Turns out a paramilitary group that attacked the Capitol did not do so on their own initiative; they waited for Trump's instructions before they attacked. =========================== OHIO — In a court filing Thursday, prosecutors wrote an Oath Keepers leader from Ohio claimed she waiting for former President Donald Trump's direction before partaking in riots at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6. The Oath Keepers are a "large and loosely-organized anti-government extremist group," according to the Anti-Defamation League. In the filing, Jessica Watkins, 38, told prosecutors she believed it was an "elaborate trap" at first and would only go to the Capitol if Trump told her to. "If Trump asks me to come, I will. Otherwise, I can't trust it," she said. =========================== https://www.mynews13.com/fl/orlando...er-from-ohio-says-she-waited-for-trump-s-word
My reasoning: The impeachment is considered a constitutional remedy to a constitutional problem and should be trialed in a court that deals with constitutional matters. The Supreme court is that body. Their judgement is based on sound legal argument and even though the judges personal political inclination may provide some bias they are still required to present legal argument. They are subjected to constant review and criticism by legal professionals through out the USA. For a supreme court judge to declare a political allegiance would disqualify that judge I would think. Regardless the supreme court would offer a much less political solution to this constitutional issue, than a Senate that can vote to acquit purely on party lines. Certainly Trumps behavior when seen in legal constitutional terms; failure to protect , defend etc the constitution, incite insurrection, threaten violence and intimidation on duly elected members of congress, if handled by an appropriate court and not politicians would provide a much more just conclusion than is currently available. "No one is above the law" needs to be demonstrated and not just postulated. The political acquittal of Trump would indicate a broken system and a broken constitution. IMO. and many relatively silent American patriots would be highly offended by the obvious injustice. Keeping in mind that only about 74 million citizens of a total of 239 million eligible voters (31%) bothered to vote for Trump in the 2020 election. The remaining 165 million patriots may have more to say about such an obvious flaw in the impeachment process.
Impeachment is by it's nature a political thing. Consider the impeachment of A Johnson. The congress(radical republicans) wanted harsher measures for the southerners than had Lincoln, and then Johnson. So they passed legislation which would usurp the independence of the executive. The thing was so egregiously political that several republican senators broke with their party and voted to acquit. 20 years later, the supreme court found the law used to impeach Johnson to be unconstitutional. Consider Clinton the votes were almost exclusively along party lines. Impeachment is and was always political.
true... and this needs to be rectified IMO. The house needs to impeach (political) and the Supreme court (legal) needs to perform the trial.
Exceptions were Nixon and Trump. Those votes in the House had a significant number of the accused's party crossing party lines. Nixon was so at risk that Ford felt he had to pardon him to protect him.
That's nice. But that is not how it works. Something something about separation of powers applies here.. For reasons why, please refer to: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/506/224/ And on a finer point.. No. And you are now suggesting that they base their ruling on popular opinion. That is also not how it works.
What really would it mean if Trump were found in the wrong? Can he still be found guilty in lower courts? :EDIT: Held back from holding office again maybe...
The impeachment trial is not a criminal trial. Ergo double jeopardy does not apply----(one cannot be tried for the same crime twice) however The burden of proof is much higher in criminal proceedings.
there is no right or wrong just legal & illegal there appears to be no physical link to show any of his acts were physically illegal because the interpretation of his actions are not directly defining an illegal act so incitement rules will be question on terms/meanings incitement is probably a minor public order violation that can be waived if your rich & white conspiracy is what they might go for but they would need to obtain proof of wire taps & communication that showed collusion that's highly unlikely to me it looks like a terrible waste of time & poor working class money but it justifys the upper class elitists job validation as they continue to steal hundreds of millions of dollars off the working class and if it goes to the supreme court ? as no doubt it will ? then what ? its already decided in republican favour its not fair or even its biased everyone knows that so its all a big "let them eat cake" expose of the upper classes playing their elitist games trying to pretend they are busy protecting something that doesn't exist while stealing poor working class taxes while all the rich elitists politicians & government officials play the games they have lusted after their entire life. all the while taking poor working class cash, by the truck load paying themselves anything they feel like unabated while the psychopath serial killer mass murderers circle in their militia groups old western show with a cake trolly loaded with piles of poor working class tax as cash Roll Up Roll UP ! pick a side who will win meanwhile . . . denying children hospital care & calling it democracy & fighting against universal health care & calling themselves morally family values orientated good christian people. LoL !
Technically true. The House Judiciary Committee approved articles of impeachment, but the full house had not yet voted on them when he resigned.
It puts the onus on them and only a lie if they lose. Which they will because this is a POLITICAL process not a process to prove a person guilty of an event, for which he can be PUNISHED This process is going through the motions to REMOVE him from office. The process is designed to protect the status of the OFFICE, by removing the holder, should said holder be ABUSING the POWERS INHERENT IN THE OFFICE Since it is a moot point, as he is out of office, the next reason becomes, stop him from standing for public office again Correct. But it seems like with impeachment proceedings prosicuttion and defence take turns and it seems don't interrupt each other Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I'm not really worried about him winning again. I'm worried about him losing again. This last loss cost several lives including a Capitol police officer. How many will die when he loses again?
lol thats part of the mental illness the obsession in him winning or losing to define the need to be the need to stop him from doing something the consumer culture drives the want as a need to demand it have its own legal & moral value while ignoring the core legal framework the republican party was looking like a street walker wasted on the street corner unable to focus or think trump polarized them into a battle mode once he leaves they will be stumbling around again looking aimless & insecure & without real goals. like the drug addict, they dont want that to happen but they lack the internal ability to form themselves into a model to be able to cope without him. they have a taste of blood from the riots & death & the republican party leaders dont want to lose that feeling of power. so they are drowning themselves with the baby in their own bath water to avoid standing naked outside the bath no wonder the right wing militias are going nuts its like a acid party in a psyche ward ... nothing to panic about then World / Countries / United States Last updated: February 12, 2021, 00:49 GMT Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! United States Coronavirus Cases: 27,997,685 ============= Deaths: 486,747 ============= https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/
Nope Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! A lot of people here have trouble with the difference between "he did it" and "he is guilty of X." Not the same thing Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! As an example, ask yourself if OJ killed his wife. Then ask yourself if he is guilty of her murder Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
oath of office he has sworn legal duty to ... "do what" ? there is no actions he must carry out other than "to protect America from foreign or domestic attack" ? yet there is no actual dutys he must carry out so its an oath to perform a no duty function hilary was deemed guilty for benghazi but donald is deemed not liable to the same legal compliance of the ethics of the deed(legal oath) of office yall crazy mofo's fa sure ! the alcoholics went on a bender & wrote your laws
The entire process of impeachment is inherently a political matter. The trial is not about the law. Look at the current Trump senate trial. There have been many uses of the term "incitement to violence" and the like, but no references to specific statutes (apart from the Constitution itself). The Constitution enables the legislative branch of government to "try" the chief executive of the government for "high crimes and misdemeanors". The framers of the Constitution deliberately did not define exactly what that term would entail; they left it up to the elected representatives of the people to decide what would amount to high crimes. The Supreme Court's primary duty is to interpret the laws made by the Congress. But there is very little guidance in the law about what a high crime for a president would be. It is left to the Congress to define it, according to the specific times and circumstances they find themselves in. The President is directly elected by the people of the United States. So is the Congress. Supreme Court judges are not. The President must ultimately be answerable to the people. The mechanism that is provided for is that the people's elected representatives have the power to make the president answer to them, on the people's behalf.