Florida man receives 8 months in prison, first Jan 6 defendant sentenced

[Bud_Spencer]

Why do you do this to yourself?

I like truth. You should try it one day.

 

[ll74]

Impeachment is merely an accusation. The trial is in the Senate. They even call it that, bright boy.

Do you know anything about how the Constitution works?

They are both trials...one for guilt and the second for sentencing.

If you go by your logic, Bill Clinton was not guilty of giving blow jobs in the oval office.


Correction: you are correct and I was wrong. Though to me guilt has always been decided in the house and the Senate just agrees or disagrees. I don't see how Clinton wasn't guilty nor can I see how Trump wasn't guilty.....either way...both are political bodies and not court

 

[Bud_Spencer]

They are both trials...one for guilt and the second for sentencing.

If you go by your logic, Bill Clinton was not guilty of giving blow jobs in the oval office.

Article I, Section 3

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

Today's letter is T. T for trial, kiddies.

 

[LukSkyFokker]

I like truth. You should try it one day.

45 was never found not guilty. This probably isn't a lie because you're too fucking ignorant to comprehend the actual outcome.

 

[Vetteman]

They are both trials...one for guilt and the second for sentencing.

If you go by your logic, Bill Clinton was not guilty of giving blow jobs in the oval office.


Correction: you are correct and I was wrong. Though to me guilt has always been decided in the house and the Senate just agrees or disagrees. I don't see how Clinton wasn't guilty nor can I see how Trump wasn't guilty.....either way...both are political bodies and not court

Bill Clinton wishes he could give blow jobs.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

Article I, Section 3

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

Today's letter is T. T for trial, kiddies.

So who presided over Trumps second impeachment trial? I forget.

 

[Bud_Spencer]

45 was never found not guilty. This probably isn't a lie because you're too fucking ignorant to comprehend the actual outcome.

That isn't the job of the Senate. It's to decide if the President should be removed. It's the place where a defense is actually put on.

Of course, nothing gets in the way of scowling fascists on the left, not even the barest of due process. You hate-drenched primitives much prefer kangaroo courts ala Nancy's bunch int he House.

 

[Bud_Spencer]

So who presided over Trumps second impeachment trial? I forget.

Not the Chief Justice. He wanted no part of that sham of a "trial." Pat Leahy did, IIRC, one of the "jurors." Interesting construction, no?

 

[Fuzzy1975]

Not the Chief Justice. He wanted no part of that sham of a "trial." Pat Leahy did, IIRC, one of the "jurors." Interesting construction, no?

Not really, I just wanted to point out that what you wrote for a senate impeachment trial is not accurate.

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

 

[Bud_Spencer]

Not really, I just wanted to point out that what you wrote for a senate impeachment trial is not accurate.

In a way, you're right. The second Senate process was a total shit-show from the word "go." It was rushed, sloppy, resembling nothing so much as a lynching with all the due process of such a proceeding.

It wasn't even a trial with the Chief Justice gone.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

In a way, you're right.

Not in a way Bud, 100% correct.

But I think you still miss the point of why I corrected you, perhaps one day you might grasp it.

 

[Bud_Spencer]

Not in a way Bud, 100% correct.

But I think you still miss the point of why I corrected you, perhaps one day you might grasp it.

If your point is that the second trial wasn't even a real trial, I'd concur with you. In a real impeachment trial, John Roberts would preside. In a kangaroo court, that quivering lefty Pat Leahy does.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

If your point is that the second trial wasn't even a real trial, I'd concur with you. In a real impeachment trial, John Roberts would preside. In a kangaroo court, that quivering lefty Pat Leahy does.

Nope, your so off target, I feel you may never figure it out. *shrugs*

 

[ll74]

Multiple Oathkeepers flipping today .... The Latest

 

[Lazaran]

Nope, your so off target, I feel you may never figure it out. *shrugs*

It's hopeless.

Pud asked if the traitor in chief had been PROSECUTED for 1/6, and when phrodeau pointed to the traitor in chief's second impeachment, Pud weakly tried to change the subject by saying - But-But the Senate didn't find him guilty.

I guess in Pud's Bizarro America an individual must be found guilty, or they were never prosecuted.

*shrugs*

 

[Bud_Spencer]

Nope, your so off target, I feel you may never figure it out. *shrugs*

Then please explain and be clear.

 

[Rightguide]

It's hopeless.

Pud asked if the traitor in chief had been PROSECUTED for 1/6, and when phrodeau pointed to the traitor in chief's second impeachment, Pud weakly tried to change the subject by saying - But-But the Senate didn't find him guilty.

I guess in Pud's Bizarro America an individual must be found guilty, or they were never prosecuted.

*shrugs*

Actually, you're hopeless. Both were without legal grounds. The second one, probably motivated by the Speaker's lack of functioning ovaries, her back breaking hangers, and an immutable brain stuck in the Nixon era. Even the Chief Justice would have no part in her vindictive travesty.

 

[ll74]

Actually, you're hopeless. Both were without legal grounds. The second one, probably motivated by the Speaker's lack of functioning ovaries, her back breaking hangers, and an immutable brain stuck in the Nixon era. Even the Chief Justice would have no part in her vindictive travesty.

Both were absolutely legal. The House sets the rules for impeachment....they did so, twice.

 

[Lazaran]

.
RotGut is dumber than Pud.

The traitor in chief was no longer the sitting president at the time of the Senate trial, which is the ONLY reason Chief Justice Roberts wasn't presiding.

*nods*

 

[Bud_Spencer]

Both were absolutely legal. The House sets the rules for impeachment....they did so, twice.

They don't set the rules for the Senate trial, though that quivering bitch Pelosi sure tried. They told her to fuck herself, to their credit. Then they ran a ridiculous simulacrum of a trial presided over by one of the "jurors." What a farce.

 

[Bud_Spencer]

.
RotGut is dumber than Pud.

The traitor in chief was no longer the sitting president at the time of the Senate trial, which is the ONLY reason Chief Justice Roberts wasn't presiding.

*nods*

Which means it wasn't even an impeachment trial. I totally agree.

 

[ll74]

They don't set the rules for the Senate trial, though that quivering bitch Pelosi sure tried. They told her to fuck herself, to their credit. Then they ran a ridiculous simulacrum of a trial presided over by one of the "jurors." What a farce.

That has nothing to do with whether it was legal

 

[ll74]

Which means it wasn't even an impeachment trial. I totally agree.

Both were impeachment trials...regardless of whether.norms were followed or not.

 

[Lazaran]

.
At least Pud now agrees that the traitor in chief WAS prosecuted.

FTW!!!

*chuckles*

 

[Bud_Spencer]

That has nothing to do with whether it was legal

It wasn't legal because the accused wasn't President any longer.

I'll admit that I had forgotten that...it makes the whole proceeding even more of a farce...trying to remove from office a man who was no longer in office.