The Impeachment

[Bryce]

Of Kamala Harris?

Fourteenth Amendment
Section 3
No Person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Amdt14.S3.1 Disqualification from Holding Office
Amdt14.S3.1.1 Disqualification Clause

Via her twitter feed..

If you’re able to, chip in now to the
@MNFreedomFund
to help post bail for those protesting on the ground in Minnesota.

https://twitter.com/KamalaHarris/status ... id-n253250

Not to mention her and her families ties to the Ford Foundation who according to their website promotes and gives money to people and organizations with a goal of: "Disrupting systems to advance social justice."

Some of the benefactors of the Ford Foundation are the Workers World Party, Southern Vision Alliance and the Dream Defenders, which promises a "end to the Capitalist system in the United States."

Sure seems like what Section 3 of The Fourteenth Amendment was written for to me.

[Robert Faygo]

Weak sauce.

She didn't illegally ask for bail to be waived or somehow try to get around it. Raising money and posting bail for someone is a perfectly legal activity.

[Bryce]

Weak sauce.

She didn't illegally ask for bail to be waived or somehow try to get around it. Raising money and posting bail for someone is a perfectly legal activity.

About as weak as the impeachment charges against Trump.

Even so, wouldn't helping to raise bail for these individuals fall under the auspices "given aid or comfort?"

[Robert Faygo]

LOL, no

Incitement: illegal (which hasn't been proven one way or the other yet)
Posting bail: legal (which doesn't need to be proven as it's ... ummm ... legal)

It's not that hard.

[Bryce]

Posting bail: legal (which doesn't need to be proven as it's ... ummm ... legal)

It's not that hard.

So posting bail isn't giving aid....

Got it.

[TC Shuts Up]

In retrospect, the Left and the RINOs allowed the Clinton Impeachment to be turned into a circus, ignoring more serious (by Man's Law) crimes to go unadjudicated and turned into a sexual farce. No doubt that wasn't helped by RINO at best Ken Starr. Remember that Clinton was disbarred. I guess that since Trump is not a lawyer, they are trying Impeachment after the fact to punish him for purely political reasons, just to get even.

[Robert Faygo]

Posting bail: legal (which doesn't need to be proven as it's ... ummm ... legal)

It's not that hard.

So posting bail isn't giving aid....

Got it.

Not sure if you're being serious here or not. Someone that is accused of breaking the law has not been proven to be an enemy of the state. Even if the crimes are/were Federal, they likely don't rise to that standard. Giving aid to an enemy of the State (not a political foe) is an extremely high standard. No one has been accused of treason in these cases.

If these people were viewed as enemies of the state, they would have been held without bail. Then you might *might* have an argument should someone be aiding an effort for them to avoid responsibilities for their crimes.

Your stretching is making you look silly here.

[Bryce]

Your stretching is making you look silly here.

No more silly than the stretch being made by the impeachment farce that is currently taking place, which was the intended point of this thread.

[Rate This]

Your stretching is making you look silly here.

No more silly than the stretch being made by the impeachment farce that is currently taking place, which was the intended point of this thread.

The current impeachment is for a legitimate reason. “You’ve gotta fight like hell or you’re gonna lose you’re country” “we’re gonna March down to the Capitol and let our voices be heard”. In fact he mentioned fighting or fight over 25 times in his speech that day... then there’s the fact that it’s his event and he’s got people saying “trial by combat”... c’mon man. Then there was the tweets during the siege against Pence which resulted in chants to hang the man and for a bit of time supporting what was happening. She had to be begged to ask them to stop. At a certain point the true conservatives in the house (all 10 of them) said “ENOUGH”... the Trump folks can keep running right off a cliff. There’s a reason his influence is rather muted lately. He is no longer electable and does not have the support remaining to be a viable national force.

The rioters over the summer were rioters not seditionists. They did not actively seek to overthrow the Federal Government. Bailing them out is it a crime either. You don’t have to like it but it’s perfectly legal.

[Robert Faygo]

While admittedly 95% political in nature, you do have to admit that there is foundation for the inquiry via impeachment and trial. Thank goodness it's not every day that we see what happened on Jan 6 at the Capitol.

The process in the Constitution was put in place for a reason -- to allow things like that to not go unchecked. We both know there is very little chance of conviction in the Senate. We have to be able to draw the line someplace -- if not for this, what exactly?

Why not just let things play out the way the framers intended, political warts and all?

I appreciate the train of thought here, really. But in my opinion you weaken your argument with this kind of stuff.

[Bryce]

Your stretching is making you look silly here.

No more silly than the stretch being made by the impeachment farce that is currently taking place, which was the intended point of this thread.

The current impeachment is for a legitimate reason. “You’ve gotta fight like hell or you’re gonna lose you’re country” “we’re gonna March down to the Capitol and let our voices be heard”. In fact he mentioned fighting or fight over 25 times in his speech that day...

So happy to have an opinion offered by the "worlds foremost" (hat tip to Craig) who evidently isn't aware of the various definitions of the word fight.

b(1): to attempt to prevent the success or effectiveness of
the company fought the takeover attempt
(2): to oppose the passage or development of
fight a bill in Congress

3: to struggle to endure or surmount

[Bryce]

While admittedly 95% political in nature, you do have to admit that there is foundation for the inquiry via impeachment and trial. Thank goodness it's not every day that we see what happened on Jan 6 at the Capitol.

The process in the Constitution was put in place for a reason -- to allow things like that to not go unchecked. We both know there is very little chance of conviction in the Senate. We have to be able to draw the line someplace -- if not for this, what exactly?

Why not just let things play out the way the framers intended, political warts and all?

I appreciate the train of thought here, really. But in my opinion you weaken your argument with this kind of stuff.

Do you really think the framers created the impeachment process to be used against a private citizen? If so, can you point me to any debate or writings from any of them that would suggest this?

[Robert Faygo]

Definitely not. However, Trump was not a private citizen on January 6th.

I think there is definitely room for debate on whether or not the Constitution speaks to this situation with Trump being on trial after leaving office. We get into 14th Amendment arguments and so forth with that discussion. The Constitution is very vague on these points.

It would be interesting to me if the SCOTUS would weigh in on it. On the one hand, it should be a question of them interpreting the Constitution due to the vagueness. On the other hand, the entire process of impeachment and trial is specified as being handled at the sole direction / discretion of Congress.

To date, the SCOTUS has been hands off with impeachment and trial. Will that continue?

[Bryce]

Definitely not. However, Trump was not a private citizen on January 6th.

I think there is definitely room for debate on whether or not the Constitution speaks to this situation with Trump being on trial after leaving office. We get into 14th Amendment arguments and so forth with that discussion. The Constitution is very vague on these points.

It would be interesting to me if the SCOTUS would weigh in on it. On the one hand, it should be a question of them interpreting the Constitution due to the vagueness. On the other hand, the entire process of impeachment and trial is specified as being handled at the sole direction / discretion of Congress.

To date, the SCOTUS has been hands off with impeachment and trial. Will that continue?

I think it is telling that John Roberts recused himself from the trial. Either he thinks it's a sham as I do, or he is expecting to have to rule on the constitutionality at a future date.

[Robert Faygo]

Agreed.

In a country of precedents, this situation is VERY interesting to me.

Setting the precedent that we just look the other way at the end of any Federal term is a dangerous one. We currently don’t have a way, beyond the impeachment process, to determine what’s considered a serious crime or what’s considered a really, really, really serious crime. If Trump isn’t subjected to this test, it sets a dangerous precedent.

What’s the line for you? For someone else? For someone else? The ambiguity is more dangerous than anything else.