Trumps Immunity.

Yes. And they could, and still likely would, send the vote to the House because the EC date was still missed. Your religious faith that the SC would visit this the same day and that Congress would reconvene the same day is nothing short of magical thinking.

 

Impeachment and prosecutions are not the same.

Impeachment is ONLY a political maneuver. Nothing at all to do with possible criminal acts.

 

Your steadfast persistence that there is some magical date that would render the Constitution meaningless is utter BS. This claim is without merit. I have no doubt you are repeating the interpretation by some wackjob off-the-reservation leftist that insists this to be the case, but that person is a clown. Such an interpretation is silly. If our entire system of governance were truly that weak and could be circumvented and destroyed that easily we would have never made it this far.

Our Constitution is solid. All is well. Get off the ledge.

 

So now you claim there is no date given for the EC vote? Odd pivot. Also, buddy, pall, try learning what the Eastman memo even says in the first place. You are projecting Trump's wackjob off-the-reservation fascism onto lefties.

 

You're wrong thinking only the Dems cared about the possible VP action of subverting the electoral votes.
Don't you think there are republicans that care about our elections?

...
Legislative history
The bill was sponsored by Senator Susan Collins of Maine and Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia in July, 2022. After five months of negotiations, it became Division P of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023, which passed 68–29 in the Senate on December 22, 2022, and 225–201 in the House the following day.[3][4] On December 29, 2022, it was signed into law by President Joe Biden.[5]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elect...esidential_Transition_Improvement_Act_of_2022

 

Please do not falsely put words into my mouth. I made no such claim.

What I said is that our Consitution is more than adequate to remedy such a problem. Any such action would be immediately halted via injunction, and whether or not normal business dictates a certain date, beyond any doubt the issue with a date, it it applies at all, would/could surely be remedied. Our system is not so weak that it could so easily be circumvented and our country destroyed. An arbitrary date is not going to bring down this Republic. Yeesh.

Through their lies, they have done a number on the small number of you folks that have been duped so thoroughly. It would be comical if it were not so utterly pathetic.

How can you believe this nonsense?

 

I'm sorry you are upset that I've actually read the law, but I won't apologize.

 

The breaking into the Capitol on Jan 6, 2021, was a little more than a challenge.

That constituted some laws being broken.
The question is, did trumps rally play a part. I think it did.
The next question is, was the lead speaker of a rally responsible. Probably not.

 

This does not make any sense, much like the rest of your position.

 

So you are back to claiming there is no date set for the EC. Awesome. I figured that was coming soon.

 

What law was changed?
And how did this supposed law change?

 

So you are back to falsely putting words into my mouth. What a shock!

Dont worry scared one. The Republic is strong.

 

Independent estimates
Taken together, independent estimates from the non-governmental organizations New America and the Bureau of Investigative Journalism suggest that civilians made up between 7.27% to 15.47% of deaths in U.S. drone strikes in Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia from 2009–2016, with a broadly similar rate from 2017–2019.[7] Civilian casualties as a percentage of overall deaths were highest in Yemen and lowest in Somalia.[7]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualties_from_U.S._drone_strikes

...
There's a slew of presidents who have killed civilians.

 

So . . . now you admit there is such a date . . . which would defeat your previous claim

 

Fake News. SCOTUS simply told you the truth. We have 3 co-equal branches of government and Congress has no legitimate authority to criminalize official acts by the President. If you want Congress to have this power, then get to work drafting a constitutional amendment granting Congress this power.

Up until now, that was understood, but give the crazed prosecutors twisting statues, ignoring statutes of limitations, jumping up misdemeanors to "felonies" SCOTUS has to clarify what has been perfectly obvious for 250 years.

 

Trump didn't break into the Capital. He didn't encourage anyone to break into the Capital.

 

I never claimed they were. I simply pointed out that Congress, with a House controlled by Democrats, changed the law.

 

Good. Cuz I never said he did.
So, I fail to see how your post addressed what I posted.

 

Feel free to post the text of the decision that proves I'm making **** up. Should be quite easy. Right? Go for it.

Stop flamebaiting and post your evidence.

 

Because he said FJB wasn't competent to stand trial.

 

I reposted your post. I can read what is says.
It says democrats, not congress.

 

Then why did you even bring it up?

 

Don't cut yourself splitting hairs. It was a Democrat bill, supported mostly by Democrats. The Democrats made this bill pass.

 

To show he was lead speaker at a rally that ended with people storming the capitol.
Which is more than just challenging the election results.

He, thru speech, riled up a mob.

 

Hate to break it to you, but it sounds a lot like you're saying Trump was at fault...lol