Was not challenged at the moment it was stated. Being challenged many hours later ummmmm not as effective Iggied so no idea of his post sorry Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
is missing from it is a flat out lie with no indication of we will produce evidence to confirm Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Actually I don't think so. I'm no expert here but I think the criminal standards are pretty high, otherwise it gets into freedom of speech issues. Yes, I agree that you can't yell fire in a movie theater but it's actually hard to convict with that kind of thing. If Trump is convicted of anything in a criminal court it would be for tax evasion or for meddling with an election (Georgia). Regarding Impeachment, he has already been Impeached and to be convicted this should be an easy conviction (he won't be convicted however) because the standards are different and it's a political process/judgement as to whether he is fit (he is not).
I think like most people around the globe seeing the video presentation by the prosecution, that Americans are deeply disturbed by what has been clearly described. Unprecedented times will call for unprecedented public reactions. Yes this is only the beginning.. IMO If trump is acquitted then the people may seek to change the constitution because as it stands it is extremely vulnerable to abuse. Bottom line: If Trump is acquitted the constitution is daft and needs a rewrite..
I think it's a hard call to consider the Constitution daft. It's an easier call to state that a large segment of the population are daft. I do agree that rules and regulations and some laws should be changed to "Trump proof" the Presidency but that's not going to happen because Trump was the symptom and not the root cause. Congress should have rendered him ineffective from day one. They didn't because there were too many citizens out there that supported/liked him. That's still the problem. It's not actually a Constitutional problem. It's a problem with a large segment of the population and with their elected representatives.
and the constitution allows for the acquittal when an acquittal is based on political grounds..and not jurisprudence.
The GOP will not want to lose the millions of voters who voted and supported Trump and who continue to support him to this day. To those voters, the GOP is now Trump's party. Political suicide for the GOP would be to vote to impeach. So, the majority sit on the fence and condemn the riot, while refusing to do anything to the person(s) who incited it, as doing so would incur the wrath of his voters and could see them lose their seats or face a primary from Trump supporters.. This has nothing to do with the Constitution for the GOP and everything to do with not wanting to upset their base. The Constitution allows people to convict or not convict. Short of barring members of Congress from participating in the trial and then pushing for a trial in a court of law, then they are free to vote as they choose in regards to his impeachment.
where is the evidence that proves 100% he caused the actions ? there is none so the only question left is did he breach his position to engage some illegal act ? no he was exercising free speech note Rudy Giuliani gave specific instructions to commit federal crimes THAT might be able to be prosecuted assuming he passes legal cognoscenti (which i doubt) any person can make free speech to tell people to protest or go somewhere unless there is a court order in place & the act of going to a public building is probably not a crime unless there was direct language to commit an offense. which there did not appear to be. did he breach a legal duty of care from his legal position ? probably not because there would be no position of legal care duty as a president(regardless of the senators screaming about political leaders being to blame etc) there is probably no "dereliction of duty to care" either which is a little ironic considering his position is called a military position as commander in chief. very strange culture i doubt they will re-write the constitution it appears to have taken on some type of proxy native entity in their race war
Disagree trump is not a common citizen , he was the president , and as president he took an oath to the American People . He failed . He failed to protect the American People . Covid proved this . Nevermind anything that the impeachment says or does , the out come . This has been looked over , completely .
Amending the constitution: After the successful impeachment by the house the trial should be carried out by a specially convened supreme court judiciary (constitutional focus) and not the senate. The trial must be non-political.
I do, big BUT it is held up as being on par with the bible. Neither have been updated in yonks so any update would essentially be scrapped the old and writing a new one It would be like scrapping the 1215 Magna Carta. But since the UK does not run itself under the 1215 Magna Carta, having organised a modern system of laws, it can be viewed as a historical document where it all began * Today, some question the importance of Magna Carta, arguing that much of it is now irrelevant and only three clauses are still valid. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-surrey-32828251 * America seems to be holding as sacred the 2nd Amendment * The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution protects the right to keep and bear arms. It was ratified on December 15, 1791, along with nine other articles of the Bill of Rights. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sec...Amendment (Amendment II,of the Bill of Rights. * Seriously 1791 still relevant today? Seems it was cribbed from * The Second Amendment was based partially on the right to keep and bear arms in English common law and was influenced by the English Bill of Rights of 1689. * My bold Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
No, you're taking sides, it sticks out a mile. All that anti Bidenism coming from the right and the mob, and you choose to be on here being anti-anti Trump. Your replies are so Jan like.
You want the Supreme Court, which is made up of Justices who are selected by Trump's predecessors and by Trump himself (he appointed 3 during his term), to essentially adjudicate his impeachment hearing?
