Senate Impeachment Trial: After opening statements Trump will file Motion to Dismiss. Debate 2 days. Senate votes, Motion to Dismiss passes

[Jabbar + 465]

Supposed to start first week in January. Everything said today ( and probably tomorrow during Impeachment vote) looks like a precurser for Republican's Motion for Dismissal". 

THE President's Legal Team will turn the tables on Dem Majority.  EFFECTIVELY PUTTING THE DEMs ON TRIAL. 

No Impeachment trial, No additional witnesses , No bull  . . . Trump wins.

Democrats will scream foul and cover-up , but nothing they can do to stop it. 

Trump will say he wanted trial but fellow Republicans suggested time better spent on trade, more jobs, legislation, more conservative judges.

Dismissal will pass with 51 Republican voting to dismiss.  Everyone goes back to work.

Dems won't stop. They will think of something new.  

I think part of Democratic grandstanding is to occupy TV coverage time and take the IG Horowitz report and upcoming  AG Barr and Federal prosecuter Durham's investigation off of the headlines. 

The Barr/Durham investigation looks like good timing for Trump. Probably finished Spring/Summer 2020 just months before election day.

Barr/Durham not directly related to Ukraine impeachment , but indirectly. Could seriously damage Democrats and put a pall over their hopes for 2020 election win.

POST BY BOB D     (below) 

A great article   "What Happens After Impeachment"

https://www.history.com/news/what-happens-after-impeachment

The last paragraph confirms Jabbar's dismissal argument.

The Impeachment of President Donald Trump started during the Presidential campaign and it won't end after the President is acquitted.  Dismissal is a great option if you want to get this done quickly.  I don't.  I want a pound of flesh. 

The Republican Senate should employ similarly unfair rules for the Trial as the Democrats used on the Republicans in the Impeachment. 

Witnesses should be called who can bring the whole charade into the light.  The process that lead to Special Prosecutor Mueller needs to be investigated.  Hillary and Obama campaigns paid law firm Perkins Coie millions to funnel cash to Fusion GPS who hired Steele to produce the infamous and totally fabricated Steele Dossier.  

The Washington Post reported last week that Perkins Coie, an international law firm, was directed by both the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and Hillary Clinton’s campaign to retain Fusion GPS in April of 2016 to dig up dirt on then-candidate Donald Trump. Fusion GPS then hired Christopher Steele, a former British spy, to compile a dossier of allegations that Trump and his campaign actively colluded with the Russian government during the 2016 election. Though many of the claims in the dossier have been directly refuted, none of the dossier’s allegations of collusion have been independently verified. Lawyers for Steele admitted in court filings that his work was not verified and was never meant to be made public.

https://thefederalist.com/2017/10/29/obamas-campaign-gave-972000-law-firm-funneled-money-fusion-gps/

FISA Warrants     FBI/CIA    Hunter Biden     Schiff / Whistleblower Ciaramella

Let's take a flamethrower to DC. 

That ought to amuse the rest of the world.           

I want Schiff, Hunter Biden, Mueller, Comey, Clapper, Ohr, Rosenstein, Whistleblower Eric Ciaramella on the stand. 

 

Edited December 18, 2019 by Jabbar

[remake it + 288]

2 hours ago, Jabbar said:

Everything said today ( and probably tomorrow ) looks like a precurser for Republican's Motion for Dismissal". 

You are as confused as your post shows given the House decides on impeachment and the Senate becomes the jury should any of the articles receive a majority vote so they are doing very different things.

[Jabbar + 465]

1 hour ago, remake it said:

You are as confused as your post shows given the House decides on impeachment and the Senate becomes the jury should any of the articles receive a majority vote so they are doing very different things.

Knucklehead,  did you listen to any of the House Rules Committee today .  If you did, and if you have any sense of legal proceedings ypu would understand the questions asked by the Republican Minority Chair and answered by Congressman Collins (R) you would have heard numerous examples of Democratic procedural law violations and disregard for Constitutional doctrine.  It puts "on the record" a comprehensive set documentation to support an argument for dismissal.  The  Rules Committee hearing today is on the record. 

The Democratic Majority will send their Articles of Impeachment to the Senate.  Both the Dem attorneys and the President's attorneys will receive the Articles and all supporting documentation. The President's attorneys will file Motion to Dismiss.  The bases of their filing will have many of the points included in today's Rule Committee. The Senators will take a vote.  They Republicans will get 51 votes to dismiss.  The Impeachment will be dismiss.  

You know during Clintons impeachment trial they voted on a dismissal.  Did not pass. Impeachment was bipartisan back then. 

I'm hearing Trump's Legal Team will be lead by Harvard Law professor and Constitutional attorney Allan Dershawitz, a Democrat.

Edited December 18, 2019 by Jabbar

[remake it + 288]

18 hours ago, Jabbar said:

Knucklehead,  did you listen to any of the House Rules Committee .  If you would did and if you have any sense of legal proceedings the questions asked by the Republican minority chair and answered by Congressman Collins (R) you would have heard a numerous exams of violation of procedural law violations and disregard for Constitutional doctrine.  It puts "on the record" a comprehensive set documentation to argue for dismissal.  The  Rules Committee hearing today is on the record. It lays out an easy argument for dismissal.

The Democratic majority will send their styles of impeachment to the Senate.  The Dem attorneys and the President's attorneys will receive all documentation. The President's attorneys will file Motion to Dismiss .  The Senators will take a vote. They will dismiss.  

You know during Clintons impeachment trial they voted on a dismissal.  Did not pass.  Impeachment was bipartisan.

He did commit a crime.  He lied to Congress.  I believe he shouldn't have been impeached.  What did you want him to say " yea a played hide the cigar with Monica" .  He's a guy.  What other options did he have ? Hillary ?

There are two articles of impeachment and irrespective of your view of the first the second cannot be reasonably disputed as the President's words are on record in numerous instances aside from the undeniable fact that key documents and witnesses have not been made available.

Edited December 18, 2019 by remake it
to make it harder for Marcin to give an upvote

[Jabbar + 465]

20 hours ago, remake it said:

There are two articles of impeachment and irrespective of your view of the first the second cannot reasonably disputed as the President's words are on record in numerous instances aside from the undeniable fact that key documents and witnesses have not been made available.

" . . . the second can't be disputed"

LOL 

"THE SECOND ARTICLE CAN'T BE DISPUTED" .  

You are hilarious.  What law school did you go to.  Too funny.  If Schiff and Nadler put forth Articles of Impeachment on you .   .   .    you can't disputed it, you can't defend yourself in a trial. WHAT ? ? ? Do you realize how stupid your statement is ?  

Pelosi, Schiff and Nadler can try to rewrite the U.S. Constitution , however it won't fly in front of a serious body of government like a Senate trial.

The President's legal team will file Motion to Dismiss ON BOTH Articles of Impeachment. They'll debate probably 2 days.  The Senate will vote and DISMISSAL WILL PASS with 51 votes minimum, probably 53. 

Wake up from your dream Impeachment.  Your worst nightmare is about to happen . . . . Four more years of Trump .  He probably won't leave so . . .   most likely 8 to 12 more years of Trump.  LOL.  LOL. LOL ! 

You say "President can't dispute both  charges".  

I can't stop laughing.

 

 

Edited December 18, 2019 by Jabbar

[remake it + 288]

1 hour ago, Jabbar said:

" . . . the second can't be disputed"

LOL 

"THE SECOND ARTICLE CAN'T BE DISPUTED" .  

When you can show that the President allowed all witnesses to appear and offered all evidence subpoenaed then you dispute "obstruction" as distinct from a party line vote which instead chooses not to abide by the House.

[Jabbar + 465]

On 12/18/2019 at 1:30 AM, remake it said:

When you can show that the President allowed all witnesses to appear and offered all evidence subpoenaed then you dispute "obstruction" as distinct from a party line vote which instead chooses not to abide by the House.

It doesn't matter. 

President's legal Team will have a long list of strong arguments for dismissal.

First among them No Crime committed.  

It doesn't matter.  They could argue Schiff has a pencil neck.  If 51 Senators vote yes , it's over.  Impeachment dismissed.  

By the way your second article is weakest of the two.

1. All President's have refused subpoenas. Executive Privilege. When dispute between Legislative Branch and Executive Branch  you go to third Branch Judicial to settle. Nancy didn't go to court because she would knew she would lose.

2. The Congress puts forth Articles of Impeachment.  They had their chance to call witnesses.   The House is charged with the investigative process. Blame Nancy for not going to court to compel. The Senate doesn't have to allow more witnesses and won't.

Dems will have a temper tantrum , who cares.  

The President's Legal Team will turn the tables on Crazy Dems.  TRUMP WILL EFFECTIVELY PUT THE DEMs ON TRIAL. 

I hope Trump puts Allan Dershawitz on the legal team.  It will be the first TV worth watching.  Dershawitz will put on a lesson on the U.S. Constitution unlike anything you have ever seen.

Now there is a rumor that the Dems will pass the Impeachment in Congress and then Nancy never forward it to the Senate.  That would be a Constitutional travesty.  I don't know if that's legal. 

I'm done trying to reason with logic to discuss Impeachment with you. Happy holidays and a happy new year.

See ya.

 

Edited December 20, 2019 by Jabbar

[remake it + 288]

Just now, Jabbar said:

1. All President's have refused subpoenas. Executive Privilege. When dispute between Legislative Branch and Executive Branch  you go to third Branch Judicial to settle. Nancy didn't go to court because she would lose.

2. The Congress puts forth Articles of Impeachment.  They had their chance to call witnesses.   The Senate doesn't have to allow more witnesses.  Dems will have a temper tantrum , who cares.  

You are quite clueless about history the Constitution and aspects of law but that's ok as China will enjoy the charade as it plays out.

[Rob Plant + 2,756]

12 minutes ago, remake it said:

You are quite clueless about history the Constitution and aspects of law but that's ok as China will enjoy the charade as it plays out.

Why don't you counter his claims then instead of calling him clueless??

I was waiting for China to be brought back into the discussion, Jeez!

[Jabbar + 465]

1 hour ago, Rob Plant said:

Why don't you counter his claims then instead of calling him clueless??

I was waiting for China to be brought back into the discussion, Jeez!

Plant , remake might have a chance of being correct.  Trump sent Nancy a letter yesterday, comparing Impeachment to the Salem Witch Trials.  Remakes Impeachment argument is a dream.  

During the Salem Witch trial the Chief Justice allowed Spectral evidence: " Spectral evidence is a form of evidence based upon dreams and visions. It was admitted into court during during the Salem Witch Trials by the appointed chief justice , William Stoughton."

So there is judicial precedence to base  remakes dream Impeachment.  Supreme Court Chief Justice Roberts may allow Spectral evidence into Trump Senate trial based on this precedence. 

Outside of that I'm done with remake.

I already countered his claim several times. Discussion is going in circles, an endless loop.   I'm getting writers cramp.  

What's his China comment about ? Is he a Chinese bot ?

 

Edited December 18, 2019 by Jabbar

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

8 hours ago, Jabbar said:

You are hilarious.  What law school did you go to.  Too funny.         WHAT ? ? ? Do you realize how stupid your statement is ?  

Jabbar, you are talking to an artificial-intelligence  ["AI"]  bot.  What the bot is sending you is nothing more than gibberish produced by a computer.  Of course it is nonsense.  By responding, what you are doing is engaging the bot to improve itself.  That is how a bot "learns."  Don't do that.  Stay away from bots. 

And for the readers, the Bot does not understand the way the US legal system, or the US Constitutional system, is set up.  So the "inputs" from the bot handlers are faulty, resulting in this utter pulp being printed.  Ignore bots. 

[Jabbar + 465]

52 minutes ago, Jan van Eck said:

Jabbar, you are talking to an artificial-intelligence  ["AI"]  bot.  What the bot is sending you is nothing more than gibberish produced by a computer.  Of course it is nonsense.  By responding, what you are doing is engaging the bot to improve itself.  That is how a bot "learns."  Don't do that.  Stay away from bots. 

And for the readers, the Bot does not understand the way the US legal system, or the US Constitutional system, is set up.  So the "inputs" from the bot handlers are faulty, resulting in this utter pulp being printed.  Ignore bots. 

Edited December 18, 2019 by Jabbar

[Otis11 + 551]

1 hour ago, Jan van Eck said:

Jabbar, you are talking to an artificial-intelligence  ["AI"]  bot.  What the bot is sending you is nothing more than gibberish produced by a computer.  Of course it is nonsense.  By responding, what you are doing is engaging the bot to improve itself.  That is how a bot "learns."  Don't do that.  Stay away from bots. 

And for the readers, the Bot does not understand the way the US legal system, or the US Constitutional system, is set up.  So the "inputs" from the bot handlers are faulty, resulting in this utter pulp being printed.  Ignore bots. 

If we're so confident it's a bot, and we dont' want people engaging the bot, why is the bot allowed to keep posting?

(Btw, I'm all for dissent and differing views, not saying to squash that, but if I made a bot to argue pro-trump I'd expect that to get squashed too)

[Guest]

52 minutes ago, Otis11 said:

If we're so confident it's a bot, and we dont' want people engaging the bot, why is the bot allowed to keep posting?

DING!! ... plus as Papillon said, if you do believe this why the hell do you talk to 'it' everyday?? 🤣 What is more ridiculous? The stuff remake says that you disagree with, or the fact you still read it and chat to it everyday? 

2 hours ago, Jan van Eck said:

resulting in this utter pulp being printed.

I'm using that.

4 hours ago, Rob Plant said:

I was waiting for China to be brought back into the discussion, Jeez!

You should be grateful. It was maybe over a whole hour before it was. 

3 hours ago, Jabbar said:

What's his China comment about ?

He said China will enjoy the charade. 

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

2 hours ago, Otis11 said:

If we're so confident it's a bot, and we dont' want people engaging the bot, why is the bot allowed to keep posting?

(Btw, I'm all for dissent and differing views, not saying to squash that, but if I made a bot to argue pro-trump I'd expect that to get squashed too)

Blame me.  

1)  I am not positive it is a bot, and some of its responses are pretty amusing.

2)  I got annoyed the last time a definite bot got banned (they can be fun to play with)

https://community.oilprice.com/topic/3867-iraq-war-and-possible-lies/#comment-28402

 

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

Is Rodent still around?  It's getting close to election time......

[Papillon + 485]

4 hours ago, Otis11 said:

I'm all for dissent and differing views, not saying to squash that, but if I made a bot to argue pro-trump I'd expect that to get squashed too

With respect, this is very doubtful here sir. Who would you expect to ''squash'' it here? Republicans and Trump supporters and gentlemen who work in the the oil industry? 

I imagine this pro Trump bot would receive purple trophies all day, while quite possibly having amusing, endless arguments with a pro China bot. 

4 hours ago, Otis11 said:

why is the bot allowed to keep posting?

This question would not be asked either if the bot shared many users' views. It would even quite possibly be quoted as a source of sheer genius.

/sarc

Edited December 18, 2019 by Papillon

[remake it + 288]

7 hours ago, Rob Plant said:

Why don't you counter his claims then instead of calling him clueless??

I was waiting for China to be brought back into the discussion, Jeez!

So let's be fair Mr Plant and deal one by one with some claims and start with if it is the case that impeachment is a process which is written in the Constitution and review if the President has abided by it shall we?

[Bob D + 562]

What a difference a day makes.  

Yesterday, In the Dumb It Down - Impeachment thread, BOT was a bad word.  Lots of scolding from those who wished to advise how to interact with a BOT and little posting about, I don't know, Impeachment?  Today we get a great new thread and the same BS BOT nonsense followed by a pile on of acceptable blogging behaviors.

Don't ban the BOT ... yet but do limit Papillon to 5 'sirs' per day.

 

 

[Bob D + 562]

6 minutes ago, remake it said:

So let's be fair Mr Plant and deal one by one with some claims and start with if it is the case that impeachment is a process which is written in the Constitution and review if the President has abided by it shall we?

You've once again said nothing!  Nobody is debating the obvious.

Edited December 18, 2019 by Bob D

[remake it + 288]

1 minute ago, Bob D said:

You've once again said nothing!

If you noticed the question mark at the end of the sentence then there may be a clue as to what a reply could be.

[Papillon + 485]

1 hour ago, Bob D said:

Today we get a great new thread and the same BS BOT nonsense

Maybe before an attempt at sarcasm it would be more beneficial to you to note which users bring up the bot issue time and time again sir? I appreciate this may involve going up a few postings within the threads each time but I am sure you can cope with this dilemma. The picking and choosing as always gets in the way of any form of logic or even argument, merely attacks at opposing views.

I note that just above, you are still conversing with a user you see as a bot, so please explain in your majestic wisdom why it is fine for you to discuss this subject but not others, on a thread about impeachment? May I suggest nothing more than hypocrisy and a differing sense of any logic compared to the average person? 

1 hour ago, Bob D said:

You've once again said nothing!

''The same BS BOT nonsense''  (that you are still discussing and reacting to and replying to). Have another attempt sir. One of these days you may even have a point. 

And forgive me for using the word ''sir'' - what an awful trait that is, from someone who wishes to attack based on language or even length of postings. Unless it's Mr Maddoux, or a user you agree with, then all is fine. Again, pick and choose sir. Pick and choose. 

Edited December 18, 2019 by Papillon

[remake it + 288]

53 minutes ago, remake it said:

So let's be fair Mr Plant and deal one by one with some claims and start with if it is the case that impeachment is a process which is written in the Constitution and review if the President has abided by it shall we?

There being no objection we move to the contention that as a number of Presidents have previously been impeached by the House it is fair to claim impeachment is a legitimate process condoned by the Constitution noting of course that anyone can find this out by using Dr Google rather than Mr MaGoo which @Bob D prefers.

Edited December 18, 2019 by remake it
So as not to offend the Scots

[Papillon + 485]

3 minutes ago, remake it said:

anyone can find this out by using Dr Google rather than Mr McGoo

Now that is funny. 

[remake it + 288]

The next point relates to an Oath of Office the President took so those who did not watch his inauguration might like to read this link and advise which elements relating to the Constitution he has adhered to during the impeachment process to date.