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

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

13 minutes ago, Rob Plant said:

Thanks Jan,and I agree with the above, however there must be a way of amending/updating the Constitution to avoid being ambiguous and then manipulated as many believe it has in the Trump impeachment. I am sure there is a way of still keeping the tenet of the original document and keeping the freedoms of the people at heart but also providing clarity with modern language.

Respectfully

We live in an imperfect world.......

[Rob Plant + 2,756]

Just now, Jan van Eck said:

We live in an imperfect world.......

Now that is perhaps the truest statement I have seen on Oil Price!

[Otis11 + 551]

15 hours ago, Tom Kirkman said:

Understood.

... just to be clear here, I am not an authority on this topic in any way (despite Jan's kind words).

I simply like to debate and spend too much time with lawyers and politicians... 😂

So please agree/disagree with any/everything I say at will. 😃

15 hours ago, DayTrader said:

How are you all so sure of that when you can't agree yourselves

I agree with myself on almost every point I've made!

So with both of the above said:

6 hours ago, Jan van Eck said:

Foreign readers should understand that the USA does NOT have a "common law legal system" when it comes to the Criminal Code  [for that matter, neither does Canada].  All criminal acts are codified by Statute, and the offenses are Statutory. 

If you want to split hairs here - I'd argue that common law was codified into all laws of the US and has been ruled on by the Supreme Court.

SCHICK v. UNITED STATES. - 1904 as delivered by Justice Brewer:

Quote

 

Mr. Justice Bradley, in Moore v. United States, 91 U.S. 270, 274, referring to the common law, "is the system from which our judicial ideas and legal definitions are derived. The language of the Constitution and of many acts of Congress could not be understood without reference to the common law." Again in Smith v. Alabama, 124 U.S. 465, 478, is this declaration by Mr. Justice Matthews: "The interpretation of the Constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history." In United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 654, Mr. Justice Gray used this language:

"In this, as in other respects, it must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution. Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162; Ex parte Wilson, 114 U.S. 417, 422; Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 624, 625; Smith v. Alabama, 124 U.S. 465." See also Kepner v. United States, post, 100; 1 Kent, Com. 336.

 

More interesting (In my opinion) from the same opinion (and why I chose to use this example):

Quote

 

"A crime, or misdemeanor, is an act committed, or omitted, in violation of a public law either forbidding or commanding it. This general definition comprehends both crimes and misdemeanors; which, properly speaking, are mere synonymous terms; though in common usage the word `crimes' is made to denote such offenses as are of a deeper and more atrocious dye; while smaller faults and omissions of less consequence are comprised under the gentler name of `midemeanors' only."

In the light of this definition we can appreciate the action of the convention which framed the Constitution. In the draft of that instrument, as reported by the committee of five, the language was "the trial of all criminal offenses . . . shall be by jury," but by unanimous vote it was amended so as to read "the trial of all crimes." The significance of this change cannot be misunderstood. If the language had remained "criminal offenses," it might have been contended that it meant all offenses of a criminal nature, petty as well as serious, but when the change was made from "criminal offenses" to "crimes," and made in the light of the popular understanding of the meaning of the word "crimes," as stated by Blackstone, it is obvious that the intent was to exclude from the constitutional requirement of a jury the trial of the petty criminal offenses.

 

Thus, the term 'Misdemeanor' in the impeachment language indicates including crimes of both 'atrocious' crimes and 'smaller faults and omissions of less consequence' - but no less requires 'criminal offense'.

With that, I rest my case that impeachment requires an actual 'criminal offense' and not simply that they do not like something.

Neither 'Abuse of Power' nor 'Obstruction of Congress' constitutes a criminal offense and are therefore not grounds for impeachment. Reading the articles presented, however, they do present what I would consider grounds for impeachment. The reason they do not call these out in the article (in my opinion) is that they don't pass muster. The burden of proof is lower for a claim in the body of the article than as the article itself. Hence, how they are getting away with the current circus.

I also chose to believe, if there were any significant evidence, this impeachment would not be nearly as partisan as it is now.

This is further supported by the wealth of comments of politicians talking about 'impeaching' President Trump before he did much of anything - including the acts of which he is now impeached. This shows this was an impeachment in search of an impeachable offense. Due to timing, they simply had to settle for the best they could come up with (which fails muster).

10 hours ago, remake it said:

In the real world that action would land a person in front of a judge but while one is President it places them out of reach however the point is that as President he should be encouraging compliance with the Constitution and its applicable laws and he has instead done the very opposite (9 witnesses who received subpoenas chose not to testify as a direct result of the Presidents interventions).

Subpoenas that weren't legally valid for the reasons pointed out before.

Thoughts? Challenges? (Anyone want to make this interesting?)

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

4 minutes ago, Otis11 said:

Thoughts? Challenges? (Anyone want to make this interesting?)

I would love to, but I actually have to work for a living.  I will say that I think your analysis is imperfect.  Let the others carry that torch forward, though. Cheers. Gotta go.

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

7 minutes ago, Otis11 said:

I simply like to debate and spend too much time with lawyers and politicians... 😂

And yup, you are hanging out with people of dubious character, far too long!

[Otis11 + 551]

2 minutes ago, Jan van Eck said:

I would love to, but I actually have to work for a living.  I will say that I think your analysis is imperfect.  Let the others carry that torch forward, though. Cheers. Gotta go.

Aw, that's no fun.

Well, best wishes and thanks for your input!

[Rob Plant + 2,756]

12 minutes ago, Otis11 said:

This is further supported by the wealth of comments of politicians talking about 'impeaching' President Trump before he did much of anything - including the acts of which he is now impeached. This shows this was an impeachment in search of an impeachable offense. Due to timing, they simply had to settle for the best they could come up with (which fails muster).

Nailed it Otis!

[Guest]

8 hours ago, Rob Plant said:

This should be your first commandment in your new Kristianity religion

I'll leave the rest to you

Haha I'm not trying to argue, I'm trying to make a point that times change and so laws should. I've nothing against tradition and the importance of these things obviously to Americans, and @Jan van Eck , but when it is suggested that sometimes the language can be misinterpreted or there are shady areas then the odd 'amendment' is maybe needed. Within this thread, I've seen several disagreements from knowledgeable people about the law itself with regard to Trump's impeachment, so maybe their laws need the odd reboot. We have discussed just today that we used to hang people, to guillotine people. The idea of doing these things today is horrific, and hanging was only outlawed less than a century ago. I'll go out on a limb and say slavery won't come back too, as times change, and so presumably the law did. 

As I have said before, when that law about guns was written, you couldn't kill 100 people in 30 seconds with 1 weapon. Now you can, so I don't think it's crazy to suggest maybe people have a test to see if they're nuts before handing them deadly weapons. But hey that's just me. That's all I mean, not criticising the original premises of these things and their value, but when you seem to have Dems making up laws as they go, it is not that crazy an idea to amend others surely, if all agree??

And the only one I have even mentioned there is the gun rights. Times and technology change. If you wanna go down the route of 'you're not taking my guns', 'it's written in parchment' blah blah then fine, I agree, but to defend it to a point that any nutter can be given an arsenal of weapons is madness (because you don't want to amend the law to ''maybe a mental check first?'') then I don't care what you say, I won't agree. 

My reasoning for this would partly be to imagine your own son or daughter was killed by a lunatic, and someone said to you ''well it's his right to have a gun, and we dont check whether someone is nuts''. I have a feeling you wouldn't be happy with that answer, and would want the law changed as soon as they died in your arms? 

I will have a think about my commandments Rob. I am on to something here, 

Edited December 21, 2019 by Guest

[Guest]

To clarify, I'm not getting into the gun shit again. I'm trying to make a point that times change and so laws should. You guys got a man to the moon ffs, but you can't hold a vote and amend the odd law?

34 minutes ago, Otis11 said:

I agree with myself on almost every point I've made!

LOL. Case closed then.

Edited December 20, 2019 by Guest

[Rob Plant + 2,756]

12 minutes ago, DayTrader said:

Haha I'm not trying to argue, I'm trying to make a point that times change and so laws should. I've nothing against tradition and the importance of these things obviously to Americans, and Jan, but when it is suggested that sometimes the language can be misinterpreted or there are shady areas then the odd 'amendment' is maybe needed. Within this thread, I've seen several disagreements from knowledgeable people about the law itself with regard to Trump's impeachment, so maybe their laws need the odd reboot. We have discussed just today that we used to hang people, to guillotine people. The idea of doing these things today is horrific, and hanging was only outlawed less than a century ago. I'll go out on a limb and say slavery won't come back too, as times change, and so presumably the law did. 

As I have said before, when that law about guns was written, you couldn't kill 100 people in 30 seconds with 1 weapon. Now you can, so I don't think it's crazy to suggest maybe people have a test to see if they're nuts before handing them deadly weapons. But hey that's just me. That's all I mean, not criticising the original premises of these things and their value, but when you seem to have Dems making up laws as they go, it is not that crazy an idea to amend others surely, if all agree??

And the only one I have even mentioned there is the gun rights. Times and technology change. If you wanna go down the route of 'you're not taking my guns', 'it's written in parchment' blah blah then fine, I agree, but to defend it to a point that any nutter can be given an arsenal of weapons is madness (because you don't want to amend the law to ''maybe a mental check first?'') then I don't care what you say, I won't agree. 

My reasoning for this would partly be to imagine your own son or daughter was killed by a lunatic, and someone said to you ''well it's his right to have a gun, and we dont check whether someone is nuts''. I have a feeling you wouldn't be happy with that answer, and would want the law changed as soon as they died in your arms? 

I will have a think about my commandments Rob. I am on to something here, 

For God's sake man stop talking common sense!

Anyone with half a brain can see that what you suggest should be implemented.

maybe its because were both English🤣

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

16 minutes ago, DayTrader said:

1 will have a think about my commandments Rob. I am on to something here, 

Kristian's 1st Commandment:

Kristian is not Vain, do not tag his name here unnecessarily.

[Guest]

8 minutes ago, Tom Kirkman said:

Kristian's 1st Commandment:

It's a tough one. I'm thinking. Though I'd rather not 'command'. People tend to not appreciate that. Maybe DT's 10 suggestions for a happy life. 

13 minutes ago, Rob Plant said:

Anyone with half a brain can see that what you suggest should be implemented.

That's the problem mate, talking to Americans remember ... (joke)

Just think it's nuts, this whole thread is like ''ooh I'm not sure about that bit because of x'' ... ''yeah but x can be implemented in the case of y'' ... ''true but when z takes effect then y is void''. 

It's like a legal version of the shale thread ffs 🤣

13 minutes ago, Rob Plant said:

For God's sake man stop talking common sense!

Whose sake?

53 minutes ago, Rob Plant said:

Now that is perhaps the truest statement I have seen on Oil Price!

Pfff I can beat that.

Edited December 20, 2019 by Guest

[Rob Plant + 2,756]

23 minutes ago, DayTrader said:

It's like a legal version of the shale thread ffs 🤣

Haha yeah 21 pages of it

Unbelievable!

23 minutes ago, DayTrader said:

Whose sake?

You know God that shape shifting entity (depending on which religion you follow) that millions worship and fight numerous bloody wars over.

Edited December 20, 2019 by Rob Plant

[Guest]

In my world the phrase will be ''for Buddha's sake'' because, you know, he actually existed.

It's like an added bonus   la la la la 

18 minutes ago, Rob Plant said:

that millions worship and fight numerous bloody wars over.

My god's better than your god ...centuries of it. Yawn... And all of them were right and believed in the right one, from day one. What are the odds? Then war changed when oil was discovered ...

OOOOOH now I've done it LOL.

Merry Xmas x  

Edited December 20, 2019 by Guest

[Bob D + 562]

Happy Holidays might be a better sign off to your comments.  No? 

[Guest]

Haha well I nearly put Happy stolenfestivalmas ... Happy paganmas ...

How about just happy new year? Have Christians stolen that day yet?   

 

Edited December 20, 2019 by Guest

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

8 hours ago, Enthalpic said:

So more disrespect for law?

If Obama decided to change term limit rules he would still be POTUS.  Republicans would scream bloody murder but when douche wants to be president for life morons support the idea.

 

Humor (humour) challenged much? Jabbar was joking. You on the other hand are a joke, so there's that. 

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Tom Kirkman said:

Kristian is not Vain, do not tag his name here unnecessarily.

You know I'm right. I can't help being a legend. 

@Otis11  sort me out a green card mate and I'll sort your political circus out. Firstly I would change your precious parchments into modern DT English. Yes, English, with very little doubt what is meant and cutting through the shite.

1. Freedom of speech for all, even atheists and democrats.

2. No guns for you if you're a lunatic. ''Lunatic'' will be defined by psychiatric history and general tests to see if you're mental. You may have to wait a whole week to get your precious gun. Deal with it redneck.

3. Religion and the choice of having and believing in one is your right, until that decision affects the lives of others. At this point, the 'others' may punch you in the face and face no charge, but just a punch.

4. It is forbidden to change any elements of the English language as it is a beautiful thing and must be respected. Failure to do this will result in a jail term with the length dependent on butchering frequency.

5. We will feed and clothe all of our citizens before spending one cent on military objects or space missions. 

Etc ...

Not hard is it?     DT2020 - you know it makes sense.

Edited December 20, 2019 by Guest

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around, did it make a sound? 

Quote

But since we’ll be playing trivial pursuit for a more few hours (days?), we might as well ask: As long as the House withholds the impeachment articles from the Senate, has Trump been impeached?

In the law, there are many situations in which an outcome is known, but it is not a formal outcome until some ministerial act is taken. A grand jury can vote an indictment, for example, but the defendant is not considered indicted until the charges are filed with the clerk of the court. A defendant can be found guilty by a jury, but there is technically no conviction until the judgment is “entered” by the trial court, usually months later when sentence is imposed. An appellate court can issue a ruling that orders a lower court to take some action, but the lower court has no jurisdiction to act in the case until issuance of the appellate court’s “mandate” — the document that formally transfers jurisdiction.

Plainly, Congress has similar ministerial acts of transference that must occur in order for legislation to pass. Were that not the case, Speaker Pelosi would not be talking about delaying the transfer of impeachment articles.

So it’s all well and good for the Speaker to hold up the works that Democrats, five minutes ago, were breathlessly telling us had to be carried out with all due haste. But many scholars take the position that the Constitution requires a trial if there has been an impeachment. If such a trial cannot properly occur unless and until articles of impeachment have been transferred from the House to the Senate, and Speaker Pelosi won’t transfer them, has President Trump actually been impeached?

Sure, it’s a stupid question . . . but we’re living in stupid times.

 

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, Ward Smith said:

If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around, did it make a sound? 

Yes, as it's a tree falling. A butterfly's wings make a sound, so a tree falling?

Yes, trust me, it will make a sound.

Edited December 20, 2019 by Guest

[ronwagn + 6,290]

26 minutes ago, Ward Smith said:

If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around, did it make a sound? 

 

A trial can be held very quickly. Just present what the House has said and vote it down. No new information need be presented. That is just my logic as to how it should be handled. The Senate should not allow dilatory tactics by Nancy to stop them.

I am really much more interested in getting on with trying all the Demoncrats who have been trying to get rid of President Trump since he became a serious candidate for the Republican nomination. They all need to go to jail IMHO. 

See Critical Information on the Trump, Obama, an Hillary Investigations

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1choW_wq0D5DfjRPjqLlAkfxCnnVJhRzrHeXppE6D4E8/edit

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

41 minutes ago, DayTrader said:

Yes, as it's a tree falling. A butterfly's wings make a sound, so a tree falling?

Yes, trust me, it will make a sound.

No, it makes vibrations; It only becomes a "sound" when perceived by the brain. 

Only a very narrow range of vibrations are turned into our sense of sound.  Likewise, only a tiny fraction of the electromagnetic spectrum is perceived as light we see / colours.

 

 

Edited December 20, 2019 by Enthalpic

[remake it + 288]

4 hours ago, Otis11 said:

Subpoenas that weren't legally valid for the reasons pointed out before.

As the House is the sole body of impeachment it is necessarily conferred all powers to carry out that function so your statement is both actually and logically flawed.

[Guest]

oh shhh lol, when it 'vibrates' and slams into the ground, there is a noise and so a sound, whether a human brain hears it or not

I'm not getting into this psycho babble mate, I was just mocking Ward

every animal in the area that runs or flies off did so due to sound primarily, not the vibration?

[remake it + 288]

4 hours ago, Otis11 said:

Thus, the term 'Misdemeanor' in the impeachment language indicates including crimes of both 'atrocious' crimes and 'smaller faults and omissions of less consequence' - but no less requires 'criminal offense'.

With that, I rest my case that impeachment requires an actual 'criminal offense' and not simply that they do not like something.

That is such a weak argument as it wholly fails to address the types of issue the framers were considering regarding impeachment and were spelled out in detail during the Hearings so why don't you read them and come back with something more credible.

Edited December 20, 2019 by remake it
bolding