First, let's look at the actual legal meaning of the two words:
- Incitement - The act or an instance of provoking, urging on, or stirring up. According to the legal rulings of the courts, the criminal behavior must be immediate to the provocation, urging, or stirring.
- Insurrection or Seditious Conspiracy - If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States.
First, let's ignore the argument as to whether or not the riot at the capital building was more than just illegally entering the capital building, attempting to obstruct official duties, and disorderly conduct on official ground, which is what the bulk of the charges have centered around.
Let's focus on the idea that an insurrection or a seditious conspiracy requires people to be "planning" some seditious activity or insurrection. There is no realistic manner in which anyone can suggest that you can overthrow the government or otherwise engage in some sort of insurrection without some plan in place.
But once you accept the fact that such a coup requires preplanning, then it becomes impossible by any legal standards to claim that the coup was the result of incitement. By nature the idea of incitement is that someone (in the heat of the moment) decides to encourage or promote immediate violence.
So the capital grounds riot can either be a preplanned seditious conspiracy or it can be spur of the moment riot. But it cannot, under any circumstances be both. If it is a conspiracy, then it could not have been incited. If it was an incited spur of the moment riot, then it was not a conspiracy. Incitement of an Insurrection appears to be legally a two terms that are simply mutually exclusive.
65 comments:
The impeachment expired with Trump's term of office. The trial in the Senate is just a show trial. Which is why the Chief Justice showed the great good sense to stay away.
(Yes, by staying away, the Chief Justice is signaling his opinion the whole process is unconstitutional.)
The Constitution Doesn’t Bar Trump’s Impeachment TrialRemoval from office is best understood as akin to a ‘mandatory minimum’ sentence for a crime.
By Chuck Cooper
Feb. 7, 2021 1:55 pm ET
SAVE
SHARE
TEXT
1,997
Sen. Rand Paul speaks at a Senate hearing on Capitol Hill, Feb 3.PHOTO: ANNA MONEYMAKER - POOL VIA CNP/ZUMA PRESS
Listen to this article
4 minutes
00:00
1x
During the impeachment of Bill Clinton, his defenders argued that his misconduct was ultimately private and didn’t rise to the level of an impeachable offense. In the current impeachment of Donald Trump, that’s a hard argument to make with a straight face, since the then-president’s offenses, culminating in the siege of the Capitol, were obviously public and political. So his defenders claim instead that it’s unconstitutional for the Senate to try him now that he’s no longer in office.
Forty-five Republican senators voted in favor of Sen. Rand Paul ‘s motion challenging the Senate’s jurisdiction to try Trump. But scholarship on this question has matured substantially since that vote, and it has exposed the serious weakness of Mr. Paul’s analysis.
The strongest argument against the Senate’s authority to try a former officer relies on Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution, which provides: “The president, vice president and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” The trial’s opponents argue that because this provision requires removal, and because only incumbent officers can be removed, it follows that only incumbent officers can be impeached and tried.
But the provision cuts against their interpretation. It simply establishes what is known in criminal law as a “mandatory minimum” punishment: If an incumbent officeholder is convicted by a two-thirds vote of the Senate, he is removed from office as a matter of law.
If removal were the only punishment that could be imposed, the argument against trying former officers would be compelling. But it isn’t. Article I, Section 3 authorizes the Senate to impose an optional punishment on conviction: “disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States.”
That punishment can be imposed only on former officers. That is because Article II, Section 4 is self-executing: A convicted officeholder is automatically removed at the moment of conviction. The formal Senate procedures for impeachment trials acknowledge this constitutional reality, noting that a two-thirds vote to convict “operates automatically and instantaneously to separate the person impeached from the office.” The Senate may then, at its discretion, take a separate vote to impose, by simple majority, “the additional consequences provided by the Constitution in the case of an impeached and convicted civil officer, viz: permanent disqualification from elected or appointed office.”
Thus a vote by the Senate to disqualify can be taken only after the officer has been removed and is by definition a former officer. Given that the Constitution permits the Senate to impose the penalty of permanent disqualification only on former officeholders, it defies logic to suggest that the Senate is prohibited from trying and convicting former officeholders.
Some have argued in the alternative that the trial is unconstitutional because Chief Justice John Roberts won’t be presiding. (Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said the chief justice was asked and declined.) Article I, Section 3 provides that “when the president of the United States is tried, the chief justice shall preside.”
This argument is mistaken, and the definite article is why: Mr. Trump is no longer the president. Section 3 excludes the vice president from a trial of a sitting president because she would accede to the office if he were convicted. No such consideration applies to Kamala Harris. It appears that Ms. Harris has also declined to preside, so the role will be filled by President Pro Tem Patrick Leahy. But she could unilaterally reclaim that prerogative at any time, including to cast tie-breaking votes on procedural motions or the decision to disqualify Mr. Trump.
The senators who supported Mr. Paul’s motion should reconsider their view and judge the former president’s misconduct on the merits.
Mr. Cooper is a founding member and chairman of Cooper & Kirk PLLC.
He demolished your opinion Scott
The ex President spent 75 days inciting the Insurrection on Twitter and his speech on January 6th am
Well Rog...
It's like you have zero ability to either read or comprehend anything. Is that your astounding lack of education or something else?
Insurrection or Seditious Conspiracy - If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States.
Even though they failed, and were not prepared to complete the Insurrection doesn't mean that the ex President incited the Insurrection.
Failed revolutions have happened for centuries before this horror story President took office.
Nice try again
The Proud Boys and several other groups were planning to invade the Capitol building from election night, when he declared victory.
I understood everything you said
When people lose a debate, they declare victory over the "weak minded" opponents.
Or walk away and never say anything!
The storming of the United States Capitol was a riot and violent attack against the 117th United States Congress at the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021. Part of the 2020–21 U.S. election protests, it was carried out by a mob of supporters of Donald Trump, the 45th U.S. president, in a failed attempt to overturn his defeat in the 2020 presidential election.[2] The Capitol was placed under lockdown while lawmakers were evacuated. Five people died from the event, while dozens more were injured was an Insurrection.
Your opinion is just that.
The law matters because democracies are fragile.
Insults are discouraged by Thecoldheartedtruth
There's a reason chief Justice Roberts wants no part of this. All the rationalizing you want won't change this.
The Proud Boys and several other groups were planning to invade the Capitol building from election night
If they were planning it Roger...
Then how did the President "incite" it with his speech on January 6th?
Keep in mind the VERY REAL FACT that incitement of violence must be immediate and specific. According to every legal decision provided by the courts, incitement requires specific instructions and must happen immediately after said instructions.
What you appear to be trying to argue is that the President "incited" something over time with the basic argument of election fraud. Which, of course, has nothing to do with how the laws surrounding "incitement" work.
That might be considered a "conspiracy" if, in fact there was more than a one sided communication. But it does not fit the legal definition of incitement by any stretch of the word.
It's one thing for Congress to pretend that they do not have to follow the letter of the law with their impeachment arguments. But it's quite another to simply use semantic terms in one way, while attempting to imply that they are using the same term legally.
Alkyfill" ® Cali
Damn, that is funny.
It is best to use what Roger posts to defeat the "on Stage" Debate winner.
"If they were planning it Roger...
Then how did the President "incite" it with his speech on January 6th?" CHT
Because you believe that it wasn't an Insurrection, that he could not have incited the Insurrection did not occur.
Trump is very skilled at insisting dangerous situation, but the Senators are obligated to determine what happened on January 6th was an Insurrection.
Because they do not have to follow the letter of the law with their impeachment arguments, they have the obligation to protect and defend the Constitution of the United states of America.
Unfortunately, politics influence their decision, not the facts.
Scott, According to every legal decision provided by the courts, incitement requires specific instructions and must happen immediately after said instructions.
They are not obligated to follow the law. It's an impeachment.
"They are not obligated to follow the law."
Alky Stupid ® RRB.
, they have the obligation to protect and defend the Constitution of the United states of America.
By not following the law. You sure are funny Roger.
Impeachment is not a criminal trial.
The Constitution baffles you.
You are saying that what he said at his Washington DC rally on January 6 to “fight like hell,” he was just using a figure of speech.
They have to determine if he committed a high crime or misdemeanor.
They have the authority to determine whether he committed a high crime or misdemeanor.
The Constitution doesn't specifically say what a high crime or misdemeanor is.
The law is the law. It guides criminal and civil proceedings and insures due process if followed in those proceedings. And if should guide all impeachment proceedings otherwise it calls into question the legitimacy of those proceedings and show it for what it really is.
A political gross abuse of power to wreak vengeance on a political opponent.
Has anyone recently determined your mental health, roger?
They are not obligated to follow the law. It's an impeachment.
Actually impeachment is for "high crimes and misdemeanors" regardless of how the left wants to "redefine" it today. So with all due respect to that argument, the Constitution says something different and says so in black and white.
The reality is that only two previous Presidents were impeached because the bar for impeachment is supposed to be high. Democrats quite literally "made things up" twice to justify impeachment for actions that they openly admit were not criminal... and quite frankly are not very unusual either.
well
"“If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun,”
Guess Who said the Above.
Oh and btw... since Trump is no longer President and is a private citizen, he is now entitled to any and all due process that is required for any sort of trial or legal proceeding.
In essence the House didn't bother with a grand jury, any formal hearings, any grand jury testimony, and certainly didn't bother to build any case before they "indicted" Trump for their made up crimes.
Is it any wonder that there is literally NO chance that he will be found guilty. Pelosi will be the first and likely only Speaker in History to attempt two failed impeachments that result in NOT GUILTY decisions in the Senate.
Or from the horses ads.
"“I want to make sure we’re going to fight like hell" The Dark Winter President
Or from.the Senate Majority Leader
"Schumer: Senate Democrats will "fight like hell" .
can do this all day Litigious Roger.
Because they do not have to follow the letter of the law with their impeachment arguments, they have the obligation to protect and defend the Constitution of the United states of America.
They are not obligated to follow the law. It's an impeachment.
behold the stupidity of the alky, in all his imbecilic glory.
democrats will "protect and defend the Constitution of the United states of America" with absolutely no obligation to follow the law.
Judges, how many rakes do we award this post?
the scale is 0 to 10.
I award the alky 9 rakes for the dumbfuckery of his impeachment post.
what say you?
9 Rakes
Only because I have faith that the Litigious Roger has a "10 rakes" in him.
alky stupid:
Sheila Jackson Lee: AR-15 Heavy as 10-boxes and fires .50 caliber bullets: “I’ve held an AR-15 in my hand, I wish I had it. It is as heavy as 10 boxes that you might be moving and the bullet that is utilized, a .50-caliber, these kinds of bullets need to be licensed and do not need to be on the street.”
https://youtu.be/bhY7AkjqxvA
...And, ironically, even on conviction Congress lacks the power to stop Trump from running again, as noted by Josh Blackman and Seth Barrett Tillman:
Under the disqualification clause, can Congress prospectively bar an impeached officer from being elected to Congress or to the presidency?
If the House impeaches a president, vice president or officer of the United States, then that defendant is tried by the Senate. If the Senate tries and convicts (by a two-thirds vote), then the convicted party (if still in office) is removed. The Senate may also impose a second punishment on the convicted party. Under the disqualification clause, Congress may bar the convicted party from prospectively holding “any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States.” This provision grants Congress the power to prevent a convicted party from being appointed to a federal position, but does nothing to prevent a convicted party from being elected to the House, Senate or the presidency.
Congress has disqualified only three impeached officers (all federal judges) from holding future office, and none have subsequently run for elected federal positions. As a result, we have no substantial law here and little commentary. We have already explained that Justice Joseph Story indicated that elected officials did not fall under the scope of the Constitution’s general “officer of the United States “and “Office … under the United States” language. This latter language is at least as wide as the disqualification clause’s “Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States” language. Story’s position is also supported by Hamilton’s roll of officers. Of course, we also believe the practice of George Washington and other founders who succeeded him as president confirms that the “Office … under the United States” language in the foreign emoluments clause does not reach the presidency. The same result should apply here.
An impeached, tried, convicted, removed and disqualified defendant is barred from being an appointed federal officer, and not barred from being an elected official.
https://works.bepress.com/seth_barrett_tillman/583/
LOL. Oopsie.
Peloshee and congress are poised to step on several hundred rakes during this impeachment fiasco.
heh.
This could not be foreseen.
"Feb. 7, 2021 at 7:50 p.m. EST
MCALLEN, Tex. — President Biden's more-welcoming message to immigrants is facing an immediate challenge along the Mexican border, where Central American families and children have been crossing in numbers that point to a building crisis."
I am sure they are Covid free.
Somebody who has provoked an attack on the United States capital to prevent
the counting of electoral votes, which resulted in five people dying, who
refused to stand up immediately when he was asked and stop the violence,
that -- that is a person who does not have a role as a leader of our party
going forward.
Liz Cheney
A traitor who should be lynched by rrb
Roger, your opinions are of others, you have zero independent thought.
The Trump AF 1 looks great in her new colors.
The Baby Boomers’ Dismal Legacy
Throughout the book, Andrews paints a picture not just of unrelenting narcissism, but of radical, lifelong immaturity. Her profile of Aaron Sorkin, creator of “The West Wing,” was striking in this regard. But the chapter on Camille Paglia is particularly jarring, mostly because it seems to hit dead center and lay her bare. She describes Paglia’s decadence as “a mauve decadence: corrupt but nonthreatening.” And her mimetic, yet one-sided, rivalry with Susan Sontag exposed a petty side to Paglia that diminishes her cultivated reputation for brassy independence.
Throughout the book, Andrews exposes these small, but revealing, tidbits about her subjects and in so doing holds a mirror up to them and to the America they created. One example is a quote she includes from Harvard Law Professor Laurence Tribe’s memo to Barack Obama (a former student) advising against nominating Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court: “Bluntly put,” he told the president, “she’s not nearly as smart as she seems to think she is.”
This book is wonderful in many ways—I’ve already given it to a few friends—but there is also a melancholy undercurrent that runs throughout the story. Part of it is seeing so much potential wasted on performative narcissism. It can perhaps be tolerated in youth, but only just. Yet witnessing, through these profiles, a lifetime devoted to it is both contemptible and dispiriting.
In the end, the Boomers didn’t build anything. As Andrews points out, Boomers claim credit for the civil rights movement, but that would require them to have been riding freedom buses and sitting in at lunch counters before most of them hit puberty. It was the generations that came before them that did the work. Instead, they just tore down everything they were born into in a lifelong tantrum that they justified as idealism. And now everyone else is left with the consequences.
Tom Wolfe wrote a fitting epitaph for the Boomers in 1968. The scene he describes in which the young woman known as “Stark Naked,” liberated by drugs and promiscuous sex from the square society of husbands and wives, parents and children, is left literally naked, broken, and screaming on Larry McMurtry’s front lawn as her former compatriots—I won’t say “friends”—on Ken Kesey’s magic bus drive on down the road without her could apply to the Baby Boom generation as they, too, are left behind: “Stark Naked had done her thing. She roared off into the void and was picked up by the cops by and by, and the doors closed in the County psychiatric ward, and that was that, for the Pranksters were long gone.”
Ultimately, Andrews concludes that “the Boomers leave behind a dismal legacy. In all the fields touched by the six Boomers profiled here—technology, entertainment, economics, academia, politics, law—what they passed on to their children was worse than what they inherited. In some cases, as with Steve Jobs and his products or Camille Paglia and her books, they left behind accomplishments that are impressive and worthy of gratitude. But the overall effect of the Boomer generation has still been essentially destructive.”
Back in December, Trump told his supporters this was a “fight to the death,” and he promised to hold a “wild” rally on January 6—the date set in the Constitution for a joint session of Congress to certify the election. On that day, he kept his promise, telling his fans at a public rally to “fight like hell” or else “you’re not going to have a country anymore.” He demanded, “You’ll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength, and you have to be strong.”
Inflamed by Trump’s commands, the insurrectionists marched down Pennsylvania Avenue and violently stormed the Capitol, interrupting the certification and terrorizing everyone inside.
The Dark Winter President promise $2,000 , then he dropped it to $1,400.
Now he wants to excluded millions of middle income tax payers from receiving even the reduced payout.
Failing to keep the most basic of promises.
The ex President is going to face a lot of legal challenges.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Georgia Secretary of State’s office has formally opened an investigation into former U.S. President Donald Trump’s efforts to overturn the state’s 2020 election results, an official in the office told Reuters.
The investigation comes after Trump was recorded in a Jan. 2 phone call pressuring Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger to overturn the state’s election results based on false voter fraud claims.
“The Secretary of State’s office investigates complaints it receives,” said Walter Jones, a spokesman for Secretary of State’s office, describing the investigation as “fact finding and administrative.”
“Any further legal efforts will be left to the attorney general,” he said. Who is a Republican.
There is now a debate over whether to change the income caps for eligibility for those $2,000 checks. (Actually, it’s an additional $1,400 which combined with the $600 from December will equal $2,000.) Specifically, the discussion is whether to lower the income cap from $75,000 to $50,000.
This is a major, major mistake.
This is a mistake for many reasons, both substantive and political. But an entirely sufficient reason to call it a mistake is that it creates the politically absurd situation in which recipients find that the checks become less generous under Joe Biden than they were under Donald Trump.
The $600 happened on Trumps watch.
But, you are a cowardly water carrier.
The Dark Winter President is failing.
The Lost time of the US Senate being in lock down halts the Obama-biden 3rd term agenda.
Socialist Bernie Sanders gets a Win.
"Senior House Democrats on Monday night proposed sending $1,400 stimulus payments to Americans with up to $75,000 in annual income, rejecting an earlier plan under consideration to sharply curtail the benefits."
The day after the January 6th Insurrection, you said the MSM was calling it an Insurrection because they wanted to destroy the Orange.
Every time someone crazy happened you wrote diatribes about the free press because they are determined to destroy the Orange Monster.
Kputz the first $600 was passed by the House of Representatives because all government spending is initiated in the House of Representatives .
Nancy Pelosi got help to the people.
Blogger Roger Amick said...
The day after the January 6th Insurrection, you said the MSM was calling it an Insurrection because they wanted to destroy the Orange.
Every time someone crazy happened you wrote diatribes about the free press because they are determined to destroy the Orange Monster.
’Nuff’ said
So no Deficit Spending is attributed to Trump during his four years.
Thanks for clearing that up.
Roger, you dim bulb, President Elect promised the GA voters "$2,000".
Let me once again smack you daffy.
"Trump signs off on $600 stimulus checks, but a vote on $2,000 direct payments is still happening
PUBLISHED SUN, DEC 27 2020 10:27 PM EST, CNBC
Forbes January 4th, 2021
"Biden referenced $2000 stimulus checks three times during his short speech in Atlanta, Georgia on Monday, claiming the debate about direct payments isn’t some “abstract debate,” it’s about “real lives.”
If Georgians send Sens. David Perdue and Kelly Loeffler back to Washington, Biden said, “those checks will never get there.”
Why Capitalism is king and always should be
Here’s What Happens To The Super Bowl Shirts Celebrating A Win That Never Happened According To The CEO Who Oversees Their Distribution
#SUPER BOWL
Adam Kinzinger, a Republican, represents Illinois’s 16th Congressional District in the U.S. House of Representatives.
Winston Churchill famously said, “Those who fail to learn from history are condemned to repeat it.” All Americans, but especially my fellow Republicans, should remember this wisdom during the Senate’s trial of former president Donald Trump.
I say this as a lifelong Republican who voted to impeach Trump last month. Virtually all my colleagues on the right side of the aisle took the opposite path. Most felt it was a waste of time — political theater that distracted from bigger issues. The overwhelming majority of Senate Republicans appear to feel the same way about conviction.
But this isn’t a waste of time. It’s a matter of accountability. If the GOP doesn’t take a stand, the chaos of the past few months, and the past four years, could quickly return. The future of our party and our country depends on confronting what happened — so it doesn’t happen again.
The immediate cause for Trump’s impeachment was Jan. 6. But the president’s rally and resulting riot on Capitol Hill didn’t come out of nowhere. They were the result of four-plus years of anger, outrage and outright lies. Perhaps the most dangerous lie — or at least the most recent — was that the election was stolen. Of course it wasn’t, but a huge number of Republican leaders encouraged the belief that it was. Every time that lie was repeated, the riots of Jan. 6 became more likely.
Even now, many Republicans refuse to admit what happened. They continue to feed anger and resentment among the people. On Jan. 6, that fury led to the murder of a Capitol Police officer and the deaths of four other Americans. If that rage is still building, where does it go from here?
Impeachment offers a chance to say enough is enough. It ought to force every American, regardless of party affiliation, to remember not only what happened on Jan. 6, but also the path that led there. After all, the situation could get much, much worse — with more violence and more division that cannot be overcome. The further down this road we go, the closer we come to the end of America as we know it.
The Republican Party I joined as a young man would never take that road. The GOP that inspired me to serve in uniform and then run for public office believed a brighter future was just around the bend. We stood for equal opportunity, firm in our conviction that a poor kid from the South Side of Chicago deserves the same shot as a privileged kid from Highland Park. We knew that if we brought everyone into America’s promise, we would unleash a new era of American progress and prosperity. Outrage and the fear of a darker future were nowhere to be found in that Republican Party.
When leaders such as Donald Trump changed that dynamic, many of my fellow Republicans went along without question. Many are still there because they believe the rank-and-file Republican voter is there, too. But I think that’s an illusion. The anger and outrage are drowning out the much larger group of people who reject that approach. Worse, many have gone silent because they assume the party’s leaders no longer represent them. They’re waiting for leaders who will say what they know is true.
Since my vote to impeach Trump, I’ve heard from tens of thousands of my constituents. Their reaction has been overwhelmingly supportive. Republicans of all backgrounds and outlooks have told me they appreciate my efforts to return the GOP to a foundation of principle, not personality. I’ve even heard from many Democrats. They don’t agree with me on a lot of issues, but they want the Republican Party to be healthy and competitive.
I firmly believe the majority of Americans — Republican, Democrat, independent, you name it — reject the madness of the past four years. But we’ll never move forward by ignoring what happened or refusing to hold accountable those responsible. That will embolden the few who led us here and dishearten the many who know America is better than this. It will make it more likely that we see more anger, violence and chaos in the years ahead.
The better path is to learn the lessons of the recent past. Convicting Donald Trump is necessary to save America from going further down a sad, dangerous road.
Adam Kinzinger, a Republican, represents Illinois’s 16th Congressional District in the U.S. House of Representatives.
But an entirely sufficient reason to call it a mistake is that it creates the politically absurd situation in which recipients find that the checks become less generous under Joe Biden than they were under Donald Trump.
LOL.
wow. you guys sure are swift on the uptake.
so you've JUST figgered this out, eh alky?
thanks for revealing what is the most important thing to you clowns... political self-preservation.
"Oh noes! We can't have Trump appearing more generous than Biden*!"
LOL. get fucked.
For Biden, can bipartisanship survive?
Biden has done his best to simply ignore his predecessor's impeachment.
"I ran like hell to defeat him because I thought he was unfit to be president," Biden told CBS' Norah O'Donnell in an interview broadcast Friday. Even so, he declined to say whether he thought the Senate should convict Trump. "I'm not in the Senate now," he said. "I'll let the Senate make that decision."
On Monday, White House press secretary Jen Psaki suggested Biden would be too busy doing his job to even watch the proceedings. "I don't expect that he's going to be, you know, posturing or commenting on this through the course of the week," she said.
Trump's impeachment has been both a logistical and political headache for Biden, and a reminder that the 2020 election isn't quite over. The trial consumes time and attention – the oxygen of the capital – that the new administration would like to use instead to confirm its nominees for senior posts.
And it will once again exacerbate the partisan divide that Biden has pledged to heal.
Congressional Democrats haven't been swayed by concerns that the trial is going to complicate Biden's start in the White House.
"It's not about political consequences," said Steve Israel, a former Democratic congressman who is now director of the Institute of Politics and Global Affairs at Cornell University. In an interview, the eight-term New York representative called it "a moment of truth" for House and Senate Democrats. "It's about establishing an historic record of Donald Trump’s role in an attack on democracy and forcing Republicans to say what side of history they’re on."
Whatever the consequences may be.
Susan Page
LOL. get fucked.
BWAAAAAAAAAA!!!! You really are a paper tiger there rat....Tough boy on line.....pussy at home!!!!!!!!!! LOLOLOLOLOL
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA:
A judge on Wednesday tossed the $20 million mortgage fraud case against Paul Manafort on the grounds of double jeopardy — delivering a blow to Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance, who sought to ensure Manafort would remain behind bars if President Trump issues a pardon.
In the surprise decision, Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Maxwell Wiley sided with lawyers for President Trump’s one-time campaign manager, who have argued that Manafort has already faced charges for the same conduct in two federal indictments.
Vance’s prosecutors agreed that the state and federal charges “arose from the ‘same act or criminal transaction,’” Wiley’s written decision noted.
But the jurist ruled that the DA’s office failed to prove that several exceptions under double jeopardy law allowed for overlap in prosecution.
“The People have failed to establish that the harm or evil each statute is designed to prevent is very different in kind from the federal statutes for which the defendant was previously prosecuted,” Wiley wrote in his 26-page decision.
https://nypost.com/2019/12/18/paul-manafort-trial-judge-dismisses-mortgage-fraud-case-over-double-jeopardy/
Wow fuck nut rat Thinking another crooked R getting a case tossed is a win!!!!! God gave you a brain, why do you keep shitting it out?????? BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!
and the next congressional democrat candidate to enter the on-deck circle IS:
The TikToker who put Gorilla Glue in her hair is still living with her nightmarish mistake, the glue brand's remedies aren't working ... and now she's lawyering up.
Sources familiar with the situation tell TMZ ... Tessica Brown's weekend trip to the ER was another disaster, and Gorilla Glue's tip to use rubbing alcohol to remove the product was a colossal failure.
Our sources say Tessica spent 22 hours in the ER and the staff was dumbfounded. We're told healthcare workers put acetone on the back of her head, but it burned her scalp and only made the glue gooey before hardening back up.
Tessica, we're told, was instructed to keep trying the potential remedy back home, but rubbing alcohol still hasn't proved to be the cure.
https://www.tmz.com/2021/02/08/gorilla-glue-girl-unable-remove-glue-lawsuit-legal-action-sue-tiktok/
now this profile in courage is obviously the next AOC.
Maybe you should donate to gorilla girl,..... BWAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!! She fucked up just like you have done supported trump.....at least you can get the stink off!!!!! LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!! Maybe she can help those trump supporters who took fish chorolquine in AZ with tragic results.......Why are you such a dumb fuck?????
WARNING to roger !!!
If you keep on stepping on rakes you are going to end up like VERY lo iq.
and you are not too far away from that blathering idiot
ChuckGrassley
Can’t fly into USA w/o showing negative test for virus but Pres Biden will let ppl who illegally walked across the border do so w/o testing. Is that protecting our citizens?
Joe Biden's America
Banana Republic
Chuck Ross
https://twitter.com/ChuckRossDC/status/1358966447695945730
NEW: Biden's CIA pick is president of a think tank that received millions in funding from a Chinese Communist Party-linked businessman and front group.
Is there anyone in Biden's picks or family without close ties to China and it's ethnic cleansing? Are atrocities OK now?
C'mon man, they're good guys, guys.
Joe Bidens America
1984
Banana Republic
Dictator
Wow fuck nut rat Thinking another crooked R getting a case tossed is a win!!
Special counsel charged Manafort and Gates with tax crimes that the IRS audited and never recommended charges for, and for bank crimes that the SEC audited and never recommended charges for.
These were actions that were quite literally at the very end of their statute of limitations. The fact that Mueller and his team convinced 12 jurors that they committed tax and bank crimes is all fine and dandy, but having these sentences communed is more than fair here.
Post a Comment