The Impeachment Thread

[kyzr]

There is no ironclad definition as to what "high crimes and misdemeaners' really means. But it is hinted at as treason and other very serious crimes that warrant removal. High crimes and misdemeanors is not a partisan ticky-tack non-crime.

I'm not worried about what spineless Senate Republicans do. He'll be tried in federal court for sedition and inciting a riot. That carries a 20 year sentence. Considering his age, he can probably reach a plea deal for 10.

Orange is the new orange.

Th DOJ already reviewed his speech and found nothing indictable, so your "wishful thinking" is total bullshit.

Trump’s Rally Speech Was Not Illegal “Incitement”

Former Prosecutor Jeffrey Scott Shapiro: "The president didn’t commit incitement or any other crime. I should know. As a Washington prosecutor I earned the nickname 'protester prosecutor' from the antiwar group CodePink."

legalinsurrection.com

Where in that article does it state the Department of Justice reviewed his speech and found nothing indictable? Who said his speech alone incited the seditious insurrection?

I saw interviews as well as articles saying that the DOJ review of Trump's speech found no incitement.

DOJ Says It Has No Plans to Charge Trump With 'Incitement'

freerepublic.com

If you have a slam dunk "crime" that is indictable and verified so by the DOJ, please post it.
Otherwise, the 2nd impeachment is total partisan bullshit.

 

[Flash]

What Trump's team should do for three days is to show the BLM riots, murders, burning and looting intersperse with the comments of the filthy Democrats saying they are in solitary with them.

Then ask the question "who are the real insurrectionists?"

 

[DrLove]

There is no ironclad definition as to what "high crimes and misdemeaners' really means. But it is hinted at as treason and other very serious crimes that warrant removal. High crimes and misdemeanors is not a partisan ticky-tack non-crime.

I'm not worried about what spineless Senate Republicans do. He'll be tried in federal court for sedition and inciting a riot. That carries a 20 year sentence. Considering his age, he can probably reach a plea deal for 10.

Orange is the new orange.

Th DOJ already reviewed his speech and found nothing indictable, so your "wishful thinking" is total bullshit.

Trump’s Rally Speech Was Not Illegal “Incitement”

Former Prosecutor Jeffrey Scott Shapiro: "The president didn’t commit incitement or any other crime. I should know. As a Washington prosecutor I earned the nickname 'protester prosecutor' from the antiwar group CodePink."

legalinsurrection.com

Where in that article does it state the Department of Justice reviewed his speech and found nothing indictable? Who said his speech alone incited the seditious insurrection?

I saw interviews as well as articles saying that the DOJ review of Trump's speech found no incitement.

DOJ Says It Has No Plans to Charge Trump With 'Incitement'

freerepublic.com

If you have a slam dunk "crime" that is indictable and verified so by the DOJ, please post it.
Otherwise, the 2nd impeachment is total partisan bullshit.

Total BULLSHIT. It is still under heavy review. And PJ Media - REALLY?

• Overall, we rate PJ Media to be Questionable based on extreme right-wing bias, promotion of propaganda and conspiracies as well as numerous failed fact checks.

 

[kyzr]

There is no ironclad definition as to what "high crimes and misdemeaners' really means. But it is hinted at as treason and other very serious crimes that warrant removal. High crimes and misdemeanors is not a partisan ticky-tack non-crime.

I'm not worried about what spineless Senate Republicans do. He'll be tried in federal court for sedition and inciting a riot. That carries a 20 year sentence. Considering his age, he can probably reach a plea deal for 10.

Orange is the new orange.

Th DOJ already reviewed his speech and found nothing indictable, so your "wishful thinking" is total bullshit.

A "former prosecutor" is not the DOJ - Don't be a maroon. And Turley has defended Rump at every turn. He used to be a respected attorney. That was before he attached himself with Gorilla Glue to the Orange Blob.

1. Turley is a Law Professor first, and a democrat second.
2. If you don't want Turley, our money is just as green, he is still well respected by real lawyers.
3. Dershowitz said that the 1st Amendment absolves Trump of anything criminal.
4. You don't like Dershowitz now either, huh?

 

[Nostra]

There is no ironclad definition as to what "high crimes and misdemeaners' really means. But it is hinted at as treason and other very serious crimes that warrant removal. High crimes and misdemeanors is not a partisan ticky-tack non-crime.

I'm not worried about what spineless Senate Republicans do. He'll be tried in federal court for sedition and inciting a riot. That carries a 20 year sentence. Considering his age, he can probably reach a plea deal for 10.

Orange is the new orange.

Th DOJ already reviewed his speech and found nothing indictable, so your "wishful thinking" is total bullshit.

Trump’s Rally Speech Was Not Illegal “Incitement”

Former Prosecutor Jeffrey Scott Shapiro: "The president didn’t commit incitement or any other crime. I should know. As a Washington prosecutor I earned the nickname 'protester prosecutor' from the antiwar group CodePink."

legalinsurrection.com

Where in that article does it state the Department of Justice reviewed his speech and found nothing indictable? Who said his speech alone incited the seditious insurrection?

Why hasn't he been arrested?

We all know this Shampeachment is just a temper tantrum from the Dimwingers and will result in Trump's 100% EXONERATION.

Is Veggie Joe gonna let Trump slide on insurrection?

 

[DrLove]

There is no ironclad definition as to what "high crimes and misdemeaners' really means. But it is hinted at as treason and other very serious crimes that warrant removal. High crimes and misdemeanors is not a partisan ticky-tack non-crime.

I'm not worried about what spineless Senate Republicans do. He'll be tried in federal court for sedition and inciting a riot. That carries a 20 year sentence. Considering his age, he can probably reach a plea deal for 10.

Orange is the new orange.

Th DOJ already reviewed his speech and found nothing indictable, so your "wishful thinking" is total bullshit.

A "former prosecutor" is not the DOJ - Don't be a maroon. And Turley has defended Rump at every turn. He used to be a respected attorney. That was before he attached himself with Gorilla Glue to the Orange Blob.

1. Turley is a Law Professor first, and a democrat second.
2. If you don't want Turley, our money is just as green, he is still well respected by real lawyers.
3. Dershowitz said that the 1st Amendment absolves Trump of anything criminal.
4. You don't like Dershowitz now either, huh?

Dirty Dersh and Turdley are DINOs. They voted for Rump both times - GUARANFUKINTEED.

 

[kyzr]

Stacey Plaskett is building an effective case of Trump complicity

I think they need a few witnesses to corroborate all of these internet quotes. Was trump aware of the crazies ? He probably was but she hasnt proved it.

This is Trumps administration. He is responsible for more than just what he tweets, but what his administration did in planning and executing this event.

If you don’t fight like hell, you will not have a country anymore

And that's the piece you're going to have to prove, that it was in fact the American government that was trying to overthrow the American government.

Trump was sworn to defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic

Trump turned out to be one of those enemies

I know that's the narrative and I understand you are contractually obligated to adhere tightly to it, but that's a fantasy in the fever swamp.

Trump defiled his oath of office

He needs to be held accountable

He was. He lost the election. You have to prove that he did what you claim is worth further abuse.

We have this thing called IMPEACHMENT that is proving what Trump did and failed to do in defending the Constitution.

He sent a mob to go after his own Vice President

You can prove that Trump sent the mob after Pence? I did not see those dots connected.

Trump condemned Pence to the TRUMPmob
He let down Democracy
Then sent them to stop the vote count.

You can hear the crowd chant......Kill Mike Pence, Bring him out, Hang Mike Pence

House manager says Capitol footage shows rioters wanted to "execute" Pence

The House impeachment managers present their case against former President Trump in the second day of the Senate trial. Follow here for the latest.

www.cnn.com

During the assault on the Capitol, extremists reportedly coordinated online and discussed how they could hunt down the vice president. Journalists in the Capitol reported they heard rioters say they were looking for Pence in order to execute him,

The police had Pence and Nancy safe.
If anything got too scary for the pols I'm sure the police would have had to use deadly force. Today's testimony had rioters entering Nancy's sanctum, then they were chased by a SWAT team. So i'm not seeing anyone swinging from gallows, or heads on pikes. The goobers were mostly sight-seeing.

This entire episode makes no sense. Even if the rioters took control of the capitol, para-military units would have been called in to remove or slaughter them. Remember what happened when the commies took control of the Russian parliament? Yeltsin called the tanks in?! It was a lose-lose operation for the idiot rioters.

Ah, so it's ok that Trump incited violence against the VPOTUS because Pence was able to escape with his life.

I did not see Trump "incite violence" against Pence. Trump said nothing "indictable".

I agree that 1/6 was a horrible day, and the 1,000,000 man protest devolved into a riot by a few hundred idiots, but still, the only person shot was an unarmed AF veteran, a mom, wrapped in a flag.
There were no fires, just broken windows and doors to "the peoples house".

After supporting the antifa riots all year the democrats' should remember: "as ye sow so shall ye reap"
View attachment 455722

You see what you want to see. In reality, Trump had already lied to his army. He told them that Pence could save his presidency. Those cult members blindly believed that and put all their hope in Mike Pence. That would be their last and only hope. Of course, it was all untrue since Pence couldn't actually do anything but oversee the counting of the electors, as stipulated by the Constitution.

That's why when Trump tweeted, "Mike Pence didn't have the courage to do what should have been done to protect our Country and our Constitution," his army turned on Mike Pence. Members of his cult are on video yelling out, "Mike Pence is a traitor!" "Mike Pence is a bitch!" Another cult member is on video saying, "Mike Pence, we're coming for you too, you fucking traitor!" And outside on a megaphone, another shouted, "Trump just sent out a tweet saying, 'Mike Pence let us down.' Mike Pence let us down, people. If you wanna get something done, you're gonna have to do it yourself." And ugliest of all, "hang Mike Pence!"

G'head, tell me again how Trump didn't incite that mob.

What Trump said is NOT indictable, so says the DOJ.
There are degrees of incitement, and Trump kept his speech well within the 1st Amendment.

I'm not saying that I support what Trump or the rioters did, the rioters broke the Law. 99% of the protesters left the rally peacefully, the goobers that stayed acted criminally and should be punished.

I don't know what you think the Department of Justice has to do with this? He's not being criminally charged.

Impeachment is only to be used for "high crimes and misdemeanors", generally interpreted to mean at least a felony or treason. You admit that the DOJ has no crime to pursue for citizen Trump.
Democrats think that they have an excuse to prevent Trump from running in 2024. That is NOT what the Constitution says, and the GOP senators know it. They will hold their noses and vote to acquit, based strictly on the Law and the Constitution.

The democrats should have pushed a censure instead of impeachment, that would have passed both Houses unanimously.

Except that is not what the Constitution means by "high crimes and misdemeanors." That refers to a violation of of public's trust.

Impeachment | US House of Representatives: History, Art & Archives​

​

Origins​

​

Impeachment comes from British constitutional history. The process evolved from the 14th century as a way for parliament to hold the king’s ministers accountable for their public actions. Impeachment, as Alexander Hamilton of New York explained in Federalist 65, varies from civil or criminal courts in that it strictly involves the “misconduct of public men, or in other words from the abuse or violation of some public trust.” Individual state constitutions had provided for impeachment for “maladministration” or “corruption” before the U.S. Constitution was written. And the founders, fearing the potential for abuse of executive power, considered impeachment so important that they made it part of the Constitution even before they defined the contours of the presidency.​

There is no ironclad definition as to what "high crimes and misdemeaners' really means. But it is hinted at as treason and other very serious crimes that warrant removal. High crimes and misdemeanors is not a partisan ticky-tack non-crime.

impeachment

www.law.cornell.edu

I don't know why you think a link to Cornell's law website is a match for the U.S. House of Representative's website. It's the U.S. House who impeaches based on "high crimes and misdemeanors," not Cornell. And the U.S. House who decides what "high crimes and misdemeanors" means; and they say it means, "abuse or violation of some public trust." There was even a judge who was impeached for being intoxicated while on the bench. That's an "abuse or violation of some public trust."

Exactly right. We agree that the House can impeach a "ham sandwich" if they so choose.
But, the Senate holds trial for those impeachment articles, and they vote "innocent or guilty" based on their individual interpretations of the Constitution and the Law. The USSC does not referee impeachments, although if I was Trump's team I'd have asked for a ruling on constitutionality from the USSC.

So if/when Trump is acquitted, since the "crime" did not reach a certain threshold of "high crime", don't whine about it. Its just partisan political theater.

LOL

Now you're arguing with yourself. Earlier you said "high crimes and misdemeanors" means "felony or treason." Now you admit it can include impeaching a "ham sandwich." It can't but it does mean it's a violation of of public's trust.

1. The House can impeach a president for anything it perceives as a "high crime", real or fictitious.
2. The Senate needs 2/3 voting guilty to actually remove someone from office, which would take a serious crime (a felony or better?) to get support from both sides of the aisle.
3. I'm not arguing with myself, the House and Senate have very different powers and responsibilities regarding impeachment.

 

[kyzr]

There is no ironclad definition as to what "high crimes and misdemeaners' really means. But it is hinted at as treason and other very serious crimes that warrant removal. High crimes and misdemeanors is not a partisan ticky-tack non-crime.

I'm not worried about what spineless Senate Republicans do. He'll be tried in federal court for sedition and inciting a riot. That carries a 20 year sentence. Considering his age, he can probably reach a plea deal for 10.

Orange is the new orange.

Th DOJ already reviewed his speech and found nothing indictable, so your "wishful thinking" is total bullshit.

A "former prosecutor" is not the DOJ - Don't be a maroon. And Turley has defended Rump at every turn. He used to be a respected attorney. That was before he attached himself with Gorilla Glue to the Orange Blob.

1. Turley is a Law Professor first, and a democrat second.
2. If you don't want Turley, our money is just as green, he is still well respected by real lawyers.
3. Dershowitz said that the 1st Amendment absolves Trump of anything criminal.
4. You don't like Dershowitz now either, huh?

Dirty Dersh and Turdley are DINOs. They voted for Rump both times - GUARANFUKINTEED.

Turley said he voted democrat (Clinton in 2016). Can't find out who he voted for in 2020, probably Biden.

Constitutionalist Jonathan Turley Receives Violent Threats After Opposing Impeachment – The Shad Olson Show

www.shadolsonshow.com

Dershowitz won't say who he voted for. But he's a lifelong democrat.

There is no ironclad definition as to what "high crimes and misdemeaners' really means. But it is hinted at as treason and other very serious crimes that warrant removal. High crimes and misdemeanors is not a partisan ticky-tack non-crime.

I'm not worried about what spineless Senate Republicans do. He'll be tried in federal court for sedition and inciting a riot. That carries a 20 year sentence. Considering his age, he can probably reach a plea deal for 10.

Orange is the new orange.

Th DOJ already reviewed his speech and found nothing indictable, so your "wishful thinking" is total bullshit.

Trump’s Rally Speech Was Not Illegal “Incitement”

Former Prosecutor Jeffrey Scott Shapiro: "The president didn’t commit incitement or any other crime. I should know. As a Washington prosecutor I earned the nickname 'protester prosecutor' from the antiwar group CodePink."

legalinsurrection.com

Where in that article does it state the Department of Justice reviewed his speech and found nothing indictable? Who said his speech alone incited the seditious insurrection?

I saw interviews as well as articles saying that the DOJ review of Trump's speech found no incitement.

DOJ Says It Has No Plans to Charge Trump With 'Incitement'

freerepublic.com

If you have a slam dunk "crime" that is indictable and verified so by the DOJ, please post it.
Otherwise, the 2nd impeachment is total partisan bullshit.

Total BULLSHIT. It is still under heavy review. And PJ Media - REALLY?

• Overall, we rate PJ Media to be Questionable based on extreme right-wing bias, promotion of propaganda and conspiracies as well as numerous failed fact checks.

Don't attack my link, put up your own link proving that the DOJ will indict Trump for something related to insurrection. Crickets....tick-tock....

 

[DrLove]

There is no ironclad definition as to what "high crimes and misdemeaners' really means. But it is hinted at as treason and other very serious crimes that warrant removal. High crimes and misdemeanors is not a partisan ticky-tack non-crime.

I'm not worried about what spineless Senate Republicans do. He'll be tried in federal court for sedition and inciting a riot. That carries a 20 year sentence. Considering his age, he can probably reach a plea deal for 10.

Orange is the new orange.

Th DOJ already reviewed his speech and found nothing indictable, so your "wishful thinking" is total bullshit.

A "former prosecutor" is not the DOJ - Don't be a maroon. And Turley has defended Rump at every turn. He used to be a respected attorney. That was before he attached himself with Gorilla Glue to the Orange Blob.

1. Turley is a Law Professor first, and a democrat second.
2. If you don't want Turley, our money is just as green, he is still well respected by real lawyers.
3. Dershowitz said that the 1st Amendment absolves Trump of anything criminal.
4. You don't like Dershowitz now either, huh?

Dirty Dersh and Turdley are DINOs. They voted for Rump both times - GUARANFUKINTEED.

Turley said he voted democrat (Clinton in 2016). Can't find out who he voted for in 2020, probably Biden.

Constitutionalist Jonathan Turley Receives Violent Threats After Opposing Impeachment – The Shad Olson Show

www.shadolsonshow.com

Dershowitz won't say who he voted for. But he's a lifelong democrat.

There is no ironclad definition as to what "high crimes and misdemeaners' really means. But it is hinted at as treason and other very serious crimes that warrant removal. High crimes and misdemeanors is not a partisan ticky-tack non-crime.

I'm not worried about what spineless Senate Republicans do. He'll be tried in federal court for sedition and inciting a riot. That carries a 20 year sentence. Considering his age, he can probably reach a plea deal for 10.

Orange is the new orange.

Th DOJ already reviewed his speech and found nothing indictable, so your "wishful thinking" is total bullshit.

Trump’s Rally Speech Was Not Illegal “Incitement”

Former Prosecutor Jeffrey Scott Shapiro: "The president didn’t commit incitement or any other crime. I should know. As a Washington prosecutor I earned the nickname 'protester prosecutor' from the antiwar group CodePink."

legalinsurrection.com

Where in that article does it state the Department of Justice reviewed his speech and found nothing indictable? Who said his speech alone incited the seditious insurrection?

I saw interviews as well as articles saying that the DOJ review of Trump's speech found no incitement.

DOJ Says It Has No Plans to Charge Trump With 'Incitement'

freerepublic.com

If you have a slam dunk "crime" that is indictable and verified so by the DOJ, please post it.
Otherwise, the 2nd impeachment is total partisan bullshit.

Total BULLSHIT. It is still under heavy review. And PJ Media - REALLY?

• Overall, we rate PJ Media to be Questionable based on extreme right-wing bias, promotion of propaganda and conspiracies as well as numerous failed fact checks.

Don't attack my link, put up your own link proving that the DOJ will indict Trump for something related to insurrection. Crickets....tick-tock....

I cannot provide you with such a link because no decision has been made - DUMMY.

 

[Faun]

There is no ironclad definition as to what "high crimes and misdemeaners' really means. But it is hinted at as treason and other very serious crimes that warrant removal. High crimes and misdemeanors is not a partisan ticky-tack non-crime.

I'm not worried about what spineless Senate Republicans do. He'll be tried in federal court for sedition and inciting a riot. That carries a 20 year sentence. Considering his age, he can probably reach a plea deal for 10.

Orange is the new orange.

Th DOJ already reviewed his speech and found nothing indictable, so your "wishful thinking" is total bullshit.

Trump’s Rally Speech Was Not Illegal “Incitement”

Former Prosecutor Jeffrey Scott Shapiro: "The president didn’t commit incitement or any other crime. I should know. As a Washington prosecutor I earned the nickname 'protester prosecutor' from the antiwar group CodePink."

legalinsurrection.com

Where in that article does it state the Department of Justice reviewed his speech and found nothing indictable? Who said his speech alone incited the seditious insurrection?

I saw interviews as well as articles saying that the DOJ review of Trump's speech found no incitement.

DOJ Says It Has No Plans to Charge Trump With 'Incitement'

freerepublic.com

If you have a slam dunk "crime" that is indictable and verified so by the DOJ, please post it.
Otherwise, the 2nd impeachment is total partisan bullshit.

Again, the impeachment has nothing to do with indictable crimes. Not sure why you keep going back there?

As far as not seeking a criminal indictment, I wouldn't hold out too much hope until the DoJ confirms that after Biden appoints a new Attorney General.

 

[Nostra]

This is getting embarrassing for the House Clowns.

 

[bendog]

There is no ironclad definition as to what "high crimes and misdemeaners' really means. But it is hinted at as treason and other very serious crimes that warrant removal. High crimes and misdemeanors is not a partisan ticky-tack non-crime.

I'm not worried about what spineless Senate Republicans do. He'll be tried in federal court for sedition and inciting a riot. That carries a 20 year sentence. Considering his age, he can probably reach a plea deal for 10.

Orange is the new orange.

Th DOJ already reviewed his speech and found nothing indictable, so your "wishful thinking" is total bullshit.

Trump’s Rally Speech Was Not Illegal “Incitement”

Former Prosecutor Jeffrey Scott Shapiro: "The president didn’t commit incitement or any other crime. I should know. As a Washington prosecutor I earned the nickname 'protester prosecutor' from the antiwar group CodePink."

legalinsurrection.com

A "former prosecutor" is not the DOJ - Don't be a maroon. And Turley has defended Rump at every turn. He used to be a respected attorney. That was before he attached himself with Gorilla Glue to the Orange Blob.

I never understood why Turley gave up his manhood and any influence as a Law Wag over Trump. I understand why Barr believed, correctly, that their was an instutional movement to nullify Trump, but I thought Barr would eventually show why that movement had some justifaction …… Trump used Barr to further sedition.

 

[Faun]

There is no ironclad definition as to what "high crimes and misdemeaners' really means. But it is hinted at as treason and other very serious crimes that warrant removal. High crimes and misdemeanors is not a partisan ticky-tack non-crime.

I'm not worried about what spineless Senate Republicans do. He'll be tried in federal court for sedition and inciting a riot. That carries a 20 year sentence. Considering his age, he can probably reach a plea deal for 10.

Orange is the new orange.

Th DOJ already reviewed his speech and found nothing indictable, so your "wishful thinking" is total bullshit.

A "former prosecutor" is not the DOJ - Don't be a maroon. And Turley has defended Rump at every turn. He used to be a respected attorney. That was before he attached himself with Gorilla Glue to the Orange Blob.

1. Turley is a Law Professor first, and a democrat second.
2. If you don't want Turley, our money is just as green, he is still well respected by real lawyers.
3. Dershowitz said that the 1st Amendment absolves Trump of anything criminal.
4. You don't like Dershowitz now either, huh?

Dershowitz?



The same guy who said an actual crime must be committed to impeach after he said a crime need not be committed to impeach?

The same guy who said ordinary citizens can be impeached?

 

[bendog]

There is no ironclad definition as to what "high crimes and misdemeaners' really means. But it is hinted at as treason and other very serious crimes that warrant removal. High crimes and misdemeanors is not a partisan ticky-tack non-crime.

I'm not worried about what spineless Senate Republicans do. He'll be tried in federal court for sedition and inciting a riot. That carries a 20 year sentence. Considering his age, he can probably reach a plea deal for 10.

Orange is the new orange.

Th DOJ already reviewed his speech and found nothing indictable, so your "wishful thinking" is total bullshit.

Trump’s Rally Speech Was Not Illegal “Incitement”

Former Prosecutor Jeffrey Scott Shapiro: "The president didn’t commit incitement or any other crime. I should know. As a Washington prosecutor I earned the nickname 'protester prosecutor' from the antiwar group CodePink."

legalinsurrection.com

Where in that article does it state the Department of Justice reviewed his speech and found nothing indictable? Who said his speech alone incited the seditious insurrection?

I saw interviews as well as articles saying that the DOJ review of Trump's speech found no incitement.

DOJ Says It Has No Plans to Charge Trump With 'Incitement'

freerepublic.com

If you have a slam dunk "crime" that is indictable and verified so by the DOJ, please post it.
Otherwise, the 2nd impeachment is total partisan bullshit.

Again, the impeachment has nothing to do with indictable crimes. Not sure why you keep going back there?

As far as not seeking a criminal indictment, I wouldn't hold out too much hope until the DoJ confirms that after Biden appoints a new Attorney General.

Dangerous territory there. But I won't be surprised if DOJ investigates Faux and Newsmax to help private plaintiffs learn exactly when they knew or should have known Trump was lying about the election.

 

[Faun]

There is no ironclad definition as to what "high crimes and misdemeaners' really means. But it is hinted at as treason and other very serious crimes that warrant removal. High crimes and misdemeanors is not a partisan ticky-tack non-crime.

I'm not worried about what spineless Senate Republicans do. He'll be tried in federal court for sedition and inciting a riot. That carries a 20 year sentence. Considering his age, he can probably reach a plea deal for 10.

Orange is the new orange.

Th DOJ already reviewed his speech and found nothing indictable, so your "wishful thinking" is total bullshit.

Trump’s Rally Speech Was Not Illegal “Incitement”

Former Prosecutor Jeffrey Scott Shapiro: "The president didn’t commit incitement or any other crime. I should know. As a Washington prosecutor I earned the nickname 'protester prosecutor' from the antiwar group CodePink."

legalinsurrection.com

Where in that article does it state the Department of Justice reviewed his speech and found nothing indictable? Who said his speech alone incited the seditious insurrection?

Why hasn't he been arrested?

We all know this Shampeachment is just a temper tantrum from the Dimwingers and will result in Trump's 100% EXONERATION.

Is Veggie Joe gonna let Trump slide on insurrection?

Again, despite many different potential charges coming from multiple jurisdictions, no one is moving forward until after the impeachment trial is over.

 

[Faun]

Stacey Plaskett is building an effective case of Trump complicity

I think they need a few witnesses to corroborate all of these internet quotes. Was trump aware of the crazies ? He probably was but she hasnt proved it.

This is Trumps administration. He is responsible for more than just what he tweets, but what his administration did in planning and executing this event.

If you don’t fight like hell, you will not have a country anymore

And that's the piece you're going to have to prove, that it was in fact the American government that was trying to overthrow the American government.

Trump was sworn to defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic

Trump turned out to be one of those enemies

I know that's the narrative and I understand you are contractually obligated to adhere tightly to it, but that's a fantasy in the fever swamp.

Trump defiled his oath of office

He needs to be held accountable

He was. He lost the election. You have to prove that he did what you claim is worth further abuse.

We have this thing called IMPEACHMENT that is proving what Trump did and failed to do in defending the Constitution.

He sent a mob to go after his own Vice President

You can prove that Trump sent the mob after Pence? I did not see those dots connected.

Trump condemned Pence to the TRUMPmob
He let down Democracy
Then sent them to stop the vote count.

You can hear the crowd chant......Kill Mike Pence, Bring him out, Hang Mike Pence

House manager says Capitol footage shows rioters wanted to "execute" Pence

The House impeachment managers present their case against former President Trump in the second day of the Senate trial. Follow here for the latest.

www.cnn.com

During the assault on the Capitol, extremists reportedly coordinated online and discussed how they could hunt down the vice president. Journalists in the Capitol reported they heard rioters say they were looking for Pence in order to execute him,

The police had Pence and Nancy safe.
If anything got too scary for the pols I'm sure the police would have had to use deadly force. Today's testimony had rioters entering Nancy's sanctum, then they were chased by a SWAT team. So i'm not seeing anyone swinging from gallows, or heads on pikes. The goobers were mostly sight-seeing.

This entire episode makes no sense. Even if the rioters took control of the capitol, para-military units would have been called in to remove or slaughter them. Remember what happened when the commies took control of the Russian parliament? Yeltsin called the tanks in?! It was a lose-lose operation for the idiot rioters.

Ah, so it's ok that Trump incited violence against the VPOTUS because Pence was able to escape with his life.

I did not see Trump "incite violence" against Pence. Trump said nothing "indictable".

I agree that 1/6 was a horrible day, and the 1,000,000 man protest devolved into a riot by a few hundred idiots, but still, the only person shot was an unarmed AF veteran, a mom, wrapped in a flag.
There were no fires, just broken windows and doors to "the peoples house".

After supporting the antifa riots all year the democrats' should remember: "as ye sow so shall ye reap"
View attachment 455722

You see what you want to see. In reality, Trump had already lied to his army. He told them that Pence could save his presidency. Those cult members blindly believed that and put all their hope in Mike Pence. That would be their last and only hope. Of course, it was all untrue since Pence couldn't actually do anything but oversee the counting of the electors, as stipulated by the Constitution.

That's why when Trump tweeted, "Mike Pence didn't have the courage to do what should have been done to protect our Country and our Constitution," his army turned on Mike Pence. Members of his cult are on video yelling out, "Mike Pence is a traitor!" "Mike Pence is a bitch!" Another cult member is on video saying, "Mike Pence, we're coming for you too, you fucking traitor!" And outside on a megaphone, another shouted, "Trump just sent out a tweet saying, 'Mike Pence let us down.' Mike Pence let us down, people. If you wanna get something done, you're gonna have to do it yourself." And ugliest of all, "hang Mike Pence!"

G'head, tell me again how Trump didn't incite that mob.

What Trump said is NOT indictable, so says the DOJ.
There are degrees of incitement, and Trump kept his speech well within the 1st Amendment.

I'm not saying that I support what Trump or the rioters did, the rioters broke the Law. 99% of the protesters left the rally peacefully, the goobers that stayed acted criminally and should be punished.

I don't know what you think the Department of Justice has to do with this? He's not being criminally charged.

Impeachment is only to be used for "high crimes and misdemeanors", generally interpreted to mean at least a felony or treason. You admit that the DOJ has no crime to pursue for citizen Trump.
Democrats think that they have an excuse to prevent Trump from running in 2024. That is NOT what the Constitution says, and the GOP senators know it. They will hold their noses and vote to acquit, based strictly on the Law and the Constitution.

The democrats should have pushed a censure instead of impeachment, that would have passed both Houses unanimously.

Except that is not what the Constitution means by "high crimes and misdemeanors." That refers to a violation of of public's trust.

Impeachment | US House of Representatives: History, Art & Archives​

​

Origins​

​

Impeachment comes from British constitutional history. The process evolved from the 14th century as a way for parliament to hold the king’s ministers accountable for their public actions. Impeachment, as Alexander Hamilton of New York explained in Federalist 65, varies from civil or criminal courts in that it strictly involves the “misconduct of public men, or in other words from the abuse or violation of some public trust.” Individual state constitutions had provided for impeachment for “maladministration” or “corruption” before the U.S. Constitution was written. And the founders, fearing the potential for abuse of executive power, considered impeachment so important that they made it part of the Constitution even before they defined the contours of the presidency.​

There is no ironclad definition as to what "high crimes and misdemeaners' really means. But it is hinted at as treason and other very serious crimes that warrant removal. High crimes and misdemeanors is not a partisan ticky-tack non-crime.

impeachment

www.law.cornell.edu

I don't know why you think a link to Cornell's law website is a match for the U.S. House of Representative's website. It's the U.S. House who impeaches based on "high crimes and misdemeanors," not Cornell. And the U.S. House who decides what "high crimes and misdemeanors" means; and they say it means, "abuse or violation of some public trust." There was even a judge who was impeached for being intoxicated while on the bench. That's an "abuse or violation of some public trust."

Exactly right. We agree that the House can impeach a "ham sandwich" if they so choose.
But, the Senate holds trial for those impeachment articles, and they vote "innocent or guilty" based on their individual interpretations of the Constitution and the Law. The USSC does not referee impeachments, although if I was Trump's team I'd have asked for a ruling on constitutionality from the USSC.

So if/when Trump is acquitted, since the "crime" did not reach a certain threshold of "high crime", don't whine about it. Its just partisan political theater.

LOL

Now you're arguing with yourself. Earlier you said "high crimes and misdemeanors" means "felony or treason." Now you admit it can include impeaching a "ham sandwich." It can't but it does mean it's a violation of of public's trust.

1. The House can impeach a president for anything it perceives as a "high crime", real or fictitious.
2. The Senate needs 2/3 voting guilty to actually remove someone from office, which would take a serious crime (a felony or better?) to get support from both sides of the aisle.
3. I'm not arguing with myself, the House and Senate have very different powers and responsibilities regarding impeachment.

LOL

You're still wrong, no matter how many times you repeat it. Again, a judge was impeached for being intoxicated while on the bench. That was considered a violation of the public's trust.

The Senate convicted him for it and threw him off the bench.

 

[Faun]

There is no ironclad definition as to what "high crimes and misdemeaners' really means. But it is hinted at as treason and other very serious crimes that warrant removal. High crimes and misdemeanors is not a partisan ticky-tack non-crime.

I'm not worried about what spineless Senate Republicans do. He'll be tried in federal court for sedition and inciting a riot. That carries a 20 year sentence. Considering his age, he can probably reach a plea deal for 10.

Orange is the new orange.

Th DOJ already reviewed his speech and found nothing indictable, so your "wishful thinking" is total bullshit.

A "former prosecutor" is not the DOJ - Don't be a maroon. And Turley has defended Rump at every turn. He used to be a respected attorney. That was before he attached himself with Gorilla Glue to the Orange Blob.

1. Turley is a Law Professor first, and a democrat second.
2. If you don't want Turley, our money is just as green, he is still well respected by real lawyers.
3. Dershowitz said that the 1st Amendment absolves Trump of anything criminal.
4. You don't like Dershowitz now either, huh?

Dirty Dersh and Turdley are DINOs. They voted for Rump both times - GUARANFUKINTEED.

Turley said he voted democrat (Clinton in 2016). Can't find out who he voted for in 2020, probably Biden.

Constitutionalist Jonathan Turley Receives Violent Threats After Opposing Impeachment – The Shad Olson Show

www.shadolsonshow.com

Dershowitz won't say who he voted for. But he's a lifelong democrat.

There is no ironclad definition as to what "high crimes and misdemeaners' really means. But it is hinted at as treason and other very serious crimes that warrant removal. High crimes and misdemeanors is not a partisan ticky-tack non-crime.

I'm not worried about what spineless Senate Republicans do. He'll be tried in federal court for sedition and inciting a riot. That carries a 20 year sentence. Considering his age, he can probably reach a plea deal for 10.

Orange is the new orange.

Th DOJ already reviewed his speech and found nothing indictable, so your "wishful thinking" is total bullshit.

Trump’s Rally Speech Was Not Illegal “Incitement”

Former Prosecutor Jeffrey Scott Shapiro: "The president didn’t commit incitement or any other crime. I should know. As a Washington prosecutor I earned the nickname 'protester prosecutor' from the antiwar group CodePink."

legalinsurrection.com

Where in that article does it state the Department of Justice reviewed his speech and found nothing indictable? Who said his speech alone incited the seditious insurrection?

I saw interviews as well as articles saying that the DOJ review of Trump's speech found no incitement.

DOJ Says It Has No Plans to Charge Trump With 'Incitement'

freerepublic.com

If you have a slam dunk "crime" that is indictable and verified so by the DOJ, please post it.
Otherwise, the 2nd impeachment is total partisan bullshit.

Total BULLSHIT. It is still under heavy review. And PJ Media - REALLY?

• Overall, we rate PJ Media to be Questionable based on extreme right-wing bias, promotion of propaganda and conspiracies as well as numerous failed fact checks.

Don't attack my link, put up your own link proving that the DOJ will indict Trump for something related to insurrection. Crickets....tick-tock....

Your link isn't your problem. Citing Dershowitz is. Regardless of his party affiliation, he's a Trump ally who has said some remarkably stupid shit in defense of Trump.

 

[Nostra]

There is no ironclad definition as to what "high crimes and misdemeaners' really means. But it is hinted at as treason and other very serious crimes that warrant removal. High crimes and misdemeanors is not a partisan ticky-tack non-crime.

I'm not worried about what spineless Senate Republicans do. He'll be tried in federal court for sedition and inciting a riot. That carries a 20 year sentence. Considering his age, he can probably reach a plea deal for 10.

Orange is the new orange.

Th DOJ already reviewed his speech and found nothing indictable, so your "wishful thinking" is total bullshit.

Trump’s Rally Speech Was Not Illegal “Incitement”

Former Prosecutor Jeffrey Scott Shapiro: "The president didn’t commit incitement or any other crime. I should know. As a Washington prosecutor I earned the nickname 'protester prosecutor' from the antiwar group CodePink."

legalinsurrection.com

Where in that article does it state the Department of Justice reviewed his speech and found nothing indictable? Who said his speech alone incited the seditious insurrection?

Why hasn't he been arrested?

We all know this Shampeachment is just a temper tantrum from the Dimwingers and will result in Trump's 100% EXONERATION.

Is Veggie Joe gonna let Trump slide on insurrection?

Again, despite many different potential charges coming from multiple jurisdictions, no one is moving forward until after the impeachment trial is over.

Why? He was such a threat that Nazi Pelousy had to throw out every House rule and go straight to a vote to impeach.

And don't come back with "He was President at the time" because Nazi then proceeded to sit on the impeachment for days before sending it to the Senate knowing full well they wouldn't get to it until after he left office.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The Sicknick family is absolutely going to sue Trump.

 

[bendog]

There is no ironclad definition as to what "high crimes and misdemeaners' really means. But it is hinted at as treason and other very serious crimes that warrant removal. High crimes and misdemeanors is not a partisan ticky-tack non-crime.

I'm not worried about what spineless Senate Republicans do. He'll be tried in federal court for sedition and inciting a riot. That carries a 20 year sentence. Considering his age, he can probably reach a plea deal for 10.

Orange is the new orange.

Th DOJ already reviewed his speech and found nothing indictable, so your "wishful thinking" is total bullshit.

Trump’s Rally Speech Was Not Illegal “Incitement”

Former Prosecutor Jeffrey Scott Shapiro: "The president didn’t commit incitement or any other crime. I should know. As a Washington prosecutor I earned the nickname 'protester prosecutor' from the antiwar group CodePink."

legalinsurrection.com

Where in that article does it state the Department of Justice reviewed his speech and found nothing indictable? Who said his speech alone incited the seditious insurrection?

I saw interviews as well as articles saying that the DOJ review of Trump's speech found no incitement.

DOJ Says It Has No Plans to Charge Trump With 'Incitement'

freerepublic.com

If you have a slam dunk "crime" that is indictable and verified so by the DOJ, please post it.
Otherwise, the 2nd impeachment is total partisan bullshit.

Again, the impeachment has nothing to do with indictable crimes. Not sure why you keep going back there?

As far as not seeking a criminal indictment, I wouldn't hold out too much hope until the DoJ confirms that after Biden appoints a new Attorney General.

Stop the Squeeze

Prosecutors charge five people associated with Proud Boys over Capitol riot

Federal prosecutors on Thursday unsealed charges against five people associated with the Proud Boys over the Capitol riot, alleging that the group conspired and coordinated with each other to try&n…

thehill.com