The polls may point you to the answerI keep wondering when the winning part starts.
For instance, this one is clearly a twisted reading of the constitution as it claims there is some sort of a preservation of criminal prosecution which is irrelevant because he was improperly impeached after being out of office in order to magically preserve this option! It was a sham impeachment designed to clearly walk all over the constitution and extend further from the removal of office. So what part of shall not extend further than removal from office did they observe? They did not, because they do not follow the constitution, they make things up according to their agenda. They purposely extended further so that they could cling to the criminal prosecution part and magically make the impeachment possibly viable by simply going through the motions anyway to see if anyone would notice. There are no high crimes an misdemeanors to speak of in this at all. That's what impeachments are for. You are allowed to do contest the results of an election and have alternate electors make backup plans for his grievance. There is nothing in what he did that was overthrowing the election as they claim. Those are gross claims of exaggerations on what happened.The Impeachment Judgment Clause provides that “[j]udgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.” U.S. CONST. art. I, § 3, cl. 7. That language limits the consequences of impeachment to removal and disqualification from office, but explicitly preserves the option of criminal prosecution of an impeached official “according to Law.”
It is not a twisted reading of the Constitution, according to legal scholars, and judges in the 3rd curcuit court. Read the opinion that refutes Trumps claim on imunity from the 3 judge panel of the circuit court. It's about 57 pages long. BTW, one of the three judges is a taunch conservative who voted with the other 2. It is about the law, not about the way you want it to be.Let's see how it plays out. I don't see any real crimes other than political hit jobs against Biden's strongest opponent. The voters see it too and will have something to say about it on election redemption day.
For instance, this one is clearly a twisted reading of the constitution as it claims there is some sort of a preservation of criminal prosecution which is irrelevant because he was improperly impeached after being out of office in order to magically preserve this option! It was a sham impeachment designed to clearly walk all over the constitution and extend further from the removal of office. So what part of shall not extend further than removal from office did they observe? They did not, because they do not follow the constitution, they make things up according to their agenda. They purposely extended further so that they could cling to the criminal prosecution part and magically make the impeachment possibly viable by simply going through the motions anyway to see if anyone would notice. There are no high crimes an misdemeanors to speak of in this at all. That's what impeachments are for. You are allowed to do contest the results of an election and have alternate electors make backup plans for his grievance. There is nothing in what he did that was overthrowing the election as they claim. Those are gross claims of exaggerations on what happened.
And that is one of the issues with our criminal "justice" system. Judges are supposed to be impartial and use the Constitution for guidance in their decisions.Obviously, they appoint the ones leaning to their side. Democrats appoint liberals, Republicans appoint conservatives. It's totally partisan.
Please point us to the citation.You are allowed to do contest the results of an election and have alternate electors make backup plans for his grievance.
But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Why do you need a citation to disallow you to do something?Please point us to the citation.
Your kidding right? If an election is in fact fraudulent or in question in some way, then is he or any other president supposed to bend over and just take it? Making backup plans especially when you determine that there is good reason to believe there was major problems due to the way things were handled (covid caused all kinds of problems), is crucial for beating the clock. Massive mail-in ballots that cannot be properly verified or contested is not fair for either party. There is way more to it than that and unfortunately more time was needed to combat the situation and parse through everything. Like in a chess match, you can lose on time. Unlike a chess match, there were many many small details that were overlooked on purpose in an effort to launder more votes for JB. I for one will never believe that such an incompetent man of corruption could ever get the amount of votes that were tallied in his favor. Never.Please point us to the citation.
Are saying that if a judge rules against Trump that judge is not impartial? Why then did so many conservative judges rule against Trump, were they all cooerced, bribed, given the Vulcan Mind Meld? Maybe, you might consider that The Don actually broke some laws. His, and his lawyers claim of imunity was pure hokum.And that is one of the issues with our criminal "justice" system. Judges are supposed to be impartial and use the Constitution for guidance in their decisions.
But its not really, is it. Just compare how the Democrats treated Brett Kavanaugh when he was going through the vetting process to become a supreme court judge. He gets a sexual assault accusation from 35 years prior with zero evidence except the word of Ms Ford. All Democrats, 100% of them, said they believe the woman. Yet when Joe Biden gets an accusation against him from a long time ago, 100% of Democrats believe the man!I It is about the law, not about the way you want it to be.
So you think Mar-a-Lago is worth $18M, like the judge Arthur Engoron believes?Are saying that if a judge rules against Trump that judge is not impartial?
Not talking about belief. Talking about the law which requires facts. Trump was not indicted because sombody believed he did something they didn't like. Read the indictments. And the evidence was was prresented to grand juries, made up of common folk, who voted to indict. Please, tell me how all those people could be cooerced into voting that way. Trump in victim of his own making and everytime he looses he lies, then asks for money. Kavanaugh was confirmed by Republicans, that was politices, and that is the way that works. I can't see how you can compare a congressional hearing to a person who broke the law.But its not really, is it. Just compare how the Democrats treated Brett Kavanaugh when he was going through the vetting process to become a supreme court judge. He gets a sexual assault accusation from 35 years prior with zero evidence except the word of Ms Ford. All Democrats, 100% of them, said they believe the woman. Yet when Joe Biden gets an accusation against him from a long time ago, 100% of Democrats believe the man!
So whatever you want to convince yourself, Democrats have proven here that they don't give a damn about the law, only about winning against the other side, whatever that takes. And that includes trashing someones reputation without due regard for the fact, combined with 100% political bias.
That's not an answer to my question, but a deflection. Do you think that all the conservative judges that ruled agaist Trump were less than impartial. Simple question.So you think Mar-a-Lago is worth $18M, like the judge Arthur Engoron believes?
I think I understand what you are saying. You mean that if a potential president rapes someone, then it is different to if a potential supreme court Justice rapes someone. Or in other words, some rapes are ok to lie about, but others aren't. And you are making a false comparison, because I am not comparing a congressional hearing to someone who broke the law. Instead, I am comparing a group of people who say they believe someone broke the law with another group of people who say the believe someone didn't break the law.I can't see how you can compare a congressional hearing to a person who broke the law.
If it is not about belief, why do they have a jury decide? But why have a jury when you have already decided on guilt pre-trial.Not talking about belief. Talking about the law which requires facts.