When you're not done receiving pain so you present your testicles for the kill shot
When you're not done receiving pain so you present your testicles for the kill shot
Wtf are you talking about? Put the pipe down and go to a meeting of hopium anonymous. Patrick Leahy is going to be presiding over this sham. It is about Trump inciting insurrection. He'll be lucky to be able to put up info about who was arrested and what groups they belong to. Twitter msgs and facebook post planning the activity by antifa and blm will not be permitted let alone any fraudulent election evidence.
Here is what they are doing. Holding a sham trial. Most likely not enough Republicans to convict. Then the Dems will put up a resolution to disqualify Trump from holding public office and pass it with a majority vote. The Constitution says judgement on impeachment does not extend beyond removal from office and disqualification to hold office. We won't find out if the disqualification to hold office can only happen after a 2/3rds conviction or if a majority vote of the Senate is enough until scotus hears the case.
He is out of office so removal from office is not the goal but the trial must be held in order to bring up the disqualification to hold office resolution. Then we don't find out if that is a Constitutional act or not until scotus rules if it is challenged. Did Roberts decide not to preside over the impeachment trial so he wouldn't appear conflicted when this goes to the scotus to determine the Constitutionality of disqualifying from public office someone who was not convicted by 2/3rds of the Senate?
He is out of office and therefore liable to indictment, trial and punishment for inciting insurrection. If the dems really wanted justice for this percieved crime they would implore the local prosecutor to proceed and try to jail Trump for it. They are not, its all about political power to them.
Wtf are you talking about? Put the pipe down and go to a meeting of hopium anonymous. Patrick Leahy is going to be presiding over this sham. It is about Trump inciting insurrection. He'll be lucky to be able to put up info about who was arrested and what groups they belong to. Twitter msgs and facebook post planning the activity by antifa and blm will not be permitted let alone any fraudulent election evidence.
Here is what they are doing. Holding a sham trial. Most likely not enough Republicans to convict. Then the Dems will put up a resolution to disqualify Trump from holding public office and pass it with a majority vote. The Constitution says judgement on impeachment does not extend beyond removal from office and disqualification to hold office. We won't find out if the disqualification to hold office can only happen after a 2/3rds conviction or if a majority vote of the Senate is enough until scotus hears the case.
He is out of office so removal from office is not the goal but the trial must be held in order to bring up the disqualification to hold office resolution. Then we don't find out if that is a Constitutional act or not until scotus rules if it is challenged. Did Roberts decide not to preside over the impeachment trial so he wouldn't appear conflicted when this goes to the scotus to determine the Constitutionality of disqualifying from public office someone who was not convicted by 2/3rds of the Senate?
He is out of office and therefore liable to indictment, trial and punishment for inciting insurrection. If the dems really wanted justice for this percieved crime they would implore the local prosecutor to proceed and try to jail Trump for it. They are not, its all about political power to them.
Tbe sheeple don't know what they don't know. I up voted because you put it well.
Tbe sheeple don't know what they don't know.
I up voted because you put it well.
Ty. My hypothesis comes from the impeachment and conviction of Alcee Hastings. He was a fed judge, got impeached, convicted 95 0 on a couple of the charges. He was removed as a judge but no vote was held to disqualify him after the conviction by more than 2/3rds. He later became a federal representative. Therefore we know conviction on impeachment and removal does not disqualify a person from office. The question remains is a majority vote by the Senate enough or does it require 2/3rds conviction beforehand? We shall see. Maybe Trump isn't interested, we'll learn that if he fights disqualification
Ty. My hypothesis comes from the impeachment and conviction of Alcee Hastings. He was a fed judge, got impeached, convicted 95 0 on a couple of the charges. He was removed as a judge but no vote was held to disqualify him after the conviction by more than 2/3rds. He later became a federal representative. Therefore we know conviction on impeachment and removal does not disqualify a person from office. The question remains is a majority vote by the Senate enough or does it require 2/3rds conviction beforehand? We shall see. Maybe Trump isn't interested, we'll learn that if he fights disqualification
It would be like it never happened. No consequences would stick. No Chief SC Justice. I don't think the DS knows if President Trump is in office or not. That is likely why they are pushing it.
It would be like it never happened. No consequences would stick. No Chief SC Justice. I don't think the DS knows if President Trump is in office or not. That is likely why they are pushing it.
Absolutly the case. The truth will be televised
Absolutly the case. The truth will be televised
(post is archived)