• GlennwaldSnowdenAssanged's Avatar
    Today, 05:21 AM
    So some of you may know that I have an F450 with a 6.0. I have a 42 foot fifth wheel that I want to tow. The truck just got heads worked on and many new parts. I have driven gasoline engines most of my life and do not want to harm this truck from poor driving principles. I have an app called Forscan that is capable of monitoring the truck. Constructive advice from people with experience would be appreciated.
    0 replies | 4 view(s)
  • GlennwaldSnowdenAssanged's Avatar
    Today, 04:36 AM
    Are you qualified to run X?
    988 replies | 117712 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    Yesterday, 10:57 AM
    You are of course correct.
    59 replies | 1573 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    Yesterday, 09:49 AM
    Bollocks! Examples of limitations are that there has to be a indictment in the house, a 2/3rds majority in the senate, and if the President is impeached the Chief Justice presides. But what is a "high crimes and misdemeanors'" is not subject to judicial review! That's the dumbest argument ever! Do you know how many misdemeanors are defined by federal law? You admit the president can be impeached for bribery or treason even for core constitutional duties right? Then that means he can also be impeached for any other high crime or misdemeanor"! Your argument depends upon pretending that bribery and treason are different from other defined crimes when it comes to impeachment and that's simply not true! But answer this. There are Republicans who have introduced articles of impeachment against Biden for failing to secure the border. Do you think they are wrong? Do you think if they somehow managed to get a 2/3rd vote in the Senate on that it would be subject to judicial review?
    148 replies | 4221 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    Yesterday, 07:23 AM
    All of y'all are wrong. He'll probably pick Ivana.
    187 replies | 10424 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    Yesterday, 07:17 AM
    It's not "cherry picking." It's a direct quote. Nowhere did SCOTUS limit the language about the lack of judicial review on impeachment the way you are falsely claiming they are through your cherry picking! You straight up LIED when you said "No, SCOTUS said it had no authority to question the process used in the Senate for the impeachment trial, that's all it said." I prove you lied by pointed out that they said there was no judicial review of impeachment period.
    148 replies | 4221 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    Yesterday, 05:33 AM
    You're just lying. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/506/224/#opinions A review of the Constitutional Convention's history and the contemporary commentary supports a reading of the constitutional language as deliberately placing the impeachment power in the Legislature, with no judicial involvement, even for the limited purpose of judicial review.
    148 replies | 4221 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    Yesterday, 05:32 AM
    Wrong. You are just wrong. This is DIRECTLY from the opinion Nixon v. United States, 506 U.S. 224 (1993) at page 255. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/506/224/#opinions A review of the Constitutional Convention's history and the contemporary commentary supports a reading of the constitutional language as deliberately placing the impeachment power in the Legislature, with no judicial involvement, even for the limited purpose of judicial review. You are fooling nobody but your self. What part of "NO JUDICIAL INVOLVEMENT" do you NOT understand?
    148 replies | 4221 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    Yesterday, 05:27 AM
    And here you fall into your own circular reasoning trap. "Other high crimes or misdemeanors." A misdemeanor is any crime that is punishable by less than one year. Clearly the "core powers" doctrine would keep him from being prosecuted for a misdemeanor committed while executing a core power but it would not protect him from impeachment. This is the crux of your misunderstanding of this entire issue. Again, let's go back to the example of Anwar Al Aawki. He was an American Citizen. The group he was with when he was killed was not covered by the AUMF to go after those who carried out 9/11 or harbored them. No evidence was ever presented to show he was involved in terrorism. Yet, based on nothing but Obama's statement that he ad taken an "operational role" in a drone strike, he was put on a drone list and killed. Based on the core powers doctrine Obama can't be prosecuted but he could have been impeached. If someone says "no" then one has to consider all of the times the government has cried "terrorism" when it wasn't true, like when the intelligence services said Russia was paying the Taliban to kill American soldiers and then, as soon as Trump was out of office, said that wasn't true. And consider all of the people who have been accused of being "Russian agents" from Donald Trump to Tulsi Gabbard to Julian Assange. If there is not some accountability for the abuse of putting someone on a terror watch list and then killing him without trial then we're in trouble. But recklessly or intentionally ordering the killing of someone who isn't a terrorist is not treason. It's not bribery. Sure it's another high crime (murder) but who decides if it's impeachable? Why the Senate does of course.
    148 replies | 4221 view(s)
  • GlennwaldSnowdenAssanged's Avatar
    07-11-2024, 05:20 PM
    Maybe he never comes out and leaves the press alone.
    48 replies | 1001 view(s)
  • GlennwaldSnowdenAssanged's Avatar
    07-11-2024, 04:57 PM
    What is your favorite flavor of ice cream?
    48 replies | 1001 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    07-11-2024, 03:28 PM
    Anti Federalist. The black sorority Alpha Kappa Alpha just got hundreds of gay men kicked out of a hotel because some of the were too scantily dressed. I'm guessing most of the gay men were white. Does that count as taking things from white people? :D http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?567325-Kamala-Harris-gives-AKA-convention-speech-days-after-sorors-got-hundreds-of-gays-evicted-from
    2440 replies | 186955 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    07-11-2024, 03:25 PM
    You can't make this stuff up! So the same time that the Biden administration is trying to force hospitals to provide so called "gender affirming care" to minors, his VP is attending an even for an organization that pushed a hotel to discriminate against gays? It's wrong for DeSantis to pass a law saying children can't be at drag or trans strip shows but gay men can get kicked out of a hotel because of how they're dressed? Imagine if a Republican or Christian group did this, let alone of one of the most prominent Republican politicians came to speak to the group days later? https://www.yahoo.com/news/kamala-harris-gives-aka-convention-130952632.html?guccounter=1 Kamala Harris gives AKA convention speech days after sorors got hundreds of gays evicted from Dallas hotel Christopher Wiggins Thu, July 11, 2024 at 8:09 AM CDT·3 min read Kamala Harris gives powerful speech at AKA convention days after sorors complaints got hundreds of gays evicted from Dallas hotel Kamala Harris gives powerful speech at AKA convention days after sorors complaints got hundreds of gays evicted from Dallas hotel On Wednesday morning, Vice President Kamala Harris delivered a powerful and resolute speech in Texas at the Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority’s 75th Boulé.
    2 replies | 184 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    07-11-2024, 08:56 AM
    That's interesting. Memphis' problems sound a lot like Birmingham. And Birmingham attempted to have a Metropolitan government like Nashville but it failed by 1 vote.
    1 replies | 78 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    07-11-2024, 07:05 AM
    Swordsmyth, even Trump's team acknowledged that the core powers doctrine didn't protect him from impeachment! Their argument was that he couldn't be held liable for official acts unless he was first impeached! From the opinion. Trump asserts a far broader immunity than the limited one we have recognized. He contends that the indictment must be dismissed because the Impeachment Judgment Clause requires that impeachment and Senate conviction precede a President’s criminal prosecution. Brief for Petitioner 16. The text of the Clause provides little support for such an absolute immunity. It states that an impeachment judgment “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.” Art. I, §3, cl. 7. It then specifies that “the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.” Ibid. (emphasis added). The Clause both limits the consequences of an impeachment judgment and clarifies that notwithstanding such judgment, subsequent prosecution may proceed. By its own terms, the Clause does not address whether and on what conduct a President may be prosecuted if he was never impeached and convicted. Historical evidence likewise lends little support to Trump’s position. For example, Justice Story reasoned that without the Clause’s clarification that “Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment” may nevertheless follow Senate conviction, “it might be matter of extreme doubt, whether . . . a second trial for the same offence could be had, either after an acquittal, or a conviction in the court of impeachments.” 2 J. Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States §780, p. 251 (1833). James Wilson, who served on the Committee that drafted the Clause and later as a Justice of this Court, similarly concluded that acquittal of impeachment charges posed no bar to subsequent prosecution. See 2 Documentary History of the Ratification of the Constitution 492 (M. Jensen ed. 1979). And contrary to Trump’s contention, Alexander Hamilton did not disagree. The Federalist Papers on which Trump relies, see Brief for Petitioner 17–18, concerned the checks available against a sitting President. Hamilton noted that unlike “the King of Great-Britain,” the President “would be liable to be impeached” and “removed from office,” and “would afterwards be liable to prosecution and punishment.” The Federalist No. 69, at 463; see also id., No. 77, at 520 (explaining that the President is “at all times liable to impeachment, trial, dismission from office . . . and to the forfeiture of life and estate by subsequent prosecution”). Hamilton did not endorse or even consider whether the Impeachment Judgment Clause immunizes a former President from prosecution. The implication of Trump’s theory is that a President who evades impeachment for one reason or another during his term in office can never be held accountable for his criminal acts in the ordinary course of law. So if a President manages to conceal certain crimes throughout his Presidency, or if Congress is unable to muster the political will to impeach the President for his crimes, then they must forever remain impervious to prosecution. Impeachment is a political process by which Congress can remove a President who has committed “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” Art. II, §4. Transforming that political process into a necessary step in the enforcement of criminal law finds little support in the text of the Constitution or the structure of our Government.
    148 replies | 4221 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    07-11-2024, 05:36 AM
    SCOTUS said it had no authority to question the constitutionality of the Senates impeachment decision. No authority to question constitutionality means no authority to question constitutionality. All of this shows your glaring contempt for the separation of powers. The only reason that its okay to give the executive branch immunity for prosecution in the judicial branch is that the legislative branch has full sole authority on impeachment. If there had been the political will to impeach President Obama for the killing of American Citizen Anwar Al Awlaki or for spying on the trump campaign that would have been a good thing. But there wasn't the political will to do that.
    148 replies | 4221 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    07-11-2024, 05:35 AM
    Can'd you freaking read? Anware Al Awlaki was an American citizen! You'e got it backwards! Core powers allow immunity from otherwise criminal acts. It does not make them not criminal. But I don't expect you to ever understand that if you can't even understand that Obama killed an American citizen and not a foreigner!
    148 replies | 4221 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    07-10-2024, 12:50 PM
    Densely populated urban area? A town of 1,200 isn't considered rural? A community that's 91% white isn't homogeneous enough? Have you looked up the demographics of this town? Edit: The median income is $86,000 per year. The median age is 29.1. A young, relatively wealthy, rural, mostly white community probably has a lot of legal gun owners in it.
    18 replies | 675 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    07-10-2024, 12:44 PM
    True. My community is way to small to have a police force. The Sheriff's department shows up pretty quick if needed.
    18 replies | 675 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    07-10-2024, 10:08 AM
    The announcement of victory: The background of the problem: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/jul/01/kenya-protests-finance-bill-government-debt The world is scrambling to understand Kenya’s historic protests – this is what too many are missing
    0 replies | 89 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    07-10-2024, 09:34 AM
    But being the commander in chief is a core Constitutional power of the executive branch. And people are killed in war without a trial all the time. The whole point of immunity is to protect someone from prosecution of a crime. Bill Cosby was promised immunity from prosecution in order to get him to testify in a civil trial against him. That doesn't mean what he was accused of doing wasn't a crime. The only person redefining anything is you. You are pretending that being immune from prosecution for a crime means that it wasn't a crime in the first place and therefore one can't be impeached either. That's just utter nonsense.
    148 replies | 4221 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    07-10-2024, 09:02 AM
    So I don't think I even saw this thread the first time Anti Federalist posted it. Thank you for bumping it. I owe you and AF rep. In legal writing were were taught to never use passive voice unless you are trying to deflect from the bad action of your own client.
    63 replies | 8491 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    07-10-2024, 08:56 AM
    Real American hero! And of course he's headed to the Navy. :) Note that he said he didn't even think about the danger. And that's why young men are tapped for dangerous jobs.
    7 replies | 209 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    07-10-2024, 06:07 AM
    You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to acptulsa again. dannno has taken mental gymnastics to a new low. So now I should be comforted by a document that guts an important part of the constitution because "Trump would never consider" that part? That doesn't even make any fvcking sense! The title of this thread is "Trump rejects Project 2025" not "Trump is okay with the baby part of Project 2025 and wants to throw out part of the bathwater." If Trump rejects it (which I'm not sure if he really has or if he's just saying what he thinks people want to hear), then shouldn't the Trumpskiites want everyone to reject it? Like WTF?
    93 replies | 2664 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    07-10-2024, 06:03 AM
    You're not even making any fvcking sense. 1) You do not know whether Trump would consider it or not. Trump has no principles. He is an empty suit that will go whichever way he needs to at the moment for his own ends. Operation Warp Speed proves that. Trump putting face scanning cameras in airports proves that. The fact that Trump when from being against an assault weapons ban to being for an assault weapons ban to being against it proves that. 2) Whether Trump would agree to it or not is irrelevant just like the fact that whether Dubya agreed with PNAC in its entirety is irrelevant. Agendas don't get enacted by presidents but rather the people presidents appoint. And Trump has a record of appointing some doozies. And I am simply pointing out something that is bad enough for me to be against the entire document because it shows the evil intent of the men who wrote it. Again, this is no different than if the document said "Confiscate all guns." I don't know why that's so difficult for you to understand. Gutting any part of the constitution being a part of a policy paper should be a hard no for the policy paper because it shows the evil intent of the people who wrote the policy paper. It's not like the "good parts" of the policy paper can't be drafted in an entirely new document by trustworthy people.
    93 replies | 2664 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    07-10-2024, 05:43 AM
    The founders also gave the Senate sole authority on impeachment! And just because a president may have immunity for something that is normally a crime does not mean it is not a crime! It just means he can't be held criminally liable for it but it does not mean he can't be removed from office! "Leftists" are already using your twisted logic to advocate for Biden to assassinate Donald Trump. Is that the world you really want to live in? I take solace in the fact that even if assassination of a U.S. citizen without trial, what Obama already did to Anwar Al Awlaki, even if the president couldn't be criminally charged he could at least be impeached. (And I think assassination of a presidential nominee whom the Court has already declared must be allowed on the ballot is legally distinguishable from assassinating someone accused of terrorism, but the original AUMF for the GWOT did not included Yemen.)
    148 replies | 4221 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    07-10-2024, 05:32 AM
    Did you see the story of one of Biden's' secret service agents getting robbed at gunpoint? https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/jun/18/secret-service-agent-robbed-biden-california
    7 replies | 324 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    07-10-2024, 05:18 AM
    What you call the "bathwater" is to me the most important issue in the document. You're not me so you wouldn't understand. But if there was a document that you agreed with (and I don't agree with much of Project 2025) and it said "Confiscate all guns" you'd be against it. Violating the constitution is a hard no. I don't even own a gun and I would be against gun confiscation. And if I was non religious or a Sunday observer I hope I would still be against Project 2025. It's about principles. Either you have them or you don't.
    93 replies | 2664 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    07-10-2024, 05:14 AM
    Yeah. That and option #2 which some on the left have finally said outloud.
    222 replies | 7035 view(s)
More Activity
About GlennwaldSnowdenAssanged

Basic Information

Profile Sidebar Configuration

Profile Sidebar Configuration

Activist Reputation (Self-Rated):
1
Activist Reputation (Staff Rated):
1

Statistics


Total Posts
Total Posts
3,507
Posts Per Day
2.59
General Information
Last Activity
Today 05:21 AM
Join Date
10-30-2020
Referrals
0

5 Friends

  1. Danke Danke is offline

    Top Rated Influencer

    • Send a message via Skype™ to Danke
    Danke
  2. fatjohn fatjohn is offline

    Member

    fatjohn
  3. harrysng10 harrysng10 is offline

    New Member

    harrysng10
  4. jmdrake jmdrake is offline

    Member

    jmdrake
  5. Sammy Sammy is offline

    Member

    Sammy
Showing Friends 1 to 5 of 5

12-13-2023


09-04-2023


08-19-2023


09-05-2022


02-11-2022


12-05-2021


10-21-2021


Page 1 of 83 1231151 ... LastLast

07-09-2024


06-28-2024


06-22-2024


06-21-2024


06-20-2024


06-19-2024


06-18-2024


06-14-2024


06-12-2024


06-10-2024


06-06-2024



Page 1 of 83 1231151 ... LastLast