"Yet Article I Section VII clarifies that removal is not the only punishment impeachment can bring. It reads: “Judgment in Cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States.” This clause shows definitively that the Senate can inflict a penalty that would prevent Trump from holding office again. Under established Senate practice, that vote to disqualify would require only a simple majority vote in the Senate, less than the two-thirds vote required for conviction. Two historical precedents have established this procedure. In 1862, a federal judge named West Hughes Humphreys was impeached by the House. When it came time for the Senate to pronounce judgement, the body determined that the decisions of whether to remove and whether to disqualify were separable. The Senate first voted by two-thirds majority to convict and remove Humphreys, and then took a second vote, under a simple majority requirement, to disqualify him from future federal office. In an eerie foreshadowing of what we just witnessed with Trump, one impeachment article accused Humphreys of acting “in disregard of his duties as a citizen…Humphreys endeavor[ed] by public speech to incite revolt and rebellion’ against the United States.” A second disqualification was voted upon in 1913 in a case involving federal judge Robert Archbald. Archbald was convicted by a two-thirds majority in the Senate, and then, in a separate vote, he was disqualified from holding future office on a simple majority vote of 39 to 35. In a later 1936 trial involving Judge Ritter, the Senate cited the Humphreys precedent for the simple majority requirement for disqualification, though ultimately the Senate did not impose the penalty of disqualification." https://www.theguardian.com/comment...ump-and-bar-him-from-holding-office-again-now I've seen a couple of people argue that there need not be a passed vote of impeachment in order for the disqualification vote to be held. Now, that would definitively be taken the the Scotus, but it is possible that the Senate could vote to disqualify
I see 36 terrorists in the picture, if they got the dead penalty, we'd have 36 less problems in the world
No! That's not at all what I meant, thanks for asking. I'd never call Sly a goat fucker. I was saying Sly's a pig fucker. barfo
We all like to believe we have that ability. But if we are supporting either of our current Democrats and Republicans, we haven't even separated the Kool-aid from the sugar. When we truly see, from the proper perspective, we won't support either party. I liken it to hearing about Black Lives Matter, and actually understanding what the movement is actually all about. I didn't quite get it until I watched a video earlier this year. (It turns out, I am a visual learner) Tell me people: Are you woke, or still on the road to figuring it out? How did we all miss the fact that people of color have been being purposefully held down by our very own government, all of our lives? If we could miss something as huge as this, we must all be dumb Americans.
The election is rigged. Someone has to stand up for democracy. It's obvious wrong, but that's the rhetoric they've been fed via fox news.
Here is a glimpse into a comment jack that infiltrated a feed of mine: ""the overwhelming majority of people involved in the protest yesterday were peacefully standing around outside carrying flags. Even most of the people who went into the Capitol stayed inside of the velvet ropes and interacted peacefully with the weirdly-limited security forces that watched them. A small minority clearly went above and beyond reasonable or meaningful action, and one of them was shot dead at a time when she clearly posed no threat to anyone. The reason the response to this was different than most people expected to see is that these people were being used to provoke the kind of outrage and overreactions that we're seeing today - accusations of sedition, calls for violent retribution, and widespread censorship of anyone considered to be complicit - and that impact could have been dampened if there were more one-sided casualties... they also wouldn't have had so many great pictures to circulate of guys in suits ducking for cover, and cosplayers running amok through the halls of power.""
Matt Gaetz’s antifa-detecting facial recognition story is complete nonsense The company says the photo showed neo-Nazis and a QAnon figure Yesterday, a mob of Trump supporters overran the US Capitol, causing widespread chaos in an attempt to nullify the results of the 2020 presidential election. In the wake of the attacks, several Republican politicians have claimed the attackers were anti-fascist activists, in spite of the widespread Trump paraphernalia and triumphant social media posts by Trump supporters. But there’s no evidence antifa played a notable role in the riot, and one of the most widely cited examples has already fallen apart. In a widely heard House speech on Wednesday, Rep. Matt Gaetz (one of 147 Republican Congress members who voted to overturn the 2020 presidential election results) claimed that the mob had been infiltrated by antifa. But Gaetz cited confusing, unverifiable facial recognition evidence from a company that now calls the original article defamatory — and says it identified neo-Nazis, not antifa supporters. In a speech during the process of certifying President-elect Joe Biden, Gaetz claimed there was “some pretty compelling evidence from a facial recognition company” that some Capitol rioters were actually “members of the violent terrorist group antifa.” (Antifa is not a single defined group, does not have an official membership, and has not been designated a terrorist organization, although President Donald Trump has described it as one.) a blog post by CTO Yaacov Apelbaum, denying its claims and calling the story “outright false, misleading, and defamatory.” (Speech delivered during congressional debate, such as Gaetz’s, is protected from defamation claims.) The Times article was apparently deleted a few hours after Apelbaum’s post. XRVision image purportedly analyzing photograph from the riots on Capitol Hill. Image: XRVision “XRVision didn’t generate any composites or detections for the Washington Times or for any ‘retired military officer,’ nor did it authorize them to make any such claims or representations,” Apelbaum wrote. According to his post, XRVision did analyze video footage of the riots, and the company identified “several individuals” in a composite it shared with a “handful” of outsiders. However, they were not linked with antifa. We concluded that two of the individuals (Jason Tankersley and Matthew Heimbach) were affiliated with the Maryland Skinheads and the National Socialist Movements. These two are known Nazi organizations; they are not Antifa. The third individual identified (Jake Angeli) is an actor with some QAnon promotion history. Again, no Antifa identification was made for him either. Angeli, who frequently appears at protests in a horned helmet and face paint, is known as the “Q Shaman” and is affiliated with the conspiracy movement QAnon. Angeli previously participated in a documentary called “The Patriots,” in which he espoused an extreme pro-Trump ideology rather than anything aligned with antifa. https://www.theverge.com/2021/1/7/2...ognition-washington-times-story-false?ududjdj
He does everything for one person, himself, and this was no different. He was obviously forced into making this video due to calls of the 25th amendment, impeachment, mass resignations, condemnations from essentially everyone and the possibility of getting charged with federal crimes. And for it to come 30 hours after the fact and after comments that supported the rioters actions? God he's pathetic. And even then he lies about calling in the national guard right away, took zero responsibility and says it's just the beginning.
My guess is if the camera had panned out, we would have seen Pat Cippolone holding a gun on him while he made the hostage video. barfo
Ah, impeached and removed. Yes, of course. No one said removed. Impeachment is not removal, as you know.
