Senate trial predictions

[wiley8425]

A grand jury doesn’t decide a verdict. That’s what a trial is for. A grand jury is supposed to determine whether or not a trial is warranted. Where a normal jury sits on one case, a grand jury reviews several.

This is pretty basic stuff.

https://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-law-basics/difference-between-grand-jury-and-trial-jury.html

[Camp]

Not how I saw it.

I suppose it is worth punishing the outsider that dared to challenge convention.

My path to better security is to treat mobs in Kenosha and DC the same.

Now I am supposed to believe the most inept President is a master of mob psychology.

Sure…why not.

[Camp]

Disruption is key word there.

Now we need to find the trigger in Trump rhetoric.

I see my favorite laptop thief’s lawyer is making that claim. I just don’t see the jump from signs and yelling to trespass.

Maybe I will get it as this proceeds.

[zantax]

Legally incitement requires a call to illegal action, I see no reason a political charge should have a different standard. Since the way we arrived at that precedent was because any lesser standard is an infringement on speech.

[conan]

@biggestal99

2.Roberts presiding

Don’t count on it. Trump isn’t presiding president.

[WuWei]

@zantax

@WuWei

@zantax

@WuWei

@zantax

Not in regard to incitement. You know what I mean.

Yes, we do. It is abuse of public trust.

We were talking about the criminal code, that is to what I was referring.

Inciting the disruption of Congressional proceedings is an abuse of public trust and therefore a high crime.

You keep wanting to switch back and forth.

That wasn’t what the article of impeachment charged him with though, was it.

Yes, actually it is.

[WuWei]

@Camp

Not how I saw it.

I suppose it is worth punishing the outsider that dared to challenge convention.

My path to better security is to treat mobs in Kenosha and DC the same.

Now I am supposed to believe the most inept President is a master of mob psychology.

Sure…why not.

The path to better security is to not turn a protest into a mob.

[DougBH]

@WorldWatcher

Nothing in the plain reading of the Constitution prohibits impeaching officials or conviction of officials once they have left office.

Nothing in the plain reading of the Constitution precludes impeachment of a deceased President. Can we still impeach Harding?

[WuWei]

@Camp

Disruption is key word there.

The goal. Disruption was the goal.

[WuWei]

@DougBH

@WorldWatcher

Nothing in the plain reading of the Constitution prohibits impeaching officials or conviction of officials once they have left office.

Nothing in the plain reading of the Constitution precludes impeachment of a deceased President. Can we still impeach Harding?

Yes.
…

[WorldWatcher]

@DougBH

@WorldWatcher

Nothing in the plain reading of the Constitution prohibits impeaching officials or conviction of officials once they have left office.

Nothing in the plain reading of the Constitution precludes impeachment of a deceased President. Can we still impeach Harding?

Sure, go ahead.

Might be a fine outcome, if convicted you can prevent a dead man from running for office.
.
.
.
.WW, Formerly PSHS

[WorldWatcher]

@WuWei

Yes.
…

You know what’s funny?

A plan reading of the Constitution says that only men can be President.

LOL
.
.
.
.WW, Formerly PSHS

[Camp]

I agree.

Trump sloppy rhetoric can hardly be counted on for the heavy lifting.

Nobody can tell the President to shut up about losing.

Congressional security can and has discouraged similar crowds.

Trump Presidency continues as a residue into February.

[Camp]

I missed that.

Will watch for it in February.

[WuWei]

I quoted it.

Question: Without Trump’s incitement, does Jan 6th happen?

[Camp]

I hear you.

The incitement part is giving me an issue.

I would rather fight…that rhetoric…the keystone pipeline shutter.

I will enjoy me some more Trump if that works out during February.

[TheDoctorIsIn]

@zantax

Of course it is. Law is legal semantics.

This is an inaccurate statement, and is not supported by your link.

I think a very strong argument can made that syntax and pragmatics are much more useful in analyzing the law than semantics.

[TheDoctorIsIn]

@zantax

For example, what does the word “and” in a law mean? It means one or both. Though to a layman it usually means both.

This is also an inaccurate statement. I have read quite a lot of laws, and I’m not aware of any that use the term “and” as an inclusive or.

[TheDoctorIsIn]

@zantax

Thank you, you just engaged in semantics.

Do logical connectors have an intrinsic “meaning” on their own, or are they purely a function of syntax?

[Rodeo]

@biggestal99

Well of course that is debatable.

Obviously Biden’s policies are more in line with Obama’s than trumps.

Obama first blocked it.

Trump moved forward with it.

Biden has blocked it again.

Elections have consequences.

A return to Democratic Party polices.

One of which is to side with environmentalist over corporations when it comes to this.

Just a policy disagreement.

Allan

I m sure the thousands of people losing their jobs to that idiotic decision find this argument to be silly and lacking substance.

It will be interesting to see if clueless joe ever actual makes decisions that pit the people of the country ahead of the leftists narrative.