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

[Papillon + 485]

49 minutes ago, Dan Warnick said:

Keep the sir, Sir.  I find it refreshing in a way.  Nothing at all wrong with politeness and respect.  Kudos!

Thankyou sir. Now stop picking on the little ones!   /sarc

(Mr Kirkman suggested I write this ''/sarc'' as it is occasionally unclear as to when I am joking apparently. I think you will agree that the above joke comes across rather differently if the sarcasm is not mentioned! - Indeed you may even be investigated by the authorities). Apologies for the silly conversation regarding this sir. As I keep saying, I would just rather the attacks were aimed at responsible adults, I hope you can appreciate this and my most recent postings on that certain thread. 

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

3 minutes ago, Papillon said:

Thankyou sir. Now stop picking on the little ones!   /sarc

(Mr Kirkman suggested I write this ''/sarc'' as it is occasionally unclear as to when I am joking apparently. I think you will agree that the above joke comes across rather differently if the sarcasm is not mentioned! - Indeed you may even be investigated by the authorities). Apologies for the silly conversation regarding this sir. As I keep saying, I would just rather the attacks were aimed at responsible adults, I hope you can appreciate this and my most recent postings on that certain thread. 

We're good, Sir.  What boring trudging through the muck it would be, if there weren't so many wonderful, intelligent and diverse personalities on this forum.

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

1 hour ago, Jabbar said:

Right after Impeachment vote Pelosi said she might not send the Impeachment Articles onto the Senate ! 

This is new ground .  Don't know if she can legally hold up.

Yes, she can.   We live in interesting times. 

Doing that taints the President with the dark cloud of being impeached, without having the Articles of Impeachment become a laughingstock in the Senate.  It would be a sage political gambit. 

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

19 minutes ago, Jan van Eck said:

Yes, she can.   We live in interesting times. 

Doing that taints the President with the dark cloud of being impeached, without having the Articles of Impeachment become a laughingstock in the Senate.  It would be a sage political gambit. 

The Demoncrats have gamed the system and not for the first time. 

Remember this whole charade is and always has been a cover-up

[remake it + 288]

7 hours ago, Ward Smith said:

The Demoncrats have gamed the system and not for the first time. 

Remember this whole charade is and always has been a cover-up

If true then Trump had the power to remove the covers yet he did not.

Edited December 19, 2019 by remake it
To insert a comma until discretion proved the better part of AI

[Rob Plant + 2,610]

12 hours ago, remake it said:

Do you have a view on this Mr Plant?

My view is rather irrelevant now he has been impeached.

I am more interested as to what are the motives of the democrats for doing this.

From where I am sitting the Senate will not remove Trump from office, so is this just an impeachment process purely to discredit Trump with a view to weakening his position when election times comes around? As the democrats have no credible alternative will this strategy backfire on them and galvanize the republican vote or due to how close the vote was last time (where Trump polled fewer votes than Hillary) will it be the game changer they are hoping for?

I would welcome opinions on both sides of the fence on this. As a Brit we are hopefully starting to get out of our shit storm politically, but I see the US just starting theirs.

I am also not convinced a huge trade deal between the UK and USA is a good thing for the UK as Boris will just get outmanoeuvred in any discussions with Trump. Its "Make America Great Again" not the UK.

[Rob Plant + 2,610]

10 hours ago, Otis11 said:

Hello Papillon, not everyone on this thread may be as far right on the political spectrum as you might assume. I, for one, have actually been asked if I would run for a political office in the US as a Democrat... by a Democrat. I will let you draw your own conclusions from that. (I actually consider myself independent and do my best to simply approach everything from logic, the constitution, and the long term impact of decisions we make today. In some topics I'm likely to agree with Republicans, some topics - Democrats. Mostly, I find them both to be often incorrect and annoying. But feel free to label me however convenient for you, everyone else does.)

Maybe I'm naively optimistic - however I value rational discourse from dissenting opinions, and find bots generally add little value whether they agree with me or not. I would hope everyone can be reasonable enough to realize Bots just add noise to the debate... which just turns them into arguments. And arguments accomplish nothing.

Similarly, believing the worst in people, and voicing such a belief, tends to bring out the behavior being criticized. Voicing hope that we can all be reasonable and have a fruitful discussion on a topic, tends to breed that very discussion.

Best wishes.

Background on this - there's been a general frustration with some users about telling others they're wrong, and continuing to tell others they wrong while only responding with 'leading' questions that, again, imply the other person is wrong - while supplying little to no evidence. (Or if they do provide a link to 'evidence' they fail to provide any analysis of why it's evidence and expect everyone else to go read through it - which often turns out to be a wild goose chase. I have started to refuse to engage these posts and ignore them unless they actually add value... or are sufficiently interesting to counter.). I'd ask those responding to these posters to simply disengage unless there's something fruitful to add, but if they don't, please be patient with those posters.

As to the personal attacks for speaking style - please realize english isn't everyone's first language, and when you translate from one language to another (or learn another language), sometimes cultural 'quirks' can find their way in (such as translating the singular use of Vous from French to English - is likely to insert 'Sir' or 'Ma'am' in places that doesn't seem natural. Not sure if this is what's happening here as I don't know Papillon's background, nor do I know a sufficient number of languages to know where else this might occur).

Just food for though... for everyone.

Calling us out and then attacking us isn't the most appreciated maneuver, but sure, I'll oblige. This time.

(Please excuse me, I'm going to be much more blunt than I normally would, because this -quite rudely- called out and attacked a bunch of people who weren't doing anything in this discussion, and I'm frankly tired of being attacked.)

1) Don't I? What have I said to imply I'm not, in fact, very familiar with the Constitution or even US Law in general? Do you have any information on my background that would lead you to believe this?

Hate to tell you, you're wrong.

2) Don't see the point of this line?

Yes, the House writes the Articles of Impeachment, then the Senate runs the Trial. Due to the extremely politicized nature of the current proceedings, if this ever does actually pass and Trump is formally impeached, there is little reason to believe this will come to anything other than a debate point during the 2020 elections (or used as a political stunt to obstruct the ability of the Senators to campaign. Yes, that's right, I know the obscurity in the constitution that prevents sitting US Senators from campaigning during an ongoing Impeachment. Primaries start in January... how many Democratic Senators are vying for a presidential run but will be knocked out by this. But that's just a conspiracy theory...)

 

3)The house did not want to impeach President Trump? Seriously? Muller, Russia, Kavinaugh, Ukraine, Changing the requirements for a whistle-blower, Fake Transcripts... I'm probably missing over half the things I could site because I don't even have to look it up. This is just from memory. The Dems have wanted to remove Trump since the day he was elected.

News flash for you: The Dems even tried to impeach Trump over the NFL kneeling comments:

December 6, 2017: 58 Dems voted to advance impeachment for the "high crime" of dissing NFL anthem protests

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/12/06/trump-impeachment-vote-fail-282888 (This is politico for crying out loud!)

Heck, March 21, 2017 - Congresswoman Maxine Waters tweeted "Get ready for impeachment"

Hate to tell you, you're wrong. They've had it out for him since day 1.

4) There wasn't a formal inquiry to even issue the subpoenas and inquiries, so there was no basis for requiring Trump to comply, or even respond. And even if there was, there was precedent for executive privileged exempting many, if not all, of these request. EVEN IF NOT - this would be referred to the Supreme Court under our Constitution, not grounds for impeachment.

https://www.lawliberty.org/2012/07/12/the-constitution-and-executive-privilege/

Hate to tell you, you're wrong. (And who doesn't know the Constitution now?)

5) If you're saying the Senate is the only one who can conduct the trial, yes. However it appears you're trying to say they MUST conduct the Trial, and that's absolutely wrong. While they are the only ones who can preside over the trial, they do not have to. The constitution 'confers sole power' to the Senate, and the articles of impeachment by the House simply authorize the Senate to use this power. The Senate could also just scuttle the whole case: In 1993, with the impeachment of Nixon, the Supreme Court affirmed this interpretation of 'Sole Power' and went so far as to specify that the term 'Try' was not subject to any limitations on how the Senate could proceed - opening the door to allow a simple dismissal by motion. Further, the Senate could simply adjourn without starting the proceeding - as was done with Andrew Jackson (again, establishing legal precedent). The could also site 'unlawful and unethical conduct' by the Department of Justice, FBI, Special Counsel, or even the press to - legally - reject the House impeachment as illegitimate.

So, yet again, Hate to tell you, you're wrong. (And how's that for Constitutional knowledge?)

6) The Senate isn't abusing their constitutional powers - the Dems in the House are. If they weren't this would be referred to the Supreme Court... but they can't, because the courts would rule against them because they have no legal ground to stand on. This should be dismissed as purely political. 

Hate to tell you, you're wrong.  The evidence all points the other way.

7) If you don't know the intricacies of the US Judiciary (which was founded by the constitution), how can you claim to know the constitution so well you can tell others they don't understand it?

But depending on exactly what you're talking about, yes, yes it can - and in many cases probably should if those supporting impeachment truly believe what they're saying.(See numerous links above for precedent)

8.) How can you claim the Democrats are being unpartisan, and then claim the Supreme Court - and institution specifically designed to be as least partisan as possible - would be partisan? Are you serious? How do the Republicans have Majority? There aren't any Republicans nor Democrats on the Court. (Even the Wikipedia avoids listing the party of the president that nominated them, nor does it give the makeup of the Senate that confirmed them.)

Ideologically inept? Sure. Partisan? Not terribly.

Again, your statement is just wrong.

9) Destroying the model? Hardly. Showing weakness in this current implementation of the model, sure.

10) Cunning Democrats? Political Trap? What are you talking about? This has been sloppy and ham-fisted at best. A blatant violation of their congregational responsibilities is more accurate. And there's actually mounting evidence that many involved in pushing for impeachment have committed verifiable crimes.

Sorry. No. You're Wrong. Again.

 

 

There - addressed all 10 lines and showed how you simply don't know what you're talking about. With ample evidence.

If you want me to respond further, please provide well reasoned arguments with sources. Not unsupported opinions and verifiable wrong statements.

@Otis11 Thanks for such a great response and detailing out exactly the relevant US Constitutional matters in question.

I think this is by far the most informative post I have read on the subject and adds clarity to what is a murky subject.

I have learned a lot from your post, thanks again!

Edited December 19, 2019 by Rob Plant

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

As much as I hate to say it....I’m with Jabbar on this.😖

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

10 hours ago, Otis11 said:

There - addressed all 10 lines and showed how you simply don't know what you're talking about. With ample evidence.

If you want me to respond further, please provide well reasoned arguments with sources. Not unsupported opinions and verifiable wrong statements.

^ well done.  I am exceedingly impressed.  Line by line rebuttal, with dox.

 

Related, may be of interest to all... 

Here are 2 clips from the Attorney General Barr interview, less than a minute each. 

https://video.foxnews.com/v/6116884055001#sp=show-clips

https://video.foxnews.com/v/6116883424001#sp=show-clips

 

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

Nope, no media bias here at all...

"Merry Impeachmas from the WaPo Team!"

(WaPo = The Washington Post)

 

 

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

Shhhhhhhh ...   don't tell them  : )

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Guess who is still the U S. President ...

 

 

 

[remake it + 288]

1 hour ago, Rob Plant said:

@Otis11 Thanks for such a great response and detailing out exactly the relevant US Constitutional matters in question.

I think this is by far the most informative post I have read on the subject and adds clarity to what is a murky subject.

I have learned a lot from your post, thanks again!

Perhaps you did not realize how deficient his rebuttal was but it's your prerogative to believe the crap thrown up by those who think they understand the Constitution and write what they have.

[Rob Plant + 2,610]

18 minutes ago, remake it said:

Perhaps you did not realize how deficient his rebuttal was but it's your prerogative to believe the crap thrown up by those who think they understand the Constitution and write what they have.

Yes Remake IT it is my choice to choose whom is knowledgeable on the US Constitution and who is not.

The fact you cannot refute any of what has been stated by @Otis11  other than call it "deficient and crap" without any justification, rather proves my decision is a good one.

BTW where did you get your boxing gloves from and who is your trainer?

Are you just a boxer or do you do MMA?

Edited December 19, 2019 by Rob Plant

[remake it + 288]

11 hours ago, Otis11 said:

4) There wasn't a formal inquiry to even issue the subpoenas and inquiries, so there was no basis for requiring Trump to comply, or even respond.

Here's but one of many examples as the House Judiciary Committee clearly has this power and that point has been previously made so it seems somewhat superfluous going through @Otis11's politically motivated expose which he has tried to dress up under an independent view.

[remake it + 288]

1 hour ago, Rob Plant said:

<Actual attribution is to words of @Otis11>Further, the Senate could simply adjourn without starting the proceeding - as was done with Andrew Jackson (again, establishing legal precedent). The could also site 'unlawful and unethical conduct' by the Department of Justice, FBI, Special Counsel, or even the press to - legally - reject the House impeachment as illegitimate.

Yet the Senate did vote and was one short of removal debunking your claim while you apparently have overlooked the fact of a Chief Justice presiding over the process who has a reasonable understanding of what may or may not be appropriate. 

[Rob Plant + 2,610]

7 minutes ago, remake it said:

Here's but one of many examples as the House Judiciary Committee clearly has this power and that point has been previously made so it seems somewhat superfluous going through @Otis11's politically motivated expose which he has tried to dress up under an independent view.

I believe it does have the power IF there was a formal enquiry and subpoenas were issued. There is also the precedent for executive privilege to be used by POTUS.

https://www.lawliberty.org/2012/07/12/the-constitution-and-executive-privilege/

[Rob Plant + 2,610]

34 minutes ago, Rob Plant said:

BTW where did you get your boxing gloves from and who is your trainer?

Are you just a boxer or do you do MMA?

Ahhh I now see what type of fighter you are

 

Sorry @Papillon I just couldn't resist🤣

[remake it + 288]

2 minutes ago, Rob Plant said:

I believe it does have the power IF there was a formal enquiry and subpoenas were issued. There is also the precedent for executive privilege to be used by POTUS.

https://www.lawliberty.org/2012/07/12/the-constitution-and-executive-privilege/

You are welcome to you belief but as the Constitution grants the House the power to impeach it necessarily confers upon it all those powers allowing for a fair decision to be reached.

[Rob Plant + 2,610]

1 minute ago, remake it said:

You are welcome to you belief but as the Constitution grants the House the power to impeach it necessarily confers upon it all those powers allowing for a fair decision to be reached.

I actually agree and hopefully the Judiciary Committee will arrive at a "fair decision" as I'm sure it will in due course

[Jabbar + 465]

3 hours ago, remake it said:

Yet the Senate did vote and was one short of removal debunking your claim while you apparently have overlooked the fact of a Chief Justice presiding over the process who has a reasonable understanding of what may or may not be appropriate. 

The Chief Justice does preside over Senate trial , however the Senate (controlled by GOP) has the ultimate say and can over rule the Chief Justice with a simple majority.

Edited December 19, 2019 by Jabbar

[Jabbar + 465]

54 minutes ago, remake it said:

Here's but one of many examples as the House Judiciary Committee clearly has this power and that point has been previously made so it seems somewhat superfluous going through @Otis11's politically motivated expose which he has tried to dress up under an independent view.

You have to have a crime to issue a subpeona.  Can't just go on a fishing exhibition. 

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

29 minutes ago, Jabbar said:

You have to have a crime to issue a subpeona.  Can't just go on a fishing exhibition. 

Schiff said we must impeach Trump for future crimes.

https://mobile.twitter.com/Breaking911/status/1207417498934693889

 

[remake it + 288]

41 minutes ago, Jabbar said:

You have to have a crime to issue a subpeona.  Can't just go on a fishing exhibition. 

Pure fantasy - where do you get your ideas?

43 minutes ago, Jabbar said:

The Chief Justice does preside over Senate trial , however the Senate (controlled by GOP) has the ultimate say and can oover rule the Chief Justice with a simple majority.

There is a process and majority votes determine outcomes although all senators will need to be mindful that whatever they say or decide (ie vote on) opens them to the ballot box.  

1 hour ago, Rob Plant said:

I actually agree and hopefully the Judiciary Committee will arrive at a "fair decision" as I'm sure it will in due course

Respectfully the House Judiciary Committee's role is over and the Senate now becomes the "jury" to try the articles of impeachment providing the House decides to actually refer the matter and that is moot.

[Zhong Lu + 845]

I support anything that puts a check on presidential power.  The goal of Congress is to say "fuck you" to the president anytime he steps out of bounds- to check the authoritarian nature of the presidency- which is something that the last two presidents obviously abuse.  The current Democratic Congress is doing precisely that, just like the previous Republican Congress to Obama.  My hope is that Trump wins re-election and the Dems take control of the Senate.  That way I get the best of both worlds.  

Edited December 19, 2019 by Zhong Lu

[Jabbar + 465]

1 hour ago, Jabbar said:

You have to have a crime to issue a subpeona.  Can't just go on a fishing exhibition. 

QUESTION: 

IF YOU WERE AN OWNER OF A BUSINESS OR A  MANAGER AT A COMPANY OUT OF THE 435 HOUSE REPS HOW MANY WOULD YOU EVEN CONSIDERING WORTHY OF HIRING ?

I COULD COUNT THE NUMER ON ONE HAND. 

WHAT A CREW. 

I remember about ten years ago a House Committee was holding a hearing on the expansion of the military base on Guam. A Congressman from Georgia told the General testifying that he was concerned about expanding the base because he thought the island might tip over.  

This Democratic Congressman is still in office AND IS A SENIOR MEMBER OF THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE. 

You can't make this stuff up.

Edited December 19, 2019 by Jabbar