• Swordsmyth's Avatar
    Today, 01:28 AM
    He was not declared innocent, the case was thrown out with prejudice for (probably deliberate) prosecutorial misconduct related to evidence not central to the case against him.
    254 replies | 23440 view(s)
  • Swordsmyth's Avatar
    2 replies | 118 view(s)
  • Swordsmyth's Avatar
    Today, 01:22 AM
    The agenda of open borders advocates is the destruction of America and liberty, their appeals to anarcho-libertarian utopian theory are just the devil quoting scripture (apocrypha in this case) to his profit.
    59 replies | 1587 view(s)
  • Swordsmyth's Avatar
    Today, 01:20 AM
    That is what began the decline of liberty in the country. The simple solution is to stop illegal immigration, freeze and later open legal immigration at Coolidge levels or below from only compatible cultures, and throw out all the illegals and legal unamericans already here.
    59 replies | 1587 view(s)
  • Swordsmyth's Avatar
    Today, 01:17 AM
    They absolutely are statists, they just are also criminals. They supported big government in their own countries and support it when they come here. Like all leftists they want tyranny for others and anarchy for themselves.
    59 replies | 1587 view(s)
  • Swordsmyth's Avatar
    Today, 01:15 AM
    Immigration is not a right. Guns and self defense are. Territorial defense is a natural right.
    59 replies | 1587 view(s)
  • Swordsmyth's Avatar
    Today, 01:12 AM
    Your ignorance is insurmountable. Biden's failure to secure the Border is nonfeasance, and malfeasance, both are misconduct in office and are High Crimes and Misdemeanors. If Trump decided to invoke the core power of impoundment which was always recognized until Congress tried to usurp it and Nixon unconstitutionally signed it away in legislation without an Amendment it would not be any kind of crime or misdemeanor High or otherwise and Congress cannot make it one. The definition of High Crimes and Misdemeanors does not fall within the Senate's power to try, especially since the charges must come from the House. The House does not have power to define High Crimes and Misdemeanors either, only the power to impeach for them. The definition is in common law and is a separate constitutional provision which could be defeated by allowing the Senate final authority to determine the meaning of the words. Because the words have a solid definition in common law an attempt to make something outside the definition fit would be legislative action that transgresses identifiable textual limits.
    148 replies | 4254 view(s)
  • Swordsmyth's Avatar
    Yesterday, 07:33 AM
    I posted the part you deliberately left out in your cherrypicking, I didn't need to post the part you cherry picked. And they specifically said what I posted about other Constitutional provisions altering the Justiciability in another ruling. You are taking their quote out of the context of the narrow question of Senate procedure which they found to be not reviewable due to the Senate having sole power to try and trying to act like they meant it in its broadest sense when farther on they made it clear it would be different for a different question where another Constitutional provision came into play. You lied by ommission through cherrypicking and taking the ruling out of context. "shall be impeached for High Crimes and Misdemeanors" is an identifiable textual limit. The more you lie about this the more you end up providing ammunition to completely destroy your position.
    148 replies | 4254 view(s)
  • Swordsmyth's Avatar
    Yesterday, 07:25 AM
    That's not the common law or Constitutional meaning of a High Misdemeanor, and I've already posted the definition which is misconduct in office like malfeasance. We're not discussing misdemeanors or High Misdemeanors, I have repeatedly said he could be impeached and tried after removal if he actually committed such, we are discussing legitimate non-misconduct use of core powers which you seek to allow congress to remove him for even though the Constitution specifies he can only be impeached for High Crimes and Misdemeanors. You can't even keep track of your own arguments, let alone mine. Do you even read my posts? I have repeatedly said that that drone strike was an impeachable offense.
    148 replies | 4254 view(s)
  • Swordsmyth's Avatar
    Yesterday, 07:11 AM
    Repeat spamming your cherry picking and lies in the same and multiple posts will not make them true.
    148 replies | 4254 view(s)
  • Swordsmyth's Avatar
    Yesterday, 07:10 AM
    You're the one lying and cherry picking from the ruling: They are A only talking about the question raised about the Senate's procedure (SCOTUS ALWAYS DOES THAT), B mention that a separate constitutional provision (like the one specifying High Crimes and Misdemeanors) would alter the Justiciability (they even mention a ruling where such is the case), and C saying NOTHING about the hearings to indict/impeach in the House which has no Constitutional provision granting it sole authority like the Senate does.
    148 replies | 4254 view(s)
  • Swordsmyth's Avatar
    07-11-2024, 11:50 PM
    And you will never move towards no state or a minimal state if you allow every big statist in the world to waltz across your borders. When the whole world is libertarian you can talk to me about open borders.
    59 replies | 1587 view(s)
  • Swordsmyth's Avatar
    07-11-2024, 11:47 PM
    False flag: (which you could tell by the way the leftists all pounced on it in coordination with the Biden campaign and the MSM) 1811478552778334688 >furries hack into Heritage Foundation to prove Project 2025 was a fascist plot to take over America >accidentally reveal it's a China op This year is amazing.
    93 replies | 2688 view(s)
  • Swordsmyth's Avatar
    07-11-2024, 11:44 PM
    Yeah, SCOTUS doesn't try impeachments. But the House doesn't have sole authority to expand on the Constitutionally defined charges and SCOTUS would absolutely have a place in determining that impeachment for anything but the Constitutionally defined charges was invalid. The Senate only has sole authority to try impeachments for Constitutionally defined charges. You have to at least fake up a High Crime or Misdemeanor charge to impeach.
    148 replies | 4254 view(s)
  • Swordsmyth's Avatar
    07-11-2024, 11:40 PM
    Yeah, and if Trump had committed Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors the core powers doctrine would not protect him. Where it would protect him is when he did not commit any of those offenses but Congress attempted to impeach him for legitimate uses of his core powers which they may not remove from him without a constitutional amendment.
    148 replies | 4254 view(s)
  • Swordsmyth's Avatar
    07-11-2024, 11:38 PM
    No, SCOTUS said it had no authority to question the process used in the Senate for the impeachment trial, that's all it said. You are the one trying to destroy the separation of powers by exalting Congress over the Constitution and eliminating the checks and balances on it. The Congress has the power of impeachment, but only for specific misconduct "High Crimes and Misdemeanors". The Senate has sole authority to run the trial, the House (where impeachments must arise) doesn't have sole authority over what qualifies as an impeachable offense, that is defined in the Constitution and cannot be changed without an Amdendment. Both the assassination and the spying were High Crimes and Misdemeanors and should have been used to impeach, they also should be prosecuted now.
    148 replies | 4254 view(s)
  • Swordsmyth's Avatar
    07-11-2024, 11:33 PM
    You are the one who can't read, I was saying that Killing Al Awlaki was an impeachable offense because he was an American citizen. You keep trying to drag in immunity, we are talking about the part that says uses of core power that are not High Crimes and Misdemeanors are not crimes and cannot be made so. Assassinating an American is absolutely a High Crime or Misdemeanor.
    148 replies | 4254 view(s)
  • Swordsmyth's Avatar
    07-11-2024, 11:30 PM
    What part of the word "especially" do you not understand? It doesn't say it OK in a war, it just says that no appeal can be made to war powers as is commonly done when there isn't even a war. I guess your understanding of English is just as weak as your understanding of the Constitution.
    148 replies | 4254 view(s)
  • Swordsmyth's Avatar
    07-10-2024, 08:40 PM
    Killing foreigners in a war without due process is not the same thing as killing American citizens without due process, especially outside of war. And you keep trying to drag this back to immunity, it's not about the immunity part of the ruling, it's the part about Congress being unable to criminalize core powers.
    148 replies | 4254 view(s)
  • Swordsmyth's Avatar
    07-10-2024, 08:38 PM
    SCOTUS ruled about questioning the Senate's procedure, it said nothing about not having a valid charge, let alone not challenging it at the House stage.
    148 replies | 4254 view(s)
  • Swordsmyth's Avatar
    07-10-2024, 08:37 PM
    LOL I guess you don't even remember the part about no depriving people of life without due process. I'm not surprised, your Constitutional understanding is entirely based on your current desires.
    148 replies | 4254 view(s)
  • Swordsmyth's Avatar
    07-10-2024, 05:52 AM
    Leftist poppycock, assassinating an American citizen would be malfeasance (a high crime or misdemeanor), assassinating citizens is not a core Constitutional power of the executive branch. And the Senate has full power of trying the impeachment, neither they nor the House may redefine what POTUS can be impeached for. In fact, the House stage is the place where an "any or no cause" impeachment should be challenged, that would completely negate the twisted Senate full power to try argument.
    148 replies | 4254 view(s)
  • Swordsmyth's Avatar
    831 replies | 63853 view(s)
  • Swordsmyth's Avatar
    07-10-2024, 04:35 AM
    You just described yourself. The Founders limited impeachment to a defined common law term, but being leftist you think that "impeached for High Crimes and Misdemeanors" means "Any or no reason" Your view of the Constitution as a living document in defiance of originalism just exposes how much of a leftist you are and your willingness to bend anything in the Constitution to your agenda. Your position is no different than claiming that wheat grown on a family farm and consumed there (not even sold inside the state) is "interstate commerce" because the family now doesn't buy wheat that MAY have been brought across state lines. (or maybe they would only have bought from their neighbor intrastate)
    148 replies | 4254 view(s)
  • Swordsmyth's Avatar
    07-10-2024, 03:50 AM
    US common law is based on English common law. An impeachment in England in 1386 is absolutely relevant.
    148 replies | 4254 view(s)
  • Swordsmyth's Avatar
    07-09-2024, 09:32 PM
    Cyber experts have urgently warned people to update their passwords after a hacker uploaded billions of login details. The leak, called RockYou2024, was posted on July 4th containing a staggering 10 billion passwords from a compilation of old and new data breaches. Researchers who revealed the leak said the information could allow hackers to target any system that isn’t protected by strict security software including online and offline services, online cameras and industrial hardware. This could prompt a wave of data breaches, financial fraud and identity theft using the passwords, which were collected from more than 4,000 databases over the last two decades. Researchers at Cybernews who investigated the hack said the perpetrator goes by the name ObamaCare.
    0 replies | 247 view(s)
  • Swordsmyth's Avatar
    07-09-2024, 09:31 PM
    Being part of the bill doesn't make it part of the efforts against illegal immigration and you know it. And while sanctions against Venezuela may or may not have been a good idea, Chavez and Maduro did more than enough on their own to cause people to flee.
    59 replies | 1587 view(s)
  • Swordsmyth's Avatar
    07-09-2024, 09:26 PM
    Misdemeanor by itself in the modern usage is a lesser crime, but that's not what it meant when the Constitution was written, it meant misconduct, such as nonfeasance, misfeasance, or malfeasence. High Crimes and Misdemeanors means misconduct in office and can include crimes and misconduct. Exercising core Constitutional powers is not misconduct. The charge of high crimes and misdemeanors covers allegations of misconduct by officials. Offenses by officials also include ordinary crimes, but perhaps with different standards of proof and punishment than for non-officials, on the grounds that more is expected of officials by their oaths of office. United KingdomThe impeachment of the King's Chancellor, Michael de la Pole, 1st Earl of Suffolk in 1386 was the first case to use this charge. One charge under this heading alleged that de la Pole broke a promise to Parliament to follow the advice of a committee regarding improvement of the kingdom. Another charge said that because he failed to pay a ransom for Ghent, the city fell to the French. More at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_crimes_and_misdemeanors
    148 replies | 4254 view(s)
  • Swordsmyth's Avatar
    07-09-2024, 09:16 PM
    That's nonsense. The parts of the bill to increase enforcement never happened, and Amnesty is absolutely not part of fighting it, that was a compromise slipped into the bill.
    59 replies | 1587 view(s)
More Activity

4 Visitor Messages

  1. View Conversation
    Thank you
  2. View Conversation
    Don’t have my phone so not sure if you have tried contacting me on the other site!
  3. View Conversation
    Sounds good!
  4. View Conversation
    ...
Showing Visitor Messages 1 to 4 of 4
About Swordsmyth

Basic Information

Profile Sidebar Configuration

Profile Sidebar Configuration

Activist Reputation (Self-Rated):
1
Activist Reputation (Staff Rated):
1
Select if you support the site's Mission.:
I support the site Mission. (This will change your user title to "Supporting Member".)
Display site reputation bars.:
Display site reputation bars.
Select if you "Stand with Rand":
I Stand with Rand (This will add a "Stand with Rand" badge by your name badge by yourr name in all posts.)

Signature


Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

Robert Heinlein

Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

Groucho Marx

I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

Linus, from the Peanuts comic

You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

Alexis de Torqueville

Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

A Zero Hedge comment

Statistics


Total Posts
Total Posts
70,103
Posts Per Day
23.28
Visitor Messages
Total Messages
4
Most Recent Message
08-27-2020 08:58 AM
General Information
Last Activity
Today 01:30 AM
Join Date
04-14-2016
Referrals
2

9 Friends

  1. ATruepatriot ATruepatriot is offline

    Member

    ATruepatriot
  2. Beenhere Beenhere is offline

    Member

    Beenhere
  3. billjston4 billjston4 is offline

    New Member

    billjston4
  4. DamianTV DamianTV is offline

    Member

    DamianTV
  5. lilymc lilymc is offline

    Member

    lilymc
  6. merkelstan merkelstan is offline

    Member

    merkelstan
  7. PursuePeace PursuePeace is offline

    Member

    PursuePeace
  8. Qdog Qdog is offline

    Member

    Qdog
  9. Sammy Sammy is offline

    Member

    Sammy
Showing Friends 1 to 9 of 9
Page 1 of 23 12311 ... LastLast

07-11-2024


07-07-2024


07-06-2024


06-29-2024


06-27-2024


06-23-2024


06-22-2024


06-21-2024


06-20-2024


06-17-2024


06-13-2024


05-30-2024


05-29-2024



Page 1 of 23 12311 ... LastLast

08-14-2020


02-23-2020


02-21-2020


08-30-2019

  • 10:57 PM - Hidden

09-05-2017



07-13-2024


07-12-2024


07-11-2024


07-10-2024