Liberal Forum

Your simple musings still miss the point. Smith's phony "charges" are laughable.

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 followsImageI)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.

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

03 Aug 2023, 8:18 pm

he was never charged with this in an actual court.

you have aids

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

03 Aug 2023, 8:18 pm

he was never charged with this in an actual court.

Which is why Impeachment and prosecution of any sort should be removed from the halls fo congress = all should take place in a court of law.

razoo » 07 Aug 2023, 11:28 am » wrote: ↑

07 Aug 2023, 11:28 am

Which is why Impeachment and prosecution of any sort should be removed from the halls fo congress = all should take place in a court of law.

Since a sitting president cannot be indicted until he is impeached and convicted of said crimes then impeachment is the path to the court system.

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.

Wrong, since a sitting president cannot be indicted Impeachment is the pathway to indictment, and the "party convicted" can be criminally charged. The impeachment in the House is the prelude to the trial in the senate. Trial got it yet? With penalties to include removal from office.

FredH » 06 Aug 2023, 12:03 pm » wrote: ↑

06 Aug 2023, 12:03 pm

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

they seem to miss "other than the President" also.

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

05 Aug 2023, 8:23 pm

not important, he is giving an explanation

An explanation never considered by the Supreme court, more of an opinion than an explanation.