physical violence. What was he hoping they would do? Show up in great numbers to threaten Congress into doing what he thought was right. Please post for me when Trump celebrated the attack; another lie by you.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I thought you said you weren't a legal expert. Must have been somebody else. But I'm sure you know you should actually look at the evidence presented at trial before reaching you verdict. Not your own selective viewing.

So what evidence did the commies look at? No legal representation of the accused, no investigation, no written law that was broken, no impeachable offense, no timeline of the event. Again, Piglosi and others must have known the FBI gave Capital police warnings about what they presumed would happen days before. If this was knee-jerk reaction based on what Trump said, how would the FBI have known this? How is it the rioters came with shields and zip lock handcuffs if it wasn't long planned?

 

[Flopper]

First amendment rights restrict the congress from denying citizens their right to express themselves. Twitter may be muzzling Trump but I don't think congress is. When Trump incites an insurrection, that does fall under his right to free speech just as a man screaming fire in crowed auditorium.

Apples and oranges. First off, nobody can point to me anywhere in Trump's speech where he incited a riot. Not one mention of him instructing his followers to use violence, break laws, or bust down the doors of Congress in previous speeches or in his Tweets. In the speech during the riots, Trump told his people to protest peacefully and legally.

When somebody yells fire in a movie theater, their entire intent is to cause panic. That's not what Trump did. As I pointed out to Mustang, what Trump said is no more caustic than what Waters, Schumer, or Sander's said, and again, might have led to the baseball shooting since the shooter was a follower, and in documents the FBI found, he wrote letters to various Democrat politicians demanding Trump be removed from office and held on trial for treason. Now gee, where would he get an idea like that?

True, free speech can be limited to what one says, but if we limit it to how others construe the words, then we no longer have free speech because people can misinterpret what one is saying.

Unlike Schumer or Sanders, Trump was addressing an armed mob intent on taking the Capital. Take a look at Trump's statements. He told them to come to Washington, to go to the capital, and endorsed violence. The meaning to that mob was quite clear. As a number of them said they jus doing what the president told them or wanted them to do.

 

[OKTexas]

He told people to fight. He told them to stop the certification. He stoked their anger. And he told them to march to the Capitol. If he didnt expect them to fight, what WAS he expecting them to do, have a picnic. Trumpers knew the members of Congress couldn't see or hear them. So quiet protests weren't going to stop the certification.

His followers felt they were being told to attack, as many of them have said. Words have to be put in context. If Trump had any reasonable expectation that there would be violence, then he was inciting. You don't just take the script. You put the whole thing in context.

He believed they would attack, he wanted them to attack, and he celebrated when they attacked.

By legal standards, that can be considered inciting.

Again, liberal mind reading. How do you know Trump believed they would attack? Have any evidence of "what Trump knew" when he said those things? Fight does not necessarily mean to use physical violence. What was he hoping they would do? Show up in great numbers to threaten Congress into doing what he thought was right. Please post for me when Trump celebrated the attack; another lie by you.

Battles, stay engaged, keep FIGHTING, and the bitch is going to be with you every step of the way, was that inciteful? . Sounded a lot like Trumps speech. LMAO

.

 

[OKTexas]

First amendment rights restrict the congress from denying citizens their right to express themselves. Twitter may be muzzling Trump but I don't think congress is. When Trump incites an insurrection, that does fall under his right to free speech just as a man screaming fire in crowed auditorium.

Apples and oranges. First off, nobody can point to me anywhere in Trump's speech where he incited a riot. Not one mention of him instructing his followers to use violence, break laws, or bust down the doors of Congress in previous speeches or in his Tweets. In the speech during the riots, Trump told his people to protest peacefully and legally.

When somebody yells fire in a movie theater, their entire intent is to cause panic. That's not what Trump did. As I pointed out to Mustang, what Trump said is no more caustic than what Waters, Schumer, or Sander's said, and again, might have led to the baseball shooting since the shooter was a follower, and in documents the FBI found, he wrote letters to various Democrat politicians demanding Trump be removed from office and held on trial for treason. Now gee, where would he get an idea like that?

True, free speech can be limited to what one says, but if we limit it to how others construe the words, then we no longer have free speech because people can misinterpret what one is saying.

Unlike Schumer or Sanders, Trump was addressing an armed mob intent on taking the Capital. Take a look at Trump's statements. He told them to come to Washington, to go to the capital, and endorsed violence. The meaning to that mob was quite clear. As a number of them said they jus doing what the president told them or wanted them to do.

View attachment 448218

Of course you have proof anyone at his speech was armed and quotes of Trump telling them to be violent, RIGHT, RIGHT???????????? Come on commie, put up or STFU.

.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

He told people to fight. He told them to stop the certification. He stoked their anger. And he told them to march to the Capitol. If he didnt expect them to fight, what WAS he expecting them to do, have a picnic. Trumpers knew the members of Congress couldn't see or hear them. So quiet protests weren't going to stop the certification.

His followers felt they were being told to attack, as many of them have said. Words have to be put in context. If Trump had any reasonable expectation that there would be violence, then he was inciting. You don't just take the script. You put the whole thing in context.

He believed they would attack, he wanted them to attack, and he celebrated when they attacked.

By legal standards, that can be considered inciting.

Again, liberal mind reading. How do you know Trump believed they would attack? Have any evidence of "what Trump knew" when he said those things? Fight does not necessarily mean to use physical violence. What was he hoping they would do? Show up in great numbers to threaten Congress into doing what he thought was right. Please post for me when Trump celebrated the attack; another lie by you.

Battles, stay engaged, keep FIGHTING, and the bitch is going to be with you every step of the way, was that inciteful? . Sounded a lot like Trumps speech. LMAO

.

Democrats are so myopic. They always accuse Republicans of things their people do all the time. I can probably find a dozen videos of Democrats using phrases like "we need to fight!" Or "take back our country!" They do it way more often than Republicans do. You had Bernie Sanders and others saying Trump was a racist, even though Trump never said a racist thing in his life, and eventually some clown went to the baseball field where Republicans were practicing and tried to kill them all. Not a peep from the left.

And that's just their representatives. Their cohorts in the media and entertainment stoke the fire all the time. Again, no problem from these very same people defending the actions of Piglosi and the rest of the Nazis.

CNN, MSNBC said ‘racist’ more than 4,100 times from July 14-21

CNN and MSNBC said the word “racist” more than 4,100 times from July 14-21, according to a tally by Grabien Media, an online media production and news prep service.The tally is based on…

thehill.com

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Unlike Schumer or Sanders, Trump was addressing an armed mob intent on taking the Capital. Take a look at Trump's statements. He told them to come to Washington, to go to the capital, and endorsed violence. The meaning to that mob was quite clear. As a number of them said they jus doing what the president told them or wanted them to do.

And yet you can't point to one statement where Trump sanctioned violence. Yes, go to the Capital. How is that telling them to riot or be violent?

Let me ask: Do you think freedom of speech is limited to how one receives that speech, or is it limited to actual words used? Because you on the left seem to believe if somebody misconstrued the words of another, the person they heard the words from is guilty and not them. If you believe the latter, then we really have no constitutional right to free speech.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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?

.

Well, and even though I am on Trump's side here, seems like once someone has served as POTUS he's sort of considered a President for life. I don't agree with it, but the bad guys are gonna take this one to the limits and beyond. I'll even go so far myself as to say Trump brought this on himself in the sense that he could have declared martial law, called up the regular Army, and wiped our government clean of ALL traitors. In the process he might have even avoided a second impeachment trial. Instead he handed our government and all of us right over to the most evil incarnation of US Government in America's history. I won't shed one tear for any demise Trump might meet at the hands of the democrats and traitor republicans. He had the chance to possibly save our civilization and he walked away. Better to die a hero than be drawn and quartered as some kind of half-assed martyr.

You mean by commiting a military coup he would have saved the country? What country are you referring to? Zimbabwe?

The coup attempt was the fraudulent election. Your Zimbabwe was engineered by the democrats and their republican turncoat allies. Our nation was founded in rebellion. To deny that is to deny your own history and national identity.

Calling an election you lost fraudulent doesn’t make it so. As is evident by the claims being rejected by the judiciary, the DOJ, the lawyers representing the plaintiff for election disputes (even Powell retracted her case) and now hard-line Conservative "news" outlets like American thinker and OAAN. The only places people insist it happened is the dark reccesses of the internet. If your friends and enemies allnsay the same thing you probably should take notice.

By the way for someone who doesn't believe in a POTUS for life you seem perfectly content with trying to install one.

Claiming you won an honest election doesn't make it so either.

No it doesn't, you are right. The way you prove that they were dis(honest) is by putting your case to the test in the only venue that has the constitutional power to grant relief if you dispute the election result. That power lays with the judiciary.

The judiciary has ruled overwhelmingly that the election results where valid. Those rulings where done by judges nominated by ALL presidents up until Reagan.

So my questions to you are. Why is it that you hold on to this claim of "stolen elections" when it's been rejected by that entity? Why is it that you hold on to it it when even the AG, hardly a Democrat rejects it? Why is it that you hold on to it even when Trumps own lawyers are hesitant or even unwilling to assert it in court?

So my questions to you are. Why is it that you hold on to this claim of "stolen elections" when it's been rejected by that entity?

That question has been answered repeatedly and the answer remains the same. The judiciary is a branch of government and governments (including the judiciary) are well known to become tyrannical and corrupt. The Founders made it quite clear by word and deed that the people were to be the final judge and that it their Right and duty to alter or replace government if and when needed. Also refusing to hear the evidence is not the same as rejecting. "..of the People, for People, by the People..." The People are speaking. You best listen.

Where does the Constitution say that. It’s filled with provisions giving sole authority to Congress, The Judicaty, and other pats of government. see Article 1, section 3 clause 6 where SOLE POWER to try an impeachment is granted to the Senate, not to the “people”

Predates the Constitution:


In Congress, July 4, 1776

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

These were the people who made this Country at the risk of their lives through revolt and insurrection against their legitimate government. If that weren't example enough they gave us a Constitution of checks and balances with the people as the ultimate check to balance the government.

So the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are at odds with each. The difference is that the Declaration has no legal authority. It is a DECLARATION of principles. as is the Gettysburg Address.

The Declaration of Independence and Constitution are at odds only if you presume that laws (made by government) were intended to trump Rights (of the People) when they clearly were not.

well, the Declaration of Independence says that all men are created equal. If the Declaration has the force of law, why was slavery around for another 89 tears?

the Constitution grants power through a representative form of government. The people’s power is Exercised through voting and through Representation in Congress. When congress acts, they are doing so because they were elected to do just that.

the Declaration does not have the force of law.

Who said otherwise? Not me. The Peoples Rights are separate from and above government whims AKA "the force of law".

Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,

Simple. When if there is no consent there is no just power to the government. That is a founding principle; not a mere law of a government with no just power. Oh the government may still have some physical power with which to intimidate and oppress the people and might even succeed even in suppressing them for a time but a house divided against itself cannot stand indefinitely (also not a law).

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government,

"...Right of the People..." Right; not law. Laws are whatever a government wants to claim they are. Rights are so very much more and not subject to government approval.

But if the people are divide who is right. Which rights of the people are just. If the group lost then they should accept it. Hiding behind we the people when it is just "the like minded" people who would not accept the rights of the other people who disagree.

Interesting how you think that now, but didn't think that four years ago. That is, unless you can point us to a post by you back then insisting that "the group that lost should accept it".

 

[Cecilie1200]

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?

.

For the record, I am completely against impeachment & a strong Trump supporter, but that wasn't what you were asking.

Article I, Section 3, Clauses 6 & 7 state:

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.

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.

It is quite interesting.

Since Trump is not president, Chief Justice Roberts would not have to preside.

The word "and" in Clause 7 is rather interesting, but I suppose only doing disqualification of future offices does not "extend further" than doing both. I would bet that despite there being three or more Constitutional orignalists on the SCOTUS, they would prefer not to get involved in the legislature, just like they did for the election lawsuits, even though it would seem completely appropriate.

Clearly, the last sentence about a legal trial could extend until the statute of limitations ran out. So if you can conduct a legal trial after the fact (they always are), then I suppose you can conduct an impeachment trial of someone who you think is unfit to hold future office, after they leave office, just because it makes sense.

Let's say a president does something actually treasonous like taking bribes from China or some covert deal with another nation that results in US troops getting killed. I would be all for impeachment after leaving office.

But this impeachment is just another political attack on a very powerful adversary of the globalists' agenda, so the Dems will do everything they can to weaken it.

Unity, my foot.

The Federalist Society points out that if you can’t try an out of office president, it would be possible for a President facing conviction to resign from office one minute before the Senate vote to avoid being barred from running. Not sure that’s what was intended again.

BTW, there are a lot of Republicans who want to weaken Trump too

Yes, well, that's why the next clause in Article I, Section 3 states that they can still be tried in criminal court. ". . . but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law."

And, in fact, Nixon resigned when the Articles of Impeachment against him were being drawn up precisely to put a stop to the proceeding, and it did. So it's no good for The Federalist Society to try to come up now and say, "That can't be how it's supposed to work, because THIS might happen, and obviously that can't be allowed."

 

[Cecilie1200]

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

Your thoughts?

.

Is Trump still receiving benefits from his time as president?

Then:

" Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law. "

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

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

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

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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

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

In my entire life I've never seen either party so deathly scared of a political opponent to go through these lengths before. These Democrats really think they aren't obvious as to what they're up to. It's just like the commie cities now saying how they need to open up, even though we have a much larger problem than we did before when they closed down.

 

[Kilroy2]

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?

.

Well, and even though I am on Trump's side here, seems like once someone has served as POTUS he's sort of considered a President for life. I don't agree with it, but the bad guys are gonna take this one to the limits and beyond. I'll even go so far myself as to say Trump brought this on himself in the sense that he could have declared martial law, called up the regular Army, and wiped our government clean of ALL traitors. In the process he might have even avoided a second impeachment trial. Instead he handed our government and all of us right over to the most evil incarnation of US Government in America's history. I won't shed one tear for any demise Trump might meet at the hands of the democrats and traitor republicans. He had the chance to possibly save our civilization and he walked away. Better to die a hero than be drawn and quartered as some kind of half-assed martyr.

You mean by commiting a military coup he would have saved the country? What country are you referring to? Zimbabwe?

The coup attempt was the fraudulent election. Your Zimbabwe was engineered by the democrats and their republican turncoat allies. Our nation was founded in rebellion. To deny that is to deny your own history and national identity.

Calling an election you lost fraudulent doesn’t make it so. As is evident by the claims being rejected by the judiciary, the DOJ, the lawyers representing the plaintiff for election disputes (even Powell retracted her case) and now hard-line Conservative "news" outlets like American thinker and OAAN. The only places people insist it happened is the dark reccesses of the internet. If your friends and enemies allnsay the same thing you probably should take notice.

By the way for someone who doesn't believe in a POTUS for life you seem perfectly content with trying to install one.

Claiming you won an honest election doesn't make it so either.

No it doesn't, you are right. The way you prove that they were dis(honest) is by putting your case to the test in the only venue that has the constitutional power to grant relief if you dispute the election result. That power lays with the judiciary.

The judiciary has ruled overwhelmingly that the election results where valid. Those rulings where done by judges nominated by ALL presidents up until Reagan.

So my questions to you are. Why is it that you hold on to this claim of "stolen elections" when it's been rejected by that entity? Why is it that you hold on to it it when even the AG, hardly a Democrat rejects it? Why is it that you hold on to it even when Trumps own lawyers are hesitant or even unwilling to assert it in court?

So my questions to you are. Why is it that you hold on to this claim of "stolen elections" when it's been rejected by that entity?

That question has been answered repeatedly and the answer remains the same. The judiciary is a branch of government and governments (including the judiciary) are well known to become tyrannical and corrupt. The Founders made it quite clear by word and deed that the people were to be the final judge and that it their Right and duty to alter or replace government if and when needed. Also refusing to hear the evidence is not the same as rejecting. "..of the People, for People, by the People..." The People are speaking. You best listen.

Where does the Constitution say that. It’s filled with provisions giving sole authority to Congress, The Judicaty, and other pats of government. see Article 1, section 3 clause 6 where SOLE POWER to try an impeachment is granted to the Senate, not to the “people”

Predates the Constitution:


In Congress, July 4, 1776

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

These were the people who made this Country at the risk of their lives through revolt and insurrection against their legitimate government. If that weren't example enough they gave us a Constitution of checks and balances with the people as the ultimate check to balance the government.

So the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are at odds with each. The difference is that the Declaration has no legal authority. It is a DECLARATION of principles. as is the Gettysburg Address.

The Declaration of Independence and Constitution are at odds only if you presume that laws (made by government) were intended to trump Rights (of the People) when they clearly were not.

well, the Declaration of Independence says that all men are created equal. If the Declaration has the force of law, why was slavery around for another 89 tears?

the Constitution grants power through a representative form of government. The people’s power is Exercised through voting and through Representation in Congress. When congress acts, they are doing so because they were elected to do just that.

the Declaration does not have the force of law.

Who said otherwise? Not me. The Peoples Rights are separate from and above government whims AKA "the force of law".

Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,

Simple. When if there is no consent there is no just power to the government. That is a founding principle; not a mere law of a government with no just power. Oh the government may still have some physical power with which to intimidate and oppress the people and might even succeed even in suppressing them for a time but a house divided against itself cannot stand indefinitely (also not a law).

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government,

"...Right of the People..." Right; not law. Laws are whatever a government wants to claim they are. Rights are so very much more and not subject to government approval.

But if the people are divide who is right. Which rights of the people are just. If the group lost then they should accept it. Hiding behind we the people when it is just "the like minded" people who would not accept the rights of the other people who disagree.

Interesting how you think that now, but didn't think that four years ago. That is, unless you can point us to a post by you back then insisting that "the group that lost should accept it".

Hillary Clinton's concession speech (full text)

Hillary Clinton conceded the election to President-elect Donald Trump.

www.cnn.com

Sorry I was not on the board but take my word for it Clinton lost and that was that. She acknowledge the defeat in public and conceded defeat in early November.

She did not submit 70 challenges to the court system claiming fraud or procedural errors. She did not urge supporters to gather in Washington to contest the election. She did not call AG of a state to find additional votes. She did not start a movement called "Stop the Steal".

Trump on the other hand has done all the above and has not conceded public the defeat. He snuck out on the last day. Afraid that Biden would not let him use AF 1 for the ride home. Refusing to go to the inauguration and appearing in public one last time as the president. Making appointees and changes in the last few days just to be spiteful.

Trump did all the above. Things that a petty man would do. I would feel sorry for him but can't stop laughing at his antics.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

She did not submit 70 challenges to the court system claiming fraud or procedural errors. She did not urge supporters to gather in Washington to contest the election. She did not call AG of a state to find additional votes. She did not start a movement called "Stop the Steal".

There was nothing suspicious in her election. When you have this guy with dementia not only win the election, but with a new record of voters, something is seriously wrong. His son is under FBI investigation which according to Tony Boblinksi, Joe was involved in. Go to his website and his entire agenda is destructive for most Americans. If it was Obama, I don't think that the election would be that questionable. But this joker has been in federal government for 50 years, never accomplished a thing, and he's the most popular President in history?????

About 75% of Republicans agree with Trump that this entire election was rigged. It has nothing to do with what Trump says, it has to do with the fact Joe was a complete failure his entire professional life while Trump was the best President we've had since Reagan.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Is Trump still receiving benefits from his time as president?

Then:

" Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law. "

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

That's an interesting argument.

Regarding "Is Trump still receiving benefits from his time as president?"...

"Besides a pension and office-related funds, former presidents get lifelong Secret Service protection for themselves, their spouses, and their children under 16."

Former presidents also get fund for travel....

What Benefits Do Presidents Get After They Leave Office?

The Former Presidents Act, which was passed by Dwight Eisenhower in 1958—largely to help Harry Truman, who struggled financially after leaving the Oval Office—entitles ex-presidents to a handful of benefits.

www.mentalfloss.com

COTUS says "Trust or Profit." I would hope that the Secret Service protection would not qualify for either of those.

All of this unity from the now all-powerful Democrats is really overwhelming.

Actually the Constitution says "Office of Honor, Trust or Profit", a former president already holds no office.

.

Are you people just so stupid you cannot read the words in front of you?

Trump hold the position of "Former President"
The position of "Former President" includes many government provided perks like
Free health care, just like the President
A salary, just like the President
Secret Service protections just like the President...

The TITLE of Former President is an "Office of Honor" that Trump can and does intden to profit from.

It really is all in English.

"Former President" is a description, not a position. "Perks" are not the defining factor; powers and responsibilities are. Former Presidents have neither. This is like saying that if I retire from a company and get a pension, I am "holding a position" with that company.

The more you try to struggle to say, "I want it, therefore it's legitimate!!!" the more ignorant you sound.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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?

.

Well, and even though I am on Trump's side here, seems like once someone has served as POTUS he's sort of considered a President for life. I don't agree with it, but the bad guys are gonna take this one to the limits and beyond. I'll even go so far myself as to say Trump brought this on himself in the sense that he could have declared martial law, called up the regular Army, and wiped our government clean of ALL traitors. In the process he might have even avoided a second impeachment trial. Instead he handed our government and all of us right over to the most evil incarnation of US Government in America's history. I won't shed one tear for any demise Trump might meet at the hands of the democrats and traitor republicans. He had the chance to possibly save our civilization and he walked away. Better to die a hero than be drawn and quartered as some kind of half-assed martyr.

You mean by commiting a military coup he would have saved the country? What country are you referring to? Zimbabwe?

The coup attempt was the fraudulent election. Your Zimbabwe was engineered by the democrats and their republican turncoat allies. Our nation was founded in rebellion. To deny that is to deny your own history and national identity.

Calling an election you lost fraudulent doesn’t make it so. As is evident by the claims being rejected by the judiciary, the DOJ, the lawyers representing the plaintiff for election disputes (even Powell retracted her case) and now hard-line Conservative "news" outlets like American thinker and OAAN. The only places people insist it happened is the dark reccesses of the internet. If your friends and enemies allnsay the same thing you probably should take notice.

By the way for someone who doesn't believe in a POTUS for life you seem perfectly content with trying to install one.

Claiming you won an honest election doesn't make it so either.

No it doesn't, you are right. The way you prove that they were dis(honest) is by putting your case to the test in the only venue that has the constitutional power to grant relief if you dispute the election result. That power lays with the judiciary.

The judiciary has ruled overwhelmingly that the election results where valid. Those rulings where done by judges nominated by ALL presidents up until Reagan.

So my questions to you are. Why is it that you hold on to this claim of "stolen elections" when it's been rejected by that entity? Why is it that you hold on to it it when even the AG, hardly a Democrat rejects it? Why is it that you hold on to it even when Trumps own lawyers are hesitant or even unwilling to assert it in court?

So my questions to you are. Why is it that you hold on to this claim of "stolen elections" when it's been rejected by that entity?

That question has been answered repeatedly and the answer remains the same. The judiciary is a branch of government and governments (including the judiciary) are well known to become tyrannical and corrupt. The Founders made it quite clear by word and deed that the people were to be the final judge and that it their Right and duty to alter or replace government if and when needed. Also refusing to hear the evidence is not the same as rejecting. "..of the People, for People, by the People..." The People are speaking. You best listen.

Where does the Constitution say that. It’s filled with provisions giving sole authority to Congress, The Judicaty, and other pats of government. see Article 1, section 3 clause 6 where SOLE POWER to try an impeachment is granted to the Senate, not to the “people”

Predates the Constitution:


In Congress, July 4, 1776

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

These were the people who made this Country at the risk of their lives through revolt and insurrection against their legitimate government. If that weren't example enough they gave us a Constitution of checks and balances with the people as the ultimate check to balance the government.

So the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are at odds with each. The difference is that the Declaration has no legal authority. It is a DECLARATION of principles. as is the Gettysburg Address.

The Declaration of Independence and Constitution are at odds only if you presume that laws (made by government) were intended to trump Rights (of the People) when they clearly were not.

well, the Declaration of Independence says that all men are created equal. If the Declaration has the force of law, why was slavery around for another 89 tears?

the Constitution grants power through a representative form of government. The people’s power is Exercised through voting and through Representation in Congress. When congress acts, they are doing so because they were elected to do just that.

the Declaration does not have the force of law.

Who said otherwise? Not me. The Peoples Rights are separate from and above government whims AKA "the force of law".

Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,

Simple. When if there is no consent there is no just power to the government. That is a founding principle; not a mere law of a government with no just power. Oh the government may still have some physical power with which to intimidate and oppress the people and might even succeed even in suppressing them for a time but a house divided against itself cannot stand indefinitely (also not a law).

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government,

"...Right of the People..." Right; not law. Laws are whatever a government wants to claim they are. Rights are so very much more and not subject to government approval.

But if the people are divide who is right. Which rights of the people are just. If the group lost then they should accept it. Hiding behind we the people when it is just "the like minded" people who would not accept the rights of the other people who disagree.

Interesting how you think that now, but didn't think that four years ago. That is, unless you can point us to a post by you back then insisting that "the group that lost should accept it".

Hillary Clinton's concession speech (full text)

Hillary Clinton conceded the election to President-elect Donald Trump.

www.cnn.com

Sorry I was not on the board but take my word for it Clinton lost and that was that. She acknowledge the defeat in public and conceded defeat in early November.

She did not submit 70 challenges to the court system claiming fraud or procedural errors. She did not urge supporters to gather in Washington to contest the election. She did not call AG of a state to find additional votes. She did not start a movement called "Stop the Steal".

Trump on the other hand has done all the above and has not conceded public the defeat. He snuck out on the last day. Afraid that Biden would not let him use AF 1 for the ride home. Refusing to go to the inauguration and appearing in public one last time as the president. Making appointees and changes in the last few days just to be spiteful.

Trump did all the above. Things that a petty man would do. I would feel sorry for him but can't stop laughing at his antics.

Hillary Clinton spent the last four years telling everyone who would listen that Trump was "illegitimate", and she "beat" him. Her cohorts in the Democrat Party and the media - but I repeat myself - have spent the last four years yammering about "Russian collusion" and how it "stole the election", up to actually impeaching the President over this non-existent collusion.

So do NOT gabble at me about "Well, here's Hillary's concession speech, so we accepted the election loss just fine, and MEANWHILE, Trump is a very, very bad man because that's how I want to remember it!"

Since I have a functioning brain stem, I simply will not be able to accommodate your desire that I magically start remembering the last four years the way you dictate. Sorry.