Bonus question…

@no1marauder said
There is nothing in the US Constitution or anywhere else saying that the Grand Jury must list predicate crimes. There are ample provisions in NY and every other State's law for that information to be given to defendants well before trial.

The Sixth Amendment largely refers to trial rights; defendants don't get to "confront the witnesses against them" in a Grand Jury pr ...[text shortened]... homophobic attacks on other posters. From the Posting Guidelines:

"Hate speech is not permitted."

whats wrong little man/ dont like being called what you are?

@mott-the-hoople said
oh my...the constitution is to give RIGHTS TO THE PEOPLE

how ignorant can you be

No, it isn't.

You had rights before the Constitution and you had the same rights AFTER the Constitution. The Framers did not believe that man made documents GAVE the People rights.

Right wingers are appallingly ignorant of the most basic facts of American history.

@no1marauder said
No, it isn't.

You had rights before the Constitution and you had the same rights AFTER the Constitution. The Framers did not believe that man made documents GAVE the People rights.

Right wingers are appallingly ignorant of the most basic facts of American history.

utterly stupid

@mott-the-hoople said
utterly stupid

I disagree that the Founders of this country and the Framers of its Constitution were "utterly stupid".

@no1marauder said
Then I don't know WTF you are talking about.

I'm saying the Constitution was meant to give broad powers to the Federal government and that attempts by right wingers to read it in a cramped way (like the article you cited to) are historically unjustified.

Yeah right. You are being disingenuous. You know full well you libs are all geared up to change it big time, to suit your goals. EG, you are all about mobs,, so it would inure to your benefit to have mob rule in elections....you want to get rid of the electoral college. You don't want us to have arms. You do not want free speech, witness denying access to speakers at college because you disagree with them. You want to amend the constitution for 16 yr olds to vote. 16!! Jesus. You want to change the constitution instead of the hearts and minds of voters.
You want to Pack the SCOTUS, which has been 9 for over 150 years. Jesus. You are, frankly, rabid.
You were happy with the filibuster until it did not go your way. Well, by GOD, we will change it!!! Jesus.
You want to destroy long standing rules for short term advantages.
There is more, of course, but now you see what in the hell I am talking about. You knew, but pretended not to.

@averagejoe1 said
Yeah right. You are being disingenuous. You know full well you libs are all geared up to change it big time, to suit your goals. EG, you are all about mobs,, so it would inure to your benefit to have mob rule in elections....you want to get rid of the electoral college. You don't want us to have arms. You do not want free speech, witness denying access to speakers at ...[text shortened]... re, of course, but now you see what in the hell I am talking about. You knew, but pretended not to.

Yeah, they even amended the Constitution and got rid of slavery! Outrageous!

@no1marauder said
Yeah, they even amended the Constitution and got rid of slavery! Outrageous!

Awww. Mott, chalk up another win. He is equating doing something that actually needed to be done 100%.(slavery) with questionable suggestions to change the constitution. Look at either one of the items I mentioned above, not one of them is a slam dunk. Marauder loses this one.

@averagejoe1 said
Awww. Mott, chalk up another win. He is equating doing something that actually needed to be done 100%.(slavery) with questionable suggestions to change the constitution. Look at either one of the items I mentioned above, not one of them is a slam dunk. Marauder loses this one.

It was hardly a "slam dunk" when they did it.

History will undoubtedly look favorably on something like abolishing the Electoral College (which doesn't function anything like it was intended). And expansion of voting rights to women and 18-20 year Olds was unthinkable in early US history.

So you've proved nothing but your lack of imagination and knowledge.

@averagejoe1 said
Awww. Mott, chalk up another win. He is equating doing something that actually needed to be done 100%.(slavery) with questionable suggestions to change the constitution. Look at either one of the items I mentioned above, not one of them is a slam dunk. Marauder loses this one.

If you had been around in 1775, you would have undoubtedly been screeching: "Don't listen to the mob! We've had the King for 150 years; we can't change!"

@no1marauder said
If you had been around in 1775, you would have undoubtedly been screeching: "Don't listen to the mob! We've had the King for 150 years; we can't change!"

No, I would have carried a poster board saying stop slavery.
Marauder, why don’t we know what the crime is? Is there a game they are playing… Has there ever been a situation where a crime was not shown in the indictment? Why would that be marauder.

@averagejoe1 said
No, I would have carried a poster board saying stop slavery.
Marauder, why don’t we know what the crime is? Is there a game they are playing… Has there ever been a situation where a crime was not shown in the indictment? Why would that be marauder.

Why you don't know what the crime alleged in the indictment is I wouldn't know; if I had to guess I'd say it would be because you haven't bothered to read the indictment.

@no1marauder said
Why you don't know what the crime alleged in the indictment is I wouldn't know; if I had to guess I'd say it would be because you haven't bothered to read the indictment.

It names it? Is it a misdemeanor, or is it a felony? Does it name a federal crime, or does it name a federal crime?

@no1marauder said
If you had been around in 1775, you would have undoubtedly been screeching: "Don't listen to the mob! We've had the King for 150 years; we can't change!"

No, I would have gone for freedom from the King. Wouldn’t you have.? Sorry, don’t mean to embarrass you, you don’t have to answer.

@mott-the-hoople said
can anyone name the criminal statute (law) Trump was indicted on?

The "Don't be an utter arse" principle?

@no1marauder said
If you had been around in 1775, you would have undoubtedly been screeching: "Don't listen to the mob! We've had the King for 150 years; we can't change!"

No, he wouldn't! He's a plutocrat, and therefore, like you, a Republican.