Kevin Gates – RUMORS

by



Kevin Gates – RUMORS

See Kevin live!
https://www.kvngates.com/tour

Get your merchandise here!
http://smarturl.it/kevingates.store

Subscribe for more official content from Kevin Gates:
https://kevingates.lnk.to/Subscribe

Follow Kevin Gates
TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZTdKJ3VWW
Instagram: http://instagram.com/iamkevingates
Twitter: http://twitter.com/iamkevingates
Facebook: https://facebook.com/kvngates
Soundcloud: https://soundcloud.com/kevingates
Website: http://www.kvngates.com

Stream ‘I Don’t Apologize’ Now!
https://www.kevingates.lnk.to/idontap…

The official YouTube channel of Atlantic Records artist Kevin Gates. Subscribe for the latest music videos, performances, and more.

#KevinGates #RUMORS #OnlyTheGenerals

source

36 thoughts on “Kevin Gates – RUMORS”

  8. kevingatesTV is one of the best rappers alive. that's true *authentic views gave him the boost just like many other famous artists but no one can deny the fact he is super talented!! Thumbs up who agree with me

    Reply

  15. Maybe a different mutual fund that you have is metals or natural resources or solartex or some kind of software computer programs you will have in each one of those like businesses because they would be part of a larger distributing and meaning that all of those sit under one contract that is mutually agreed-upon and they provide services to one another

    Reply

  16. So if I was making a company and I was making this a large international company I would have to have shipping receiving distribution warehouse I would have to have someplace I buy from someplace that packages someplace that transports as well as places to distributor that sell it stores excetera excetera magazines online and these other locations they want to buy my products I have to have ways to get it there I have to have ways to support my business meeting I would have to have lights watch a gas transportation the overhead of the employees as well as the building the rent that I would have to outsource to other companies to get it shipped packed manufactured and let's say it is a service that I provide that involves different kinds of manufacturing then I would have to be in bed with multiple difference contracts to have these things done let's say that I am building dollhouses I wouldn't have to have somebody to buy wood from I would have to have somebody to buy glass from I would have to find somebody to buy cotton and linen from and then ways to get it me and pay for my rent and all of my tools and employees I would need to build these

    Reply

  17. Medical and Public Health Law Site
    Opinions of the Office of Legal Counsent – DOJ

    Whether a Former President May Be Indicted and Tried for the Same Offenses for Which He Was Impeached by the House and Acquitted by the Senate

         The Constitution permits a former President to be indicted and tried for the same offenses for which he was impeached by the House of Representatives and acquitted by the Senate.

    August 18, 2000

    MEMORANDUM FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

         We have been asked to consider whether a former President may be indicted and tried for the same offenses for which he was impeached by the House and acquitted by the Senate.1 In 1973, in a district court filing addressing a related question in the criminal tax evasion investigation of Vice President Agnew, the Department took the position that acquittal by the Senate creates no bar to criminal prosecution. A 1973 Office of Legal Counsel ("OLC") memorandum discussing the same question adopted the same position. As far as we are aware, no court has ever ruled on this precise issue. During the impeachment of Judge Alcee Hastings in the late 1980s, though, a district court and both the House and Senate passed on the related question whether an acquittal in a criminal prosecution should bar an impeachment trial for the same offenses. Each of those bodies concluded that the Constitution permits an official to be tried by the Senate for offenses of which he has been acquitted in the courts. Although we recognize that there are reasonable arguments for the opposing view, on balance, and largely for some of the same structural reasons identified in the United States's filing in the Agnew case and the 1973 OLC memorandum, we think the better view is that a former President may be prosecuted for crimes of which he was acquitted by the Senate. Our conclusion concerning the constitutional permissibility of indictment and trial following a Senate acquittal is of course distinct from the question whether an indictment19. The New Hampshire Constitution of 1784, in one of its few breaks with the Massachusetts Constitution of 1780, included a double jeopardy clause. It provided: "No subject shall be liable to be tried, after an acquittal, for the same crime or offence." 4 Thorpe

    Reply

  18. to criminal punishment according to law"); Colo. Const. art. XIII, § 2; Fla. Const. art. III, § 17 ("conviction or acquittal shall not affect the civil or criminal responsibility of the officer"); Ill. Const. art. IV, § 14; Iowa Const. art. III, § 20; Me. Const. art. III, § 7; Mont. Const. art. V, § 13; Nev. Const. art. 7, § 2; N.M. Const. art. IV, § 36; N.D. Const. art. XI, § 10; S.D. Const. art. XVI, § 3; Utah Const. art. VI, § 19; Wash. Const. art. V, § 2; Wyo. Const. § 18.

    11. See infra p. 13 & n.25.

    12. The change was made at the state constitutional convention of 1846. The 1777 constitution had been replaced in 1821, but the phrase "the party convicted" was retained. See 5 Thorpe, supra at 2647. The relevant portion of the draft constitution submitted to the 1846 convention also used "the party convicted." A delegate from Orange County, John W. Brown, moved the amendment changing the word "convicted" to "impeached." Several delegates spoke in favor of the proposed amendment. A Mr. Worden observed that there "certainly was a difficulty, as a party tried on articles of impeachment and acquitt[ed], might throw himself on the great principle that a man shall not twice be put in jeopardy for the same offence and he might plead his acquittal as a bar to an indictment in a court of law." S. Croswell & R. Sutton, Debates and Proceedings in the New-York State Convention, for the Revision of the Constitution 434-437 (1846); Journal of the Convention of the State of New-York, Begun and Held at the Capitol in the City of Albany, on the First Day of June, 1846, at 15, 734-735 (1846).

    13. The best histories of the development of the double jeopardy principle in English law are Martin Friedland, Double Jeopardy 5-15

    Reply

  19. дв

    op-olc-v024-p0110_0….

    1

    L

    43/46

    Opinions of the Office of Legal Counsel in Volume 24

    Article. Deviating from English precedent, the Framers sharply lim- ited the remedies or punishment available upon conviction to

    disqualification and removal from office….

    Hastings v. United States Senate, 716 F. Supp. 38, 41 (D.D.C. 1989). Judge Gesell read the Impeachment Judgment Clause as "acknowledg[ing] separate and dif- ferent roles for the executive's power of prosecution and the legislature's impeach- ment powers. It is unthinkable that the executive branch could effectively prevent an impeachment by purporting to try a judge or that the judiciary could prevent an impeachment by accepting a plea. Rather, the executive and legislative branches have different roles to play if a judge engages in criminal behavior." Id. at 42. The court of appeals affirmed on non-justiciability grounds rather than reaching the merits of any of Judge Hastings' contentions. Hastings v. United States Senate, 887 F.2d 332 (D.C. Cir. 1989) (unpublished).

    Judge Hastings renewed his double jeopardy argument before the Senate in a motion to dismiss.112 He made the expressio unius argument based on the Impeachment Judgment Clause, urging that the Clause "creates an express excep- tion for a 'party convicted of an impeachable offensel, but] no exception for a party acquitted." 113 He pointed out that Madison's proposed double jeopardy clause had included an exception for impeachments, which had been deleted by the Senate. He noted the constitutional provisions suggesting that an impeachment trial is a criminal proceeding, and he argued that the Mendoza-Martinez factors pointed in the direction of treating impeachment trials as criminal proceedings. Finally, he argued that the "core policies" promoted by the double jeopardy rule favored prohibiting Senate trials following acquittal in the courts. As the Supreme Court stated in Green v. United States, 355 U.S. 184, 187-88 (1957), "[t]he underlying idea, one that is deeply ingrained in at least the Anglo-American system of jurisprudence, is that the State with all its resources and power should not be allowed to make repeated attempts to convict an individual for an alleged offense, thereby subjecting him to embarrassment, expense and ordeal and compel- ling him to live in a continuing state of anxiety and insecurity, as well as

    enhancing the possibility that even though innocent he may be found guilty." The Senate denied Hastings' motion by a vote of 92-1.114 In statements inserted into the record following the final vote to convict, several Senators addressed the double jeopardy issue. They explained their judgment that trial by the Senate was not a criminal proceeding and that it therefore did not constitute an instance of jeopardy within the meaning of the Double Jeopardy Clause, 115

    Hastings Motions to Dismiss, supra at 48-66. Hastings Trial Proceedings, supra at 18-29 113 Hastings Motions to Dismuss, supra at 49

    114 Hasungs Tnal Proceedings, supra at 55. 15 Id. at 711 (statement of Sen. Bingaman), 714-44 (statement of Sen Specter), 761 (statement of Sen Hatch), 773 (statement of Sen Dole), 776-77 (statement of Sen Lieberman)

    152

    ↓

    तं

    Reply

  30. Kevin Gates is one of the best rapper alive. that's true authentic v i e w s gave him the boost just like many other famous artists but no one can deny the fact he is super talented!! Thumbs up who agree with me

    Reply

Leave a Comment