Not in our stinking banana republic.
"We don't need no steenking Constitution!!"
Posted on 08/24/2023 9:57:25 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
The Constitution is in their crosshairs.
Our country has been hijacked by radical left communists.
How did the orwellien deepstate become so powerful?
The answer is U.S.I.S.
Under Clinton the duties of federal applicant background checks was outsourced to a shell corporation known as United States Investigative Services. Prior to that the federal government processed the background checks of applicants under the oversight of OBM, office and budget management.
Eventually a whistleblower came forward to expose a scheme within usis to not only commit fraudulent fabricated background checks, but in the commission of doing so also defrauded taxpayers to the tune of nearly 7 billion dollars.
This led to nearly 700,000 improperly vetted federal applicants receiving security clearance checks to the nation’s most secure intelligence oversight positions.
The whistle blowers name is Blake Percival. However a web search will produce very little information regarding this because and mention on the internet has been nearly scrubbed.
So if there is any question regarding how the enemy secured such vital positions within our government, one look no further than U.S.I.S. which was successfully used to infiltrated and take over every branch, every level, and every agency of the U.S. government.
Here is a brief oversight:
Not in our stinking banana republic.
"We don't need no steenking Constitution!!"
Ugh. Bad take.
Impeachment is a political process, not a criminal one. Yes it’s BS that this is even happening, but the idea that someone would even suggest double jeopardy as an escape valve is unserious at best.
Address all the points on a technical basis and refute them, including references.
The law is technical as you obviously know. There are many who believe this is the case. So make the case. There is not a footnote in the Constitution saying “this is only for fun! If ya wanna fry the SOB a coupla years after he leaves office, knock yerself out!”
Impeachment, by the House, is a political process, although it is similar to a Grand Jury.
The trial in the Senate is a criminal process.
this is totally clueless from start to finish.
The Congressional process of impeachment / conviction pertains to suitability for holding office. It has nothing to do with criminal prosecution through the judicial branch. An office holder convicted in the Senate would be removed from office - not sent to jail as it is not a prosecution. Being acquitted in the Senate does not negate a criminal prosecution - nor would a conviction require a criminal prosecution.
This is total nonsense.
No it is not.
No. You can find a sixth grade social studies teacher to explain this to you without my assistance. I'm done arguing with idiots. This used to be a forum filled with people who knew how to read and think critically, now it's just a pile of sea lions barking "what's your proof! Cite your sources! 4D Chess!" to a world that is clearly playing by a set of rules they refuse to acknowledge.
Yes, it is.
You a lawyer?
No, it is not. Period.
The trial in the Senate is NOT a criminal trial. It is to determine whether or not an office holder has committed acts making them unfit for office / deciding to remove them from said office. It does not - and cannot - make any determinations as to guilt and punishment of criminal acts as a court of law. You are just flat out wrong to suggest such a thing is the case.
+1
Oh, so you can actually say something more than “nyah nyah nyah.” Very good.
This article contradicts its own argument:
“The Supreme Court has affirmed “the Double Jeopardy Clause prohibits merely punishing twice, or attempting a second time to punish criminally, for the same offense.” Helvering v. Mitchell, 303 U.S. 391, 399 (1938). Because the President has already been prosecuted—twice—for the asserted crimes underlying both of Jack Smith’s indictments, the legal remedy has already been applied: there is simply no other form of legal redress that is tolerable under the Constitution.”
The impeachment/conviction process in Congress is not a criminal process. It is a political process entirely to determine if someone is to be removed from office. So this argument the author makes doesn’t even apply under his own standard. He apparently doesn’t know what the impeachment process entails, nor its purpose, to make such an argument.
IOW you can’t.
Pathetic.
Yes, indeed. You have yet to do so on this thread.
You are probably right in regards to the Constitutional point.
However, simply telling someone “No it isn’t” and nothing more is really saying “I’m a supreme dumbass.” To expect anything of substance in reply to that is doubling down on it.
It’s a lovely theory but the constitution says
No person shall twice be placed in jeopardy of the life or freedom…
Impeachment is not a crime which places a defendant in jeopardy of either … a strict constructionalist doesn’t cheery pick the text. This would be a 9-0 against at the Supreme Court because article two speaks to the political process of high crimes and misdemeanors relative to the office, double jeopardy applies to the person. Trump was never in impeachment at jeopardy for incarceration or possession including life. It’s just the way to protect the office.
This is twisting the constitution into a pretzel.
But the trial in the senate cannot place in jeopardy what is in jeopardy for this podunk county prosecutor. The law as stated above is technical. This is the technical plain interpretation.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.