House Impeachment Threatens Freedom of Speech

Disqualification is an option that can only come after a conviction. Whether the disqualification option requires only 50% vote is most assuredly not accurate, but likely theoretically moot, as you say..

 

One sentence out of an over one hour speech? If there was rioting going on already, at the Capitol. why did he tell the crowd at the Ellipse to march on the Capitol? He was aware that there was a joint session, presided over by Pence, going on inside the Capitol Building at the time. Why did he tell the crowd at the Ellipse that "you're allowed to go by very different rules?" He deliberately set Pence up as the fall guy for his election loss, by lying to the crowd. And, why didn't he keep his promise of leading the march on the Capitol? Had someone conveyed to him, the rioting that was just beginning there? Why didn't he take action then, instead of returning to the White House to watch the violence on television?

 

Asserted maybe??? One billion might do it.

 

Nope.

"The Constitution is silent on whether, after an official has already been impeached and removed from office, imposing the additional sanction of disqualification requires a supermajority vote. In the past, however, the Senate determined that a simple majority vote is sufficient for disqualification. Judge Archibald was disqualified by a vote of 39-35 after he was removed from office."
https://www.vox.com/22220495/impeachment-trump-2024-election-bar-from-office

 

As accustomed as I am at your refusal to accept facts it never ceases to amaze me.

https://apnews.com/article/a4ac94cbde7e34c953dce82d0f60d0a4

 

Never have said he did. I was responding to a post that talked about making up a law or two to try to help get a conviction.

 

yeah, and Clinton didn't have the freedom of speech to lie about an affair.... get real

 

It is accurate. Google the impeachment of Judge Archibald. After his impeachment conviction, he was disqualified by majority vote, and this was treated as a precedent in subsequent impeachments. The Constitution doesn't specify, so the Senate makes it's own rules.

 

Why did he ask the crowd to go up Pennsylvania Ave.? He made a big point of it. The Mall would have been shorter.

 

All of those simple questions have simple common sense answers. For example, Trump himself might not have even been aware of the rioting until the secret service told him he could not march with the crowd because of it.

It sounds as if you are back peddling on the incitement a bit and now maybe trying the he didn't do enough to stop it accusation and prosecution.

 

I'll accept that, though it is still constitutionally debatable.

 

Freedom of speech does not extend to perjury in front of a grand jury or a district federal judge.

 

agree, freedom of speech has limits and can have consequences for said speech

those that made up lies about voting machines to protect the President are finding this out the hard way

 

It was the totality of his words in the 2 months following the election that was the incitement. He incited extreme anger in many of his followers about the the false claim that the election had been stolen, invited them to come to Washington on Jan 6 with the false expectation something could be done to change the election result, he had a history of praising violence (such as the harassment of the Biden-Campaign bus in Texas), and it was public knowledge that there were extremist groups among his supporters. The responsible thing to do would have been to begrudgingly accept his loss after having exhausted all his legal options to challenge it.

In addition, by failing to take action for 2 hours after the Capitol was invaded, and by defending their actions later, he gave aid and comfort consistent with this law (link):
Whoever 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.

Most Constitution Scholars (particularly originalists) believe "high crimes and misdemeanors" does not refer to violations of statutes, but to violations of the public trust. See this article from the Conservative think tank, the American Enterprise Institute.

There is no steep mountain of principle, but there is a steep mountain of partisan resistance to convicting him. Few Republicans are willing to risk alienating Trump supporters by voting to convict. I expect many of them will justify their vote to acquit on the basis of Constitutionality.

 

Back peddling? No, no. Wasn't he still President on January 6th? If the Secret Service told him there was a riot going on at the Capitol why didn't he do something to stop it? Why does it seem as if all the key decision makers disappeared for a couple of hours, leaving the under-staffed Capitol Police to be overwhelmed, while Trump watched it all on TV? Who at the White House changed the date of the rally from the original permit date of January 23rd and 24th and why? Was Trump's call for the march pre-planned or spontaneous? Did he ask the crowd to use Pennsylvania Ave. because there was no permit for a march through the Mall, but there was a permit for a second rally on the Pennsylvania Ave side of the Capitol? What were the limitations for that permit? Because there was no permit for a march to the Capitol.

Lot's of detail...but you may be sure, it's the type of detail the FBI is going to go over very carefully. They'll start with those arrested at and/or in the Capitol Building and work their way up...to the leaders of specific groups and then go from there. And, gee whiz, no more pardon powers.

 

Wow. Congrats on being clueless as to how government works.

All you did was to cite evidence why RW lying media and the WSP in general need to be outlawed.

 

when Trump was told of the threat, he should of done something about it, not turned on the TV to watch the show

 

I now agree. It is not that the Constitution doesn't specify but that it is not obviously clear.

 

Nor may it be used to incite a violent crime.

 

I have no clue. Maybe because the mall is harder to march through; the post inaugural parade always uses Pennsylvania Ave., never the mall. But what difference does it make? Is one an impeachable offense and the other not?????

 

The post inaugural parade presumably consists of bands, vehicles, etc. requiring a street. Also, was Pennsylvania Ave. closed or open to pedestrian traffic? These are questions that might shed light on the planning to merge the Ellipse speech crowd with the Capitol rally crowd and, perhaps lead to the identification of those who broke into the Capitol and why they broke in? Was the break-in pre-planned? What were they supposed to do once in the building? They're going to be questioned about all of this. They broke the law. If the break-in was pre-planned, those who did the planning become co-conspriators. What was the purpose of the break-in?

 

Like what? What authority do you think Trump has to quell a riot at the capitol other than call in US Marshalls and maybe the National Guard, both of which were already called? Put on a helmet, run down their, and take over for everybody else in command???? Maybe fire off a few tear gas grenades himself????? (Talk about a secret service nightmare!!!) What was the Democrats' reaction when he responded in Portland? For one, Pelosi called him a Nazi for sending in "storm troopers."

 

Getting rid of the freedom of the press is number three in the left's priority list, right after freedom of speech and freedom to bear arms.

 

Wrong- it does. It doesn't mean there are no contradictions or consequences, but it DOES protect the freedom to make an untrue statement. IF it made lying a crime, every democrat in washington would be in jail. Probably, every politician everywhere. IF Trump had done what the Biden administration is doing right now, the dems/libs/progs would be storming the capitol with gullotinmes as well as molotovs.
Unfortunately, the Constitution doesn't make double standards or hypocrisy or total lack or morality illegal either.

 

like contacted the capital police, authorized the nation guard, much Trump could have done

you can bet if this was BLM trump would have done more



Trump did more for his photo op then he did on Jan 6th