Liberal Forum

FredH » 05 Aug 2023, 12:18 pm » wrote: ↑

05 Aug 2023, 12:18 pm

So you are still without a clue. An impeachement is just a vote in the house to decide if there is a trial in the senate.  Bork? Too funny. Agnew was a vice president guilty of tax evasion.That said Bork only became AG because of resignations and it would be interesting to see if the Supreme court would ignore what the constitution says in easily interpreted language.

Plus I will need a better link than a paywall to the NYTimes! Your attempt at he said he said from a rat left wing media source I can't even see is the mark of leftist scum.

FredH » 05 Aug 2023, 12:31 pm » wrote: ↑

05 Aug 2023, 12:31 pm

 

 
At any rate tell me how Smith's charges are any less than attacks on free speech?

razoo » 04 Aug 2023, 3:14 am » wrote: ↑

04 Aug 2023, 3:14 am

NY POST is fake News ........... your misinterpretation has zero foundation............

Funny I believe I characterized the NYPost as the funny papers and explicitly pointed out a lie on their part. Reading comprehension issues?

FredH » 05 Aug 2023, 11:59 am » wrote: ↑

05 Aug 2023, 11:59 am

Might occur to you that McConnell is part of the uniparty administrative state who has also taken millions from the Chinese. Trump was tried in the Senate trial. How is it that even still you morons cannot comprehend the problem here?

Did old Mitch cut in the Biden crime family with his Chinese deal?

 

jerrab » 03 Aug 2023, 8:18 pm » wrote: ↑

03 Aug 2023, 8:18 pm

he was never charged with this in an actual court.

A trial in the senate which can end in imprisonment has to be considered a court. Lets look at the funny papers. Too funny, more proof Biden voters are truly idiots.

Trump is charged with conspiracy to defraud the United States, bogus charge.

How, the electoral act of 1887 explicitly allows for sending electors back.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/3/

(A) In general.—Upon the reading of each certificate or paper, the President of the Senate shall call for objections, if any.(B) Requirements for objections or questions.—(i) Objections.—No objection or other question arising in the matter shall be in order unless the objection or question—(I)is made in writing;(II)is signed by at least one-fifth of the Senators duly chosen and sworn and one-fifth of the Members of the House of Representatives duly chosen and sworn; and(III)in the case of an objection, states clearly and concisely, without argument, one of the grounds listed under clause (ii).(ii) Grounds for objections.—The only grounds for objections shall be as followsI)The electors of the State were not lawfully certified under a certificate of ascertainment of appointment of electors according to section 5(a)(1).(II)The vote of one or more electors has not been regularly given. 15

conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding,
Utterly stupid charge, the last thing Trump wanted was this proceeding to be obstructed.

obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding,
Utterly stupid charge, makes zero sense.

 conspiracy against rights.

Utterly stupid charge, Trumps rights were conspired against.
 
 

Bruce » 05 Aug 2023, 12:37 pm » wrote: ↑

05 Aug 2023, 12:37 pm

Did old Mitch cut in the Biden crime family with his Chinese deal?

Maybe he got part of the billion plus Hunter got for Rosemont Seneca from the CCP. In truth 2 weeks before Hunter got the fat bank account Biden went to China with Hunter supposedly to prevent the Chinese from building islands in the South China sea for military bases. Rosement Seneca has spent 6 Billion illegally buying property and businesses for the Chines Communist party. The island in the South China sea are now complete. Biden is guilty of treason, aiding an enemy's military capability for money.

https://www.9news.com.au/world/what-are ... 5267308How did new islands come about?China moved to start creating the artificial islands in the South China Sea in 2014, building them on top of rocks or reefs which were close to the water's surface at high tide.Dredging ships were used to scoop up the sea floor to build up the islands on top of the rocks. The manmade islands span an incredible almost 3200 acres of new land, according to research by the Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative.The space which the islands now occupy was previously not considered territory under International Law.A number of Asian countries have claims over the South China Sea, however China claims the islands as their territory, and is using the islands to further their claim over the region as a whole.In 2016 an international tribunal found that China had no right to claim ownership of the sea and ruled that China had violated international law in constructing the islands.What are the islands being used for?The entirety of the islands are being used to bolster China's military capability.Aerial photographs of the islands reveal the military bases do not even allow space for a tree.The military spaces host missile systems, radars, runways capable of handling heavy aircraft, fuel storage facilities to support military operations and naval facilities.Dr Davis said the resources concentrated on the islands give China the power to potentially overwhelm The Association of Southeast Asian Nations' military - which includes input from Brunei, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam.Using the islands, China has the potential to project military power all the way down to northern Australia or into the Indian Ocean. Why are the islands concerning?The islands, and the power they give China, are concerning for a number of reasons.As well as massively strengthening China's military capabilities in general, they strengthen China's claim over the South China Sea.They give China overwhelming power to control the very important international waterway, which much of the world's maritime commerce travels through.If China is allowed to control the South China Sea, they could control much of the world's international trade, particularly the traffic that goes through those waters.Trade shipments worth trillions of dollars pass through the South China Sea every year.Control of the sea would also give China a much greater ability to isolate and coerce Japan in a crisis, Dr Davis said.This will particularly be a risk if - or when - China starts military conflict over Taiwan

FredH » 05 Aug 2023, 12:31 pm » wrote: ↑

05 Aug 2023, 12:31 pm

Plus I will need a better link than a paywall to the NYTimes! Your attempt at he said he said from a rat left wing media source I can't even see is the mark of leftist scum.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

https://www.justice.gov/file/19386/download

We have been asked to consider whether a former President may be indicted and tried for the same offenses for which he was impeached by the House and acquitted by the Senate.1 In 1973, in a district court filing addressing a related question in the criminal tax evasion investigation of Vice President Agnew, the Department took the position that acquittal by the Senate creates no bar to criminal prosecution
 
*************************

In response to the argument that impeachment must precede prosecution, the brief first states, “ As it applies to civil officers other than the President, the principal operative effect of Article I, Section 3, Clause 7, is solely the preclusion of pleas of double jeopardy in criminal prosecutions following convictions upon impeachments.” Agnew Brief at 7. It goes on, however, to contend that the clause allows criminal prosecution upon acquittal by the Senate as well. See id. at 8

**********************************************

C. The Double Jeopardy Clause The Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment provides that “ [n]o person . . . shall . . . be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb.” U.S. Const, amend. V. For several reasons, we think a party acquitted by the Senate may not rely on the Double Jeopardy Clause as a bar to prosecution in the courts for the same offenses. 1. Original Understandings First, the history of the Double Jeopardy Clause suggests that its drafters understood the phrase “ in jeopardy of life or limb” to exclude impeachment proceedings. The Clause’s legislative history, like that of the Bill of Rights amendments as a whole, is sparse. We know that in Madison’s proposal to the House,

FredH » 05 Aug 2023, 12:36 pm » wrote: ↑

05 Aug 2023, 12:36 pm

Funny I believe I characterized the NYPost as the funny papers and explicitly pointed out a lie on their part. Reading comprehension issues?

----------------------------------------------------

I. The 1973 Justice Department Documents A. The United States’s Brief in the Grand Jury Investigation of Vice President Agnew In 1972, the United States Attorney for the District of Maryland empaneled a grand jury to investigate criminal charges against Vice President Spiro Agnew. The Vice President filed a motion with the district court supervising the grand jury seeking to enjoin the grand jury from investigating or indicting him, claiming that his office gave him immunity from indictment and criminal trial. The United States filed a brief, signed by Solicitor General Robert Bork, opposing the Vice President’s motion. The briefs central contention was that “ all civil officers of the United States other than the President are amenable to the federal criminal process either before or after the conclusion of impeachment proceedings.” Memorandum for the United States Concerning the Vice President’s Claim of Constitutional Immunity, In Re Proceedings of the Grand Jury Impaneled December 5, 1972: Application of Spiro T. Agnew, Vice President of the United States, Civ. No. 73-965 (D. Md. filed Oct. 5, 1973) at 3 (“ Agnew B rief’). One of the arguments the brief addresses is the contention that the Impeachment Judgment Clause, Article I, Section 3, Clause 7 of the Constitution dictates that impeachment must precede indictment. That clause provides: Judgment 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.

FredH » 05 Aug 2023, 12:36 pm » wrote: ↑

05 Aug 2023, 12:36 pm

Funny I believe I characterized the NYPost as the funny papers and explicitly pointed out a lie on their part. Reading comprehension issues?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

at 3 (Sept. 24, 1973) ( “ 1973 OLC Memo” ). In support of that claim, the memorandum cited a passage from the argument made by Luther Martin in his role as defense counsel in the impeachment trial of Justice Chase in 1805 3 and quoted a passage from Justice Joseph Story’s 1833 Commentaries on the Constitution.4 Story, the memorandum suggested, took the position that neither conviction nor acquittal by the Senate would bar a criminal prosecution. Id. at 2 n.2. The reasoning supporting our embrace of the position we attributed to Story was contained in a single sentence in a footnote: “ The conclusion that acquittal by the Senate does not bar criminal prosecution follows from the consideration that such an acquittal may be based . . . on jurisdictional grounds, e.g., that the defendant is not an officer of the United States in the constitutional sense, or on discretionary grounds, e.g., that the defendant no longer is an officer of the United States and unlikely to be reappointed or reelected, or on grounds which are partly jurisdictional and partly substantive, e.g., that the offense was not of an impeachable nature.” Id. The memorandum thus rested its conclusion on a somewhat elaborated version of the third argument made in the United States’s brief in the Agnew cas

FredH » 05 Aug 2023, 11:57 am » wrote: ↑

05 Aug 2023, 11:57 am

Note the part where it says "party convicted" Impeachment is the predecessor for a trial in the senate which does have penalties if convicted. Trump was not convicted. I am mystified at your lack of reading comprehension.

My reading skills are fine, it's your comprehension skills that need work.  Clearly, if a person convicted in impeachment can still be charged criminally it tells you two things; Impeachment is not a criminal process and impeachment does not come into play related to double jeopardy.  Why is that so difficult for you to understand?  It's a basic logical progression.

 

jerrab » 03 Aug 2023, 8:30 pm » wrote: ↑

03 Aug 2023, 8:30 pm

--------------------------------------------

Does that mean the founders wanted acquitted officials to be spared from “double jeopardy”? Not so, said Robert Bork in 1973...

.
I thought Bork didn't make the Supreme Court. 

MackTheFinger » 05 Aug 2023, 7:41 pm » wrote: ↑

05 Aug 2023, 7:41 pm

.
I thought Bork didn't make the Supreme Court.

not important, he is giving an explanation

FredH » 05 Aug 2023, 12:00 pm » wrote: ↑

05 Aug 2023, 12:00 pm

The exceptionally low IQ needed to believe CNN is credible fits you perfectly......

Eh, how did you get from my post that I believe anything CNNLOL says?

I appreciate the popcorn but maybe you missed the summary at the bottom..

 


 
 

ConsRule » 05 Aug 2023, 7:33 pm » wrote: ↑

05 Aug 2023, 7:33 pm

My reading skills are fine, it's your comprehension skills that need work.  Clearly, if a person convicted in impeachment can still be charged criminally it tells you two things; Impeachment is not a criminal process and impeachment does not come into play related to double jeopardy.  Why is that so difficult for you to understand?  It's a basic logical progression.

What a retard, Trump was not convicted in any impeachment. "Party convicted", got it yet you idiot? So how exactly is impeachment not a criminal process? How do you explain this?

The impeachment processThe Constitution gives Congress the power to impeach federal officials. An official can be impeached for treason, bribery, and “other high crimes and misdemeanors.”
 

jerrab » 05 Aug 2023, 8:23 pm » wrote: ↑

05 Aug 2023, 8:23 pm

not important, he is giving an explanation

Very important as Bork is wrong, funny how you leftards are blind to the constitution.

jerrab » 05 Aug 2023, 3:35 pm » wrote: ↑

05 Aug 2023, 3:35 pm

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

at 3 (Sept. 24, 1973) ( “ 1973 OLC Memo” ). In support of that claim, the memorandum cited a passage from the argument made by Luther Martin in his role as defense counsel in the impeachment trial of Justice Chase in 1805 3 and quoted a passage from Justice Joseph Story’s 1833 Commentaries on the Constitution.4 Story, the memorandum suggested, took the position that neither conviction nor acquittal by the Senate would bar a criminal prosecution. Id. at 2 n.2. The reasoning supporting our embrace of the position we attributed to Story was contained in a single sentence in a footnote: “ The conclusion that acquittal by the Senate does not bar criminal prosecution follows from the consideration that such an acquittal may be based . . . on jurisdictional grounds, e.g., that the defendant is not an officer of the United States in the constitutional sense, or on discretionary grounds, e.g., that the defendant no longer is an officer of the United States and unlikely to be reappointed or reelected, or on grounds which are partly jurisdictional and partly substantive, e.g., that the offense was not of an impeachable nature.” Id. The memorandum thus rested its conclusion on a somewhat elaborated version of the third argument made in the United States’s brief in the Agnew cas

So when was this "suggestion" reviewed by the supreme court?

jerrab » 05 Aug 2023, 3:17 pm » wrote: ↑

05 Aug 2023, 3:17 pm

-----------------------------------------------------------------

https://www.justice.gov/file/19386/download

We have been asked to consider whether a former President may be indicted and tried for the same offenses for which he was impeached by the House and acquitted by the Senate.1 In 1973, in a district court filing addressing a related question in the criminal tax evasion investigation of Vice President Agnew, the Department took the position that acquittal by the Senate creates no bar to criminal prosecution
 
*************************

In response to the argument that impeachment must precede prosecution, the brief first states, “ As it applies to civil officers other than the President, the principal operative effect of Article I, Section 3, Clause 7, is solely the preclusion of pleas of double jeopardy in criminal prosecutions following convictions upon impeachments.” Agnew Brief at 7. It goes on, however, to contend that the clause allows criminal prosecution upon acquittal by the Senate as well. See id. at 8

**********************************************

C. The Double Jeopardy Clause The Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment provides that “ [n]o person . . . shall . . . be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb.” U.S. Const, amend. V. For several reasons, we think a party acquitted by the Senate may not rely on the Double Jeopardy Clause as a bar to prosecution in the courts for the same offenses. 1. Original Understandings First, the history of the Double Jeopardy Clause suggests that its drafters understood the phrase “ in jeopardy of life or limb” to exclude impeachment proceedings. The Clause’s legislative history, like that of the Bill of Rights amendments as a whole, is sparse. We know that in Madison’s proposal to the House,

Still you ignore the fact that Trump was not convicted in either phony impeachment. An impeachment by itself is nothing more than an allegation. The senate has the final say. Seems something is missing between your ears. A functioning thought process."The Department" can take any view it wants but the Supreme court makes the final decision. The current "Department" is nothing more than Biden's fascist brownshirts, Hitler would look upon them favorably. He would also look favorably on the Brownshirts that ran Nixon out of office.

Jantje_Smit » 06 Aug 2023, 2:23 am » wrote: ↑

06 Aug 2023, 2:23 am

Eh, how did you get from my post that I believe anything CNNLOL says?

I appreciate the popcorn but maybe you missed the summary at the bottom..

 

Your right I missed the satire. My mistake.

FredH » 06 Aug 2023, 11:25 am » wrote: ↑

06 Aug 2023, 11:25 am

Still you ignore the fact that Trump was not convicted in either phony impeachment. An impeachment by itself is nothing more than an allegation. The senate has the final say. Seems something is missing between your ears. A functioning thought process."The Department" can take any view it wants but the Supreme court makes the final decision. The current "Department" is nothing more than Biden's fascist brownshirts, Hitler would look upon them favorably. He would also look favorably on the Brownshirts that ran Nixon out of office.

read it again----------

-in response to the argument that impeachment must precede prosecution, the brief first states, “ As it applies to civil officers other than the President, the principal operative effect of Article I, Section 3, Clause 7, is solely the preclusion of pleas of double jeopardy in criminal prosecutions following convictions upon impeachments.” Agnew Brief at 7. It goes on, however, to contend that the clause allows criminal prosecution upon acquittal by the Senate as well. See id. at 8

**********************************************

C. The Double Jeopardy Clause The Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment provides that “ [n]o person . . . shall . . . be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb.” U.S. Const, amend. V. For several reasons, we think a party acquitted by the Senate may not rely on the Double Jeopardy Clause as a bar to prosecution in the courts for the same offenses. 1. Original Understandings First, the history of the Double Jeopardy Clause suggests that its drafters understood the phrase “ in jeopardy of life or limb” to exclude impeachment proceedings. The Clause’s legislative history, like that of the Bill of Rights amendments as a whole, is sparse. We know that in Madison’s proposal to the House,-

 
 

Link to brief considered by the Supreme court. The constitutions language is clear, the musings by your "Department" lackeys is not valid.