Posted on 02/02/2021 7:31:30 AM PST by knighthawk
Likely then, if they listened to his speech, they heard the evidence of vote & election fraud.
Russia Russia Russia. Did Graham object to that injustice perpetrated by his buddies?
Regardless, the law states that anyone who "incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States." So whether or not Trump's speech meets the criteria is open to question. But what I don't understand is how they can charge Trump with inciting insurrection when they haven't charged any of the Capitol Hill rioters with actual insurrection? I would think that you can't have incitement without an actual rebellion, and if you had a rebellion then you would be arresting people for it.
Someone ought to remind Graham and the rest of the corrupt congress that no one said a damn thing when true insurrectionists on the left tried to scale the White House fence May 31st, attacked secret service and capitol police and tried to burn down a church. DemocRats and some Republicans attacked Trump for daring to call out the Nation Guard and accused him of trying to militarize the capitol. I think Trump’s lawyers need to bring this up at te unconstitutional impeachment trial. There are videos of it v
Trump actually wants to present evidence that will blow up the RATS, RINOS, and the deep state. Election fraud, treason, human trafficking, leftwing planning of the “riot”.
Read abut PEADS
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/10/opinion/trump-coronavirus-emergency-powers.html
Why do they keep validating this crap? Just ignore them like the petulant children they are.
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) on Tuesday defended Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.), the No. 3 ranking Republican in the House who has come under fire for her vote to impeach former President Trump.
Graham called Cheney a valuable asset to the Republican party as many GOP members of Congress have targeted the congresswoman over her impeachment vote.
“I believe [Cheney] is one of the strongest and most reliable conservative voices in the Republican Party,” Graham said in a tweet. “She is a fiscal and social conservative, and no one works harder to ensure that our military is well prepared.”
Graham: Impeachment of Trump Out of Office ‘Unconstitutional’ — Says Speech Doesn’t Fit the Incitement Statute.
So says Graham today. Can’t wait until tomorrow to see what he says.
I’m guessing he recently looked it up.
We all kind of knew this on January 6th.
Must be a slow reader.
He’s probably going to call for a hearing to get to the bottom . . .
this is called the Red-Blue ping pong game....we’re all supposed to be moving our heads from right to left watching the bouncing ball...and fer God’s sake don’t even pay attention to the coup the UniParty just ran on us all in November now!!
Oh ya. If you imagine these people are being squeezed their behavior makes sense
Why anyone says trump is mean I’ll never get. Who is he mean to has to be part of the equation.
“Has John Roberts said why he won’t be there?”
There can only be one president at a time and the sitting president is not on trial. Joe Biden is the currently the president. Donald Trump is a private’s citizen who happens to be a former president. Since the Senate is not trying the sitting president, the Chief Justice has no role in the upcoming trial. Roberts correctly refused to preside over a Senate trial of a private citizen.
The Constitution does not give the Senate the judicial powers in cases involving private citizens. The Constitution does allow the House and Senate to discipline and even expel their own members (i.e. a judicial proceeding). However it is silent with respect to Congress (House or Senate) having judicial powers with respect to former officials of the Executive branch of government. Where the Constitution is silent, the power does not exist.
Hence, a federal judicial proceeding permissible under the Constitution for a private citizen must be heard in the federal courts, not in the Legislative branch. Congress can recommend the Executive branch (i.e. Department of Justice) bring charges against a private citizen. The Executive branch can act on that recommendation or not. If the Executive branch brings charges, the case is heard in a federal court by the Judiciary branch.
Under the Constitution there is only one penalty for the Senate trial of a sitting president - removal from office. A former president cannot be removed from office since he/she is a private citizen, not a current office holder.
The goal of the Democrats is to prevent Trump from every running for President again. If they were trying a sitting president the Senate could convict and prevent him/her from holding office in the future - that is permitted by the Constitution. However, since the Senate cannot try a private citizen, it cannot convict a private citizen and deny a private citizen the opportunity to run for office.
What about simply passing a law preventing Trump from running for office in the future? The Constitution specifically prohibits Bills of Attainders (i.e. laws specifically directed at individuals). Therefore Congress cannot pass a law denying any individual private citizen the right to run for, and hold office. Laws passed by Congress must apply to all citizens.
The Democrats are creating a fiction whereby they impeached Trump when he was the sitting president and are claiming they hold the actual trial of the impeached office holder after the office holder leaves office. However, the words of the Constitution are clear: “When the president is tried, the chief justice shall preside.” Since there can be only one president at a time, a trial after the president leaves office can clearly not be held. Chief Justice Roberts is rightly declining to preside at an unconstitutional trial of a former president.
Should citizen Trump be tried by the Senate, convicted, and denied the right to run for office again, there is no doubt he will sue in the federal courts the proceeding was unconstitutional. Roberts declining to preside over the Senate trial will buttress his case.
If the Supreme Court upholds the wording of the Constitution, and clear intent of the founders, it will declare the Senate trial and conviction of citizen Trump unconstitutional because he was not president at the time the trial was held. It will also declare the prohibition of a citizen from running for office to be an unconstitutional Bill of Attainder.
However, the Supreme Court also has the power to chose not to hear the case. In that case the conviction of citizen Trump by the Senate will stand as well as any penalties. Precedent will be set for the future and the meaning of the Constitution will again be twisted into something the Founders would abhor.
I read the speech transcript from the web. Has anyone identified parts of the transcript that is blamed for inciting a riot? I have not seen any specific language identified.
There is nothing.
That being said, I did come across an article which noted that President Trump wanted people to “stay strong” or “fight for your rights” and maybe a few other such phrases. The article (with a straight face) declared these to be calls for violence and the fracas at the Capitol was directly caused by such incitement.
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.