slug.com slug.com
5 8

Democrats decide to escalate domestic tensions with Trump’s trial.

ramzpaul 8 Jan 27
Share
You must be a member of this group before commenting. Join Group

Be part of the movement!

Welcome to the community for those who value free speech, evidence and civil discourse.

Create your free account

5 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

0

The money wasted on these totally baseless witch hunts could help so many stuggling Americans.The greed and corruption of these institutions are beyond belief.

Welder1 Level 6 Jan 28, 2021
0

More End of History stuff on you tube.

What would the video have been like on Rumble?

PS Gab is working decent.

0

seems like a vindicative retaliation politicking to me, not to mention the distraction from real problems facing us all

[law.cornell.edu]

0

"escalate domestic tensions"

Conservative logic, or rather political logic, is like no other logic in the world.
A person spends 4 years "escalating domestic tensions" and then it is argued that he should not be held accountable for that because it will, surprise surprise, escalate the tensions they themselves were responsible for.

This is like saying that a Charles Manson should never have been brought to trial because it would have resulted in escalating the mass murders he was being held accountable for. Sigh.

@Genghis

More fact, the Senate does not have any power of a Bill of Attainder over a private citizen and cannot remove someone who has been removed. Without that power or authority Constitutionally they must dismiss and/or acquit.

Not so.


Article I, Section 3, Clauses 6 and 7 provide:

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,


As he is no longer in office, he cannot be removed.
However, as he can still hold office, a conviction of impeachment is still relevant and thus no requirement to dismiss or aquit.

@Genghis

All of that makes this nothing more than a show trial for the sake of kicking a person down further than they already have, a Kangaroo court.

Holding people accountable for their actions is not a show trial, nor has any court stopped a trial simply on the basis of "not kicking a person further down" if there is merit to them being kicked further down.

In this case, on the off chance he is convicted, it would prevent him from holding the very office and having the very powers again upon which the conviction is about.. and thus further down is what many of us want to see.

@Genghis

Basically you cannot do one without the other.

Precedent for impeachment AFTER office was established in 1876 so yes, you can in fact do one without the other..

In 1876, as the U.S. House of Representatives was about to vote on articles of impeachment against Secretary of War William Belknap over corruption charges, Belknap walked over to the White House, submitted his resignation letter to President Ulysses S. Grant

The House still went ahead and impeached Belknap, and the Senate tried him, and the Senate voted in 1876, by a 37-29 margin, that Belknap was eligible to be impeached and tried even though he resigned from office.

If this weren't the case, then any official could avoid any impeachment... and thus be eligible for office again.. merely by resigning.

@Genghis

you can't find any exact wording that meets the legal threshold for such a charge.

Sorry. Case precedent... and the obvious fact the impeachment is moving forward... "trumps" your semantics wordplay that it is fruitless simply because you interpret "and" to mean one can't happen without the other... despite 1876 case precedent proving this not the case.

And Justice Roberts not presiding is only because the impeachment is not against a sitting president, which is what the constitution requires... that the chief justice preside over the president. Since he is no longer the president, he can still be impeached... obviously as it's happening... but it need not be presided by Roberts, who didn't even want to be involved in the first impeachment but had to by the verbiage of the constitution.

@Genghis

In 1876 they voted to acquit because they did not have jurisdiction...

False.
From the senate.gov itself:

The Senate convened its trial in early April, with Belknap present, after agreeing that it retained impeachment jurisdiction over former government officials. During May, the Senate heard more than 40 witnesses, as House managers argued that Belknap should not be allowed to escape from justice simply by resigning his office.
On August 1, 1876, the Senate rendered a majority vote against Belknap on all five articles. As each vote fell short of the necessary two-thirds, however, he won acquittal. Belknap was not prosecuted further; he died in 1890.

[senate.gov]

You are having trouble following the logic.

Senate.gov proves that I'm not the one having troubles here, my friend...

@Genghis

I'm gonna make you a prediction big guy, the "former" president will be acquitted, why, you can parse this way or that way, but it is going to happen.

I agree. Never said otherwise.
But he will not be acquitted on the grounds you falsely make, namely that the senate has no jurisdiction for clearly, based on precedent and the fact they are moving forward, they do.

@Genghis

🙄

Your truth.

In 1876 they voted to acquit because they did not have jurisdiction...

The truth.

The Senate convened its trial in early April, with Belknap present, after agreeing that it retained impeachment jurisdiction over former government officials [...]On August 1, 1876, the Senate rendered a majority vote against Belknap on all five articles. As each vote fell short of the necessary two-thirds, however, he won acquittal.

Think before you speak.
And google before you think.
You'll avoid many eye-rolls that way. 😉

Can a judge also be a juror and a plaintiff?

@Afterthought
??????????????
Not following.

1

you guys really want to be pandered to, don't you?

bastion Level 7 Jan 27, 2021

So I have no doubt the democrats would play the same hypocritical games where the roles reversed. BUT, they aren't reversed now and thus it's fair to bring the republican hypocrasy to task.

8 months prior to the 2016 election, confirming SCOTUS would not let the american public speak as teh election was looming and so it's not done.
2 months prior to the 2020, confirming SCOTUS is a national obligation that must be done ASAP to let the american public speak.

4 years of an individual and administration escalating domestic tensions and we should absolutely do everything they say.
And estimated 2 months of brining said individual (and hopefully, eventually, his adminstration) to task and it risks escalating THE VERY TENSIONS HE HELPED CREATE... so we shouldn't do it.

Hypocrasy is endemic in our political system. And given that I'm on the left, it's natural for me to see it more in the right. But I would say the same if it were people on the left pulling this shit and it pisses me off that people on teh right support this hypocrisy...SUPPORT THE VERY SWAMP LIKE BEHAIVIOUR THEY VOTED TRUMP TO OUST... all because it's "their tribe" being attacked.

@TheMiddleWay yeah it's hilarious - they want to be free to overthrow the government but when it fails want to be treated with kid gloves and whispered and cooed too so they feel better.

pretending the election was "stolen" is just an excuse for their tantrums.

@Genghis
Your comparison is a failed attempt at distraction:: the day that the USA has a proper military coup and a proper dictator, we can start comparing my experiences under a dictator to my experiences under Trump/Biden

Until then, THE HYPOCRISIES OF THE LEFT AND THE RIGHT BEING DEFENDED BY THE LEFT AND BY THE RIGHT, RESPECTIVELY, is what I'm pointing out is broken.

Write Comment

Recent Visitors 26

Photos 490 More

Posted by CourseofEmpireThey are really gunning for anyone who won't comply!

Posted by CourseofEmpireI've seen a lot of this or variations of it lately.

Posted by ellismJust a heads up.

Posted by CourseofEmpireFrom a snap protest against the lockdown in Melbourne tonight. NB: these protests are now classified as illegal and many of these people were later arrested.

Posted by StratslingerLessons From Nixon - Men Of The West

Posted by CourseofEmpireEurophobia is a term that should be made common in the popular vernacular.

Posted by CourseofEmpireYep, white supremacy (actually, just being white) is the cause of all problems. ;)

Posted by RLeeBarkerIntroducing the New Lego set, "Capitol Visit"

Posted by WingITprodAmerican NeoGothic 2 by WingIT Productions

Posted by CourseofEmpireIt's a troll account, but so wished it was real. 😂

Posted by andaleyutroLet's call the Zionists 'razists'.

Posted by ellismLevel 3 Already Whoopie

Posted by CourseofEmpireWell, as long as it’s done by a private company, I guess it’s ok then, right?

Posted by sqeptiqHello, fellow white people!

Posted by CourseofEmpireYes, I'm sure she was an absolute polymath.

Posted by CourseofEmpireInteresting, so it does seem that restricting immigration actually benefits a country: [numbersusa.com]

  • Top tags#video #world #media #government #hope #biden #money #youtube #Police #reason #truth #death #god #culture #rights #whites #democrats #politics #USA #society #China #freedom #vote #evidence #children #videos #Canada #TheTruth #liberal #racist #kids #evil #fear #nation #community #racism #conservative #chinese #friends #hell #crime #book #propaganda #justice #religion #Christian #population #FreeSpeech #antifa #Flu ...

    Members 1,811Top

    Moderator