Twitter permanently bans Donald Trump

[R13...]

Wow, YouTube suspends for 7 days:

YouTube suspends Donald Trump's channel

The Google-owned service said the president had broken its rules over the incitement of violence.

www.bbc.com

How can they suspend him and call a first strike on content that they seem to have been okay with all along? The article doesn't seem to say he recently violated their terms.

 

[2021]

Everyone on the 'good guys' list should be thoroughly investigated

DC protester arrested with 11 Molotov cocktails, several guns had list of 'good guys,' 'bad guys': DOJ

Lonnie Coffman was indicted on 17 charges on Tuesday.

abcnews.go.com

Federal prosecutors submitted chilling new evidence in their case against Capitol siege suspect Lonnie Coffman on Tuesday, including a list the protester had in his possession naming "good guys" and "bad guys," including the names of a federal judge and a House lawmaker.


And this; where in the hell did they get personal contact information for Ted Cruz???

A separate handwritten note was found in the back of a magazine in Coffman's truck that contained "purported contact information" for talk show host Mark Levin, Fox News' Sean Hannity and Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, prosecutors said.

The video there showing the timeline of events is pretty good (linking it because the page might rotate or change the videos)

Video: US Capitol riots: Tracking the insurrection

On Jan. 6, rioters coming from a pro-Trump rally broke into the U.S. Capitol, resulting in deaths, injuries, arrests and vandalism.

abcn.ws

 

[2021]

How can they suspend him and call a first strike on content that they seem to have been okay with all along? The article doesn't seem to say he recently violated their terms.

Apparently there was a new video that has been taken down already that lead to the strike.

 

[daveza]

How can they suspend him and call a first strike on content that they seem to have been okay with all along? The article doesn't seem to say he recently violated their terms.

Fine with me.

Until the 20th of Jan they need to keep the matches away from the gas.

 

[Polymathic]

 

[rambo919]

 

[daveza]

There's just the small matter of the Dems having the majority in the House and the Senate.

 

[rambo919]

 

[rambo919]

There's just the small matter of the Dems having the majority in the House and the Senate.

Time will tell, all I know for sure is the Dem craving for dominion will have lots of unintended consequences.

 

[The Free Radical]

Only a SITTING President can be impeached.

The impeachment process will run past the date when Biden takes over.

It will all come to nought, as won't be possible to charge Trump when he no longer holding political office.

The Constitution, in Article I, Section 3, unambigiously states:

“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.”

They will clearly lack the jurisdiction to pass any judgement blocking him from running again in 2024 . They also won't get a Senate majority (two thirds) to find him guilty because most Republicans (except a small group of Rinos) will support a guilty motion.

Plus there is the FACT that there was zero direct incitement on Trump's behalf to commit violence, or to stage an incursion into the House. Not one.

This strategy is a major fail for Democrats, although merely a symbolic tar and feather Trump on his way out.
This is just the continuation of the Pelosi inspired RESIT CAMPAIGN which was launched before Trump was even elected, and has endured relentlessly to this day.

It also flies in the face of the called UNITY CAMPAIGN Biden is set to launch on his inauguration day. If the Democrats want to cement disunity, they must dare proceed with this unconstitutional impeachment gimmick.

This will come back to bite the Democrats.

 

[daveza]

The Constitution, in Article I, Section 3, unambigiously states:

“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.”

Seems it's not unambiguous.

Can Trump be tried in the Senate on impeachment charges even after he leaves office? Some experts say yes.

The House could vote as early as next week on charges against the president.

www.nbcnews.com

Legal experts are divided into three camps of opinion, however, on what happens if the president leaves office.

One group says a president can be impeached only while in office. "I tend to believe it is only for current office holders," said Harvard law professor Cass Sunstein, author of "Impeachment: A Citizen's Guide."

According to a second group of scholars, if the House votes to impeach while the president is in office, the Senate can proceed to a trial even after the president has left office.

"Once an impeachment begins in the House, it may continue to a Senate trial. I don't see any constitutional problem with the Senate acting fast or slowly," said Michael Gerhardt, a law professor at the University North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

And a third view is that the entire process can begin even after the president is out of office.

"The constitutional case for late impeachment has more strengths and fewer flaws than the case against it," wrote Brian Kalt, a professor at the Michigan State University College of Law in a widely cited law review article on the subject.

 

[Temujin]

Only a SITTING President can be impeached.

The impeachment process will run past the date when Biden takes over.

It will all come to nought, as won't be possible to charge Trump when he no longer holding political office.

The Constitution, in Article I, Section 3, unambigiously states:

“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.”

They will clearly lack the jurisdiction to pass any judgement blocking him from running again in 2024 . They also won't get a Senate majority (two thirds) to find him guilty because most Republicans (except a small group of Rinos) will support a guilty motion.

Plus there is the FACT that there was zero direct incitement on Trump's behalf to commit violence, or to stage an incursion into the House. Not one.

This strategy is a major fail for Democrats, although merely a symbolic tar and feather Trump on his way out.
This is just the continuation of the Pelosi inspired RESIT CAMPAIGN which was launched before Trump was even elected, and has endured relentlessly to this day.

It also flies in the face of the called UNITY CAMPAIGN Biden is set to launch on his inauguration day. If the Democrats want to cement disunity, they must dare proceed with this unconstitutional impeachment gimmick.

This will come back to bite the Democrats.

Its why pelosi was pushing pence to 25th him... regardless, even with no evidence, dems will push and vote for it anyway, just as before, much like majority of bs leftists and msm have spun over last 4 years, its always 'you can interpret it as', 'hes implying that', 'read between', 'signal to', 'dog whistle for'... he says 'peacefully', they scream 'thats incitement', their tds has rotted their brains

 

[rambo919]

Its why pelosi was pushing pence to 25th him... regardless, even with no evidence, dems will push and vote for it anyway, just as before, much like majority of bs leftists and msm have spun over last 4 years, its always 'you can interpret it as', 'hes implying that', 'read between', 'signal to', 'dog whistle for'... he says 'peacefully', they scream 'thats incitement', their tds has rotted their brains

They want to be able to say they impeached (or tried to) him twice and spin it as if the accusation proves the crime.

You get it here too "but of course he's corrupt he was impeached"..... as if that proves anything.

 

[RanzB]

spin it as if the accusation proves the crime.

Hunter Biden and Hillary Clinton say hello.

 

[gamer16]

Only a SITTING President can be impeached.

The impeachment process will run past the date when Biden takes over.

It will all come to nought, as won't be possible to charge Trump when he no longer holding political office.

The Constitution, in Article I, Section 3, unambigiously states:

“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.”

They will clearly lack the jurisdiction to pass any judgement blocking him from running again in 2024 . They also won't get a Senate majority (two thirds) to find him guilty because most Republicans (except a small group of Rinos) will support a guilty motion.

Plus there is the FACT that there was zero direct incitement on Trump's behalf to commit violence, or to stage an incursion into the House. Not one.

This strategy is a major fail for Democrats, although merely a symbolic tar and feather Trump on his way out.
This is just the continuation of the Pelosi inspired RESIT CAMPAIGN which was launched before Trump was even elected, and has endured relentlessly to this day.

It also flies in the face of the called UNITY CAMPAIGN Biden is set to launch on his inauguration day. If the Democrats want to cement disunity, they must dare proceed with this unconstitutional impeachment gimmick.

This will come back to bite the Democrats.

What do they mean office of honour? Are there unhonourable offices?

 

[RanzB]

Amazon hits back at Parler's antitrust lawsuit with extensive examples of its violent content, including death threats against politicians, tech CEOs, and BLM supporters​

Amazon on Tuesday filed its response to an antitrust suit brought against it by Parler, arguing that the social-media upstart's refusal to remove violent content from its platform violated its contract and that Parler had failed to prove any antitrust claims.

Parler sued Amazon on Monday after the tech giant booted the platform from its web-hosting service, Amazon Web Services, amid a public outcry over Parler's role in enabling far-right insurrectionists to organize and plan last week's attack at the US Capitol.

"This case is not about suppressing speech or stifling viewpoints. It is not about a conspiracy to restrain trade," Amazon argued in the court filing. "Instead, this case is about Parler's demonstrated unwillingness and inability to remove... content that threatens the public safety, such as by inciting and planning the rape, torture, and assassination of named public officials and private citizens."

Parler did not respond to a request for comment on this story.

 

[rietrot]

Amazon hits back at Parler's antitrust lawsuit with extensive examples of its violent content, including death threats against politicians, tech CEOs, and BLM supporters​

Parler should not play police man.

Again lefties are accusing people of serious crimes, but they don't want to follow due process. They want mob justice.

 

[RanzB]

Parler should not play police man.

Again lefties are accusing people of serious crimes, but they don't want to follow due process. They want mob justice.

Parler can do whatever they'd like. AWS doesn't have to host them if they don't want to agree to AWS service.

 

[daveza]

Parler should not play police man.

Can you say what you like on MyBroadband ?

If you don't follow the rules what happens ?

 

[rietrot]

Can you say what you like on MyBroadband ?

If you don't follow the rules what happens ?

I pretty much do.

A sites rules is not the same as a countries laws. Parler followed their own rules.