John: As a pastor, I carried this at the October event, and I am carrying it today.
-
@streetartutopia Question for the lawyers, can Trump be convicted for past impeachments? I would think the Senate could vote the twice-impeached felon rapist murderer out tomorrow?
-
@streetartutopia And landed us in an Oligarchy
https://traffic.libsyn.com/yinhistory/EP101-Oligarchs.mp3 -
@streetartutopia Question for the lawyers, can Trump be convicted for past impeachments? I would think the Senate could vote the twice-impeached felon rapist murderer out tomorrow?
@CubeRootOfTrue not a lawyer but you dont have to be to understand this one. Impeachment by the house is basically indictment for high crimes and misdemeanors that a regular court cant generally/directly prosecute while someone is seated, and the senate trial follows, the same way that a trial follows a regular criminal indictment. Trials for his previous impeachments have already concluded and verdicts have been rendered, which means new charges would have to be brought so a new trial can take place. Its completely reasonable to call your house rep (esp if theyre GOP) and threaten to not re-elect them unless they bring new impeachment charges tho bc he demonstrably has commited a whole stack of new impeachable crimes during this second term, and it is only because of abject sycophancy that such charges have not yet been brought. Hope this helps 🫶
Eta: congressional impeachment/trial proceedings differ from criminal trials in that the only effect of conviction by congress is removal from office. Criminal proceedings can (and should) happen separately by the criminal court after removal.
-
@CubeRootOfTrue not a lawyer but you dont have to be to understand this one. Impeachment by the house is basically indictment for high crimes and misdemeanors that a regular court cant generally/directly prosecute while someone is seated, and the senate trial follows, the same way that a trial follows a regular criminal indictment. Trials for his previous impeachments have already concluded and verdicts have been rendered, which means new charges would have to be brought so a new trial can take place. Its completely reasonable to call your house rep (esp if theyre GOP) and threaten to not re-elect them unless they bring new impeachment charges tho bc he demonstrably has commited a whole stack of new impeachable crimes during this second term, and it is only because of abject sycophancy that such charges have not yet been brought. Hope this helps 🫶
Eta: congressional impeachment/trial proceedings differ from criminal trials in that the only effect of conviction by congress is removal from office. Criminal proceedings can (and should) happen separately by the criminal court after removal.
@Irenetherogue @streetartutopia thanks for clearing that up. I didn't know verdicts had already been given, I thought they just didn't have the trials ... Seems like those would have been easy cases
-
@streetartutopia They could double the flip offs if they ask for whether people voted for a genocidier.
-
@Irenetherogue @streetartutopia thanks for clearing that up. I didn't know verdicts had already been given, I thought they just didn't have the trials ... Seems like those would have been easy cases
@CubeRootOfTrue completely understandable, and yeah the reasons he got off both times are infuriating. As I recall, the first time, the senate decided not to hear any evidence/call any witnesses at all, and the second time, his term ended before the trial did so the GOP voted to acquit bc for some reason they thought it would be unconstitutional to convict a president who was no longer seated, so both times the vote fell short of the 2/3 majority they needed to convict. It was as underwhelming as it was frustrating.
Eta: i just checked, the vote to not hear testimony or documents in the first trial was lost 51-49. The constitution itself doesnt have directions on how to hold impeachment trials so every time, they have to debate and vote on how theyre going to proceed. And that particular vote failed. To my mind, there deserves to be an amendment spelling that out so this doesnt keep happening but "amendment on senate proceedings during impeachment trials" feels just unsexy enough to not get the necessary support for ratification, but then again, this is 2026 and all bets on everything are off @streetartutopia
-
R relay@relay.mycrowd.ca shared this topic
-
@CubeRootOfTrue completely understandable, and yeah the reasons he got off both times are infuriating. As I recall, the first time, the senate decided not to hear any evidence/call any witnesses at all, and the second time, his term ended before the trial did so the GOP voted to acquit bc for some reason they thought it would be unconstitutional to convict a president who was no longer seated, so both times the vote fell short of the 2/3 majority they needed to convict. It was as underwhelming as it was frustrating.
Eta: i just checked, the vote to not hear testimony or documents in the first trial was lost 51-49. The constitution itself doesnt have directions on how to hold impeachment trials so every time, they have to debate and vote on how theyre going to proceed. And that particular vote failed. To my mind, there deserves to be an amendment spelling that out so this doesnt keep happening but "amendment on senate proceedings during impeachment trials" feels just unsexy enough to not get the necessary support for ratification, but then again, this is 2026 and all bets on everything are off @streetartutopia
@Irenetherogue @streetartutopia From what I'm hearing on the street today, nobody would be opposed to impeaching him again and having an actual trial
-
John: As a pastor, I carried this at the October event, and I am carrying it today. Peacefully, legally, unrelentingly stand up and push back. The time is now.
@streetartutopia Ew, is that AI-generated alt text? *unboosts*
-
@CubeRootOfTrue completely understandable, and yeah the reasons he got off both times are infuriating. As I recall, the first time, the senate decided not to hear any evidence/call any witnesses at all, and the second time, his term ended before the trial did so the GOP voted to acquit bc for some reason they thought it would be unconstitutional to convict a president who was no longer seated, so both times the vote fell short of the 2/3 majority they needed to convict. It was as underwhelming as it was frustrating.
Eta: i just checked, the vote to not hear testimony or documents in the first trial was lost 51-49. The constitution itself doesnt have directions on how to hold impeachment trials so every time, they have to debate and vote on how theyre going to proceed. And that particular vote failed. To my mind, there deserves to be an amendment spelling that out so this doesnt keep happening but "amendment on senate proceedings during impeachment trials" feels just unsexy enough to not get the necessary support for ratification, but then again, this is 2026 and all bets on everything are off @streetartutopia
@Irenetherogue @CubeRootOfTrue @streetartutopia One 'argument' for several GOP senators to acquit were physical threats by MAGA against those senators and their families.
-
@CubeRootOfTrue not a lawyer but you dont have to be to understand this one. Impeachment by the house is basically indictment for high crimes and misdemeanors that a regular court cant generally/directly prosecute while someone is seated, and the senate trial follows, the same way that a trial follows a regular criminal indictment. Trials for his previous impeachments have already concluded and verdicts have been rendered, which means new charges would have to be brought so a new trial can take place. Its completely reasonable to call your house rep (esp if theyre GOP) and threaten to not re-elect them unless they bring new impeachment charges tho bc he demonstrably has commited a whole stack of new impeachable crimes during this second term, and it is only because of abject sycophancy that such charges have not yet been brought. Hope this helps 🫶
Eta: congressional impeachment/trial proceedings differ from criminal trials in that the only effect of conviction by congress is removal from office. Criminal proceedings can (and should) happen separately by the criminal court after removal.
@Irenetherogue @CubeRootOfTrue @streetartutopia
> the only effect of conviction by congress is removal from office
It can also include, after a Senate vote, an inability to hold federal office in the future.
-
@streetartutopia They could double the flip offs if they ask for whether people voted for a genocidier.
@lydiaconwell @streetartutopia Embarrassingly that would cover the person holding the sign, if she voted for Biden/Harris...
-
@Irenetherogue @CubeRootOfTrue @streetartutopia
> the only effect of conviction by congress is removal from office
It can also include, after a Senate vote, an inability to hold federal office in the future.
@martinvermeer @Irenetherogue @streetartutopia #Vance2026 "You know you want it. We can do it the easy way or the hard way" #Vance2026 "I was chosen because I'm a Loser! Are you tired of Winning yet?"
-
@streetartutopia nah, I flip them off because they voted for a cop.
-
R relay@relay.publicsquare.global shared this topic
-
@Irenetherogue @CubeRootOfTrue @streetartutopia One 'argument' for several GOP senators to acquit were physical threats by MAGA against those senators and their families.
@martinvermeer spoken like there was a single senator to whom that did not directly apply during the insurrection attempt they had all just survived @CubeRootOfTrue @streetartutopia
-
@martinvermeer spoken like there was a single senator to whom that did not directly apply during the insurrection attempt they had all just survived @CubeRootOfTrue @streetartutopia
@Irenetherogue @martinvermeer @streetartutopia it's not like they would need to go far to find a high crime right now, just look through Kash Patel's emails
