The only felony was the hate crime. That makes this a farce.
-
Be sure to read this post! Beware of scammers. https://www.indianagunowners.com/threads/classifieds-new-online-payment-guidelines-rules-paypal-venmo-zelle-etc.511734/
Extra Extra Read All About It - It's Official: Trump has been IMPEACHED
- Thread starter Libertarian01
- Start date
-
- Tags
- vicodin smiles
The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
- Status
Recommended billboard when the next election gets close:
Planning to vote this election?
Good for you!
Just remember, Democrats have a history of trying to overturn elections and make your vote not count.
Don't give them the chance!
Planning to vote this election?
Good for you!
Just remember, Democrats have a history of trying to overturn elections and make your vote not count.
Don't give them the chance!
What fun!
I just read that the White House has predicted Pelosi will yield and turn over the Articles of Impeachment. That means she can't send them to the Senate without sending Trump a victory.
Another fun fact, McConnel wants to use the same rules that were used for Clinton's trial in 1999. The vote was 100 - 0 to accept these rules. The Democrats obviously thought that would produce a fair trial. Now, that's not good enough. They don't want fairness; they want assured conviction and removal.
I just read that the White House has predicted Pelosi will yield and turn over the Articles of Impeachment. That means she can't send them to the Senate without sending Trump a victory.
Another fun fact, McConnel wants to use the same rules that were used for Clinton's trial in 1999. The vote was 100 - 0 to accept these rules. The Democrats obviously thought that would produce a fair trial. Now, that's not good enough. They don't want fairness; they want assured conviction and removal.
Trump Administration Officials worried Ukraine aid halt violated spending law
8 separate times, the White House tacked on directions to the Pentagon declaring "the Ukraine funding in particular was being held up for a week at a time." 2 OMB officials decided to quit rather than take part in funding policy.
8 separate times, the White House tacked on directions to the Pentagon declaring "the Ukraine funding in particular was being held up for a week at a time." 2 OMB officials decided to quit rather than take part in funding policy.
That's the way at least one of the articles I've read explained it. The hate crime just tacked on 5 years, but, because that elevated the crime to a felony the repeated offender thing got it to 16 years or whatever. That doesn't sound correct though. Other articles made it sound like it was the repeated offender thing that made the big difference. But, just in terms of justice, it doesn't seem to me like any misdemeanor should be "enhanced" to 15+ years. And turning a misdemeanor into a felony because of "hate" is absurd. It shouldn't matter why. It's the "what" that matters.
The Senate should just go ahead without Pelosi's paperwork. She has no Constitutional power to stop the process she started and pushed forward. SCOTUS has already had a unanimous decision to that effect during the Nixon years. If she wants to include none of the hearsay evidence as part of a Senate trial, that is her prerogative.
SCOTUS: No Articles of Impeachment or a Trial Are Required For The Senate to Acquit President Trump
The line about "transmitting articles of impeachment to the Senate" is a made up line by a liberal law professor and holds no weight in law.
SCOTUS: No Articles of Impeachment or a Trial Are Required For The Senate to Acquit President Trump
The line about "transmitting articles of impeachment to the Senate" is a made up line by a liberal law professor and holds no weight in law.
Last edited:
Im all for it. Though I think that would be terrible for Trumpicans. A trial without witnesses? Lol, ok.
And I can’t give enough credit to Pelosi promptly inviting the president to give the SOTU address. That is a setup, that I can’t help but be jealous of. Conventional wisdom, say the president should hammer on about his successes; but this is Trump, Pelosi is hedging her bets that it will be a whinefest. I hope his handlers are telling him not to fall for the bait.
So he had two felonies, OK.
Now he steals a flag and burns it. I think that is a misdemeanor. That does not rise to the level for three strikes.
They had to tack on the thought crime to raise it to that level.
Hatin Since 87
Bacon Hater
Not sure if srs?
She has no constitutional power to stop the process, per se, but the mechanics of the House formally sending the articles of impeachment to the Senate are established. The Senate would have to violate its own rules (or amend them) to hear the articles without her formal transmittal of them (or, more technically, the appointment of the impeachment managers to deliver them).
I thought this was covered (although it might've been a different thread). Pelosi effectively has a pocket veto on this. Or, perhaps not a veto, but can slow walk it for as long as she has political cover to do so.
Best way to avoid and extended time in the pokey? Don’t commit two prior felonies, get mad at a bar, tell them you’re going to burn it down, steal a gay flag, burn it at the bar, and when the police arrive, say you burned it because you hate the gheys.
syntax error: sympathy not found.
Then don't hear the articles. Or if such a rule was created after the SCOTUS decision, then the current circumstances more than justify rescinding them. The Democrats had no compunction about changing the rules about how impeachment hearings were conducted. The Senate is not locked in amber either.
I believe the current Senate rules on impeachment were adopted in the late 1980s and were followed during the Clinton impeachment.
Regardless, "rescinding" or amending them would require a vote of some sort in the Senate.
Having said that, though, I think the delay politically benefits Republicans. It reveals the Dems to be ineffectual.
Regardless, "rescinding" or amending them would require a vote of some sort in the Senate.
Having said that, though, I think the delay politically benefits Republicans. It reveals the Dems to be ineffectual.
McConnell seemed amused when Pelosi first said they'd wait until the Senate tells them by what rules they'll play. Said something about the wisdom of holding back that which the senate didn't want to hear anyway. It seems Pelosi is trying to drive from the back seat. It's a strategy, but one that probably will not serve the Democrats the way she hopes. Given the positions of power for both, McConnell would really have to play it stupid to **** this one up.
nonobaddog
Grandmaster
According to what I read - this is actually right.
He was convicted of three things
1 - arson, hate crime, class 'D' felony
2 - harrassment, third degree
3 - dicking around with fire
The maximum sentence for #1 is five years. He was given the maximum and then Iowa law allows the court to triple the sentence for repeat offenders - so he got 15 years. The other two convictions, #2 and #3 got him another year and another month for a total of 16 years and a month.
So ten years of that was because of his prior felonies making him a repeat offender.
Frequently first time offenders are given lenient sentences but it is not forgotten. When they become repeat offenders the courts feel justified in dumping on them at least partially because they were given some leniency in the prior sentences.
There still seems to be a question, for some, whether Trump is officially impeached, even though the articles have not been delivered to the Senate. The article linked above says, in a very convincing manner, that he is indeed already impeached, and that the Senate is now fully in control of how to proceed. I happen to agree with that position.
Furthermore, it says the Senate can vote to not even hold a trial, and dismiss the whole charade with a simple up or down vote (no 2/3rds needed). From the article:
"If there is a tie on a motion to acquit or dismiss, the Constitution gives Vice President Pence the tie-breaking vote. If the Democrat Senators running for President have no conflict of interest, neither does Pence. Regardless, the Constitution directly gives Pence the tie-breaking vote, so the GOP can lose three votes, but the Dems would need four GOP defectors to overrule the Chair."
I don't know why the text above got scrambled. The article linked above is quite detailed and worth the read.
.
- Status
