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

[Jabbar + 465]

1 hour ago, remake it said:

Mr Plant suggested addressing the arguments presented in this thread but you are just an echo in a chamberpot.

Remake I have a funny story about a chamberpot.  Probably not appropriate for this forum. 

I gotta tell you the story sometime.

[remake it + 288]

8 minutes ago, Jabbar said:

Remake I have a funny story about a chamberpot.

Funnier still that the best were made from china!

Edited December 18, 2019 by remake it

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

4 minutes ago, Jabbar said:

Remake I have a funny story about a chamberpot.  Probably not appropriate for this forum. 

I gotta tell you the story sometime.

In my kitchen I use a century old chamberpot as a waste basket.  Just the right size to hold plastic grocery bags for garbage.  Reduce, reuse, etc.

[Marcin + 519]

1 hour ago, Bob D said:

 I want a pound of flesh.

Nearest the heart ?

[Marcin + 519]

1 hour ago, Jabbar said:

Marcin read this 

What constitutional lawyers legal opinions say ?

Please link them, I am sure that they are publicly available.

They usually provide good, informative guidance, what arguments are used, etc.

Is any lawyer here and could comment  ?

 

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

1 hour ago, Marcin said:

The fact that YOU DO NOT KNOW Constitution of the United States, impeachment due process and Senate role:

You might be surprised just how much of the Constitution I do know.  More than you, I rather suspect. 

1 hour ago, Jabbar said:

"The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments." should not be the reason for your self satisfaction.

I have no "self-satisfaction." You are attributing thoughts to me that I do not have. I am quite indifferent to the process and to the outcome.  I have my views on the matter, but I am indifferent to the results. 

1 hour ago, Marcin said:

So House as a defender of Constitution had to impeach President Trump.

Not so.  The House could (a)  do nothing;  (b)  have a vote of censure;   (c) issue a statement of regrets. There is no obligation for the House to proceed with articles of impeachment. Those are the result of political decisions of factions inside the House  (in this case, by Nancy Pelosi and Jerrold Nadler). 

1 hour ago, Marcin said:

Senate per information from @Jabbar is going to abuse his constitutional powers  and in pure political vote try to dismiss the case without the trial.

The Senate can do whatever it wants to do.  It is not answerable to anybody. 

1 hour ago, Marcin said:

I do not know intricases of US judiciary so I do not know whether this case can be put before Supreme Court.

It can not.

1 hour ago, Marcin said:

Actually this is not important, as Supreme Court vote would be partisan and Republicans have majority.

It would not be.  

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

2 hours ago, Marcin said:

(the fact that cunning Democrats found convenient political trap for Trump is a totally different matter)

American public does not care, and will predictably repudiate the Democrats in November 2020.   This whole exercise is doomed to abject failure. 

[Jabbar + 465]

24 minutes ago, Marcin said:

What constitutional lawyers legal opinions say ?

Please link them, I am sure that they are publicly available.

They usually provide good, informative guidance, what arguments are used, etc.

Is any lawyer here and could comment  ?

 

Professor Johnathan Turley (a Democrat) is considered one of the leading Constitutional Lawyers in the country.  Law professor at George Washington University.  

Professor Allan Dershawitz (a Democrat) is considered one of the leading Constitutional Lawyers in the country. Law Professor at Harvard University.

I have heard Trump is considering Dershawitz for his Senate trial legal team. If Dershawitz accepts the country WILL GET A TRUE LESSON ON THE U.S. CONSTITUTION.  

Dershawitz might lose some Dem friends if he accepts  .   .   .   but what better for a Law Professor than to go down in History as the defender of the Constitution .  .   .   defense in the Trump Impeachment.

Then he writes a book about it and makes $10 million .

.

 

 

Edited December 18, 2019 by Jabbar

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

17 minutes ago, Marcin said:

Is any lawyer here and could comment  ?

Yes.  the legal case against Trump is so thin as to be laughable.

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

15 minutes ago, Jan van Eck said:

You might be surprised just how much of the Constitution I do know.  More than you, I rather suspect. 

^ more than most Americans, very likely.

Probably not a good idea to underestimate Jan's knowledge of the U.S. Constitution and U.S. government in general.  

Just my opinion.

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, Tom Kirkman said:

more than most Americans, very likely.

Oh well hold the front page, there's a shocker of a statement.

''Jan knows more than most Americans'' ...   ''no shit'' comes to mind Tom. Not sure there was the need to narrow it to the Constitution etc. 

Remember ... 'dullards'.

Just my opinion / you are free to disagree / your mileage may vary ...

Edited December 18, 2019 by Guest

[remake it + 288]

15 minutes ago, Jan van Eck said:

Yes.  the legal case against Trump is so thin as to be laughable.

In fact in law there is the use of evidence as quaint as it might seem and in law there is a requirement to act on subpoenas so that justice may be done so your claims here are rather fanciful although it would be interesting to see how much you claim to know and have thus far misunderstood.

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

9 minutes ago, DayTrader said:

Oh well hold the front page, there's a shocker of a statement.

''Jan knows more than most Americans'' ...   ''no shit'' comes to mind Tom. Not sure there was the need to narrow it to the Constitution etc. 

Remember ... 'dullards'.

Just my opinion / you are free to disagree / your mileage may vary ...

LMAO

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

3 minutes ago, remake it said:

In fact in law there is the use of evidence as quaint as it might seem and in law there is a requirement to act on subpoenas so that justice may be done so your claims here are rather fanciful although it would be interesting to see how much you claim to know and have thus far misunderstood.

International readers here are invited to take note that the babble, quoted above, from the handlers of the Chinese military propaganda bot are utter pulp.  In the American system of government there are three "co-equal houses" of authority:   the Legislative, made up of the House of representatives and the Senate and collectively knows as "the Congress",  the Judicial, which is the Supreme Court, and the Executive, which is the White House, President, all the various administrate departments headed by "Secretaries,"  (i.e. Secretary of Transportation, which was the slot I was being asked to head), and the various foreign officers via the Secretary of State.   Now the thing to take note of is that these three branches are "co-equal," and under that scheme none can issue Orders to the others. 

Thus the reality is that Congress has zero authority to go issue a subpoena to the Executive  (the Administration).  The President is totally immune from being subpoenaed for anything, and by the invocation of "Executive Privilege" can and will Order that certain subordinates, or no subordinates, respond to "subpoenas" from the Congress.  And if the Congress does not much like it, well then they can go lump it.

Or, as they say in second grade:  "Too bad, so sad."  Congress can go figure out some other source of "evidence," such as attempting to rehabilitate convicted perjurers and confidence men, who say whatever they are told to say, but it cannot demand that the President or his men appear before them and give testimony.  That part, is verboten.  End of the Lesson. 

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

2 minutes ago, Tom Kirkman said:

LMAO

Remember now, only dull in bed.  Ask my coterie of (past) women.  They will vouch for that part. 

[Marcin + 519]

@Jabbar@Jan van Eck I found more or less what I was looking for by just googling, it was the first result, from CNN,

I bolded the arguments that back the decision to dismiss the impeachment in Senate, in easy and clear way:

We asked Ray and Zeldin to assess the Democrats' case:

 BEGINNING OF DISCUSSION BETWEEN 2 LAWYERS

-----

Robert Ray: (1)Apparently, we're about to witness the first impeachment of a President that does not allege that a crime has been committed, despite the Constitution's text that impeachable conduct is limited to "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors" and that "trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury." The "except" clause above refers, of course, to trial of impeachment before the US Senate.

The point being that House Democrats, in this impeachment inquiry, have jettisoned treason, bribery, extortion, and foreign campaign contributions as a predicate, under law, for impeachment. Instead, we are left with abusive conduct and an interbranch dispute over witnesses and documents. (2)The bar for impeachment has been lowered in an unprecedented way.

---

Michael Zeldin: I disagree that the Constitution requires the commission of a crime as a prerequisite for impeachment. While I appreciate that there is debate among legal scholars on this point, I think the more convincing argument is that impeachable conduct -- "offenses" is the word used by Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist Papers -- relates to the misconduct of public officials in violation or abuse of the public trust irrespective of whether a crime is committed.

The late Charles L. Black, Jr. Sterling Professor of Law at Yale Law and author of the seminal work on impeachment entitled, "Impeachment: A Handbook,'' best articulates the appropriate standard for evaluating what meets the definition of a high crimes and misdemeanors in the constitutional sense: That is, offenses that are clearly wrong, even if not criminal, and in Black's words, "seriously threaten the order or political society as to make pestilent and dangerous the continuance in power of their perpetrator."

President Trump's alleged conduct in soliciting Ukraine to investigate his political rival and then withholding military aid until such investigation is publicly announced, violates the public trust and renders his continuation in office a danger to the Constitution. His obstruction of Congress in their investigation of his actions compounds the offense.

---

Ray: I appreciate Michael's acknowledgment that whether the Constitution requires criminality as a prerequisite for impeachment is, at minimum, a debatable point. I have argued for some time -- indeed prior to the July 25th call between President Trump and Ukrainian President Zelensky -- (3)that a well-founded article of impeachment must allege both that a crime has been committed and that such crime also constitutes an abuse of power.

The House Judiciary Committee itself at least concedes, in a report authored by the majority staff, that while criminality and impeachment are separate paths, "commission of crimes may strengthen a case for removal [from office]" and that "the criminal law is not irrelevant" for purposes of impeachment.

 

That said, (4)I find it constitutionally awkward to be arguing on the one hand, as many have -- including me when it comes to presidential misconduct -- that no president is above the law, and then on the other hand, that this President should be impeached without an allegation contained in an article of impeachment that he actually violated the law

It seems like failing to allege criminality weakens the case for impeachment. And it sets a dangerous precedent for future impeachments by a majority of the House of Representatives that any abuse of power will do, irrespective of the rule of law. I don't see how that would, or should, be in the best interests of the country.

---

Zeldin: Robert is correct that commission of crimes can strengthen a case for impeachment, as we saw in both the Nixon and Clinton impeachments. In this case, both articles of impeachment essentially allege criminal conduct.

Article l -- Abuse of Power, alleges conduct which can be argued implicates criminal law violations. Specifically, it alleges that the President and his men engaged in a "a scheme or course of conduct that that... would... influence the 2020 United States Presidential election to his advantage." The allegation of a scheme or course of conduct tracks the language of the 18 USC 371; Conspiracy to commit offense or defraud the United States.

 

Conspiracy to defraud the United State requires an agreement of two or more individuals to defraud the United States and an overt act by one of the conspirators in furtherance of the scheme. As applied to this case, the conspiracy would be for the purpose of impairing or frustrating the lawful function of the Federal Election Commission to insure honest and fair elections. A similar Section 371 charge was filed by Special Counsel Robert Mueller in the Russia Internet Research Agency prosecution.

Article II -- Obstruction of Congress-- similarly alleges criminal conduct. That is, Obstruction of proceedings before departments, agencies, and committees (18 USC. 1505). Section 1505 outlaws the obstruction of the "due and proper exercise of the power of inquiry under which any inquiry or investigation is being had by either House, or any committee of either House..." Violation of this statute carries a term of imprisonment up to five years in prison.

The President's wholesale refusal to cooperate with either witness testimony or document production requests transcends Robert's view that this aspect of the impeachment is merely an "interbranch dispute over witnesses and documents." It is tantamount to criminal obstruction.

While a criminal statute is not cited in either article of impeachment -- which it need not be -- the articles allege conduct that appears to meet Robert's underlying criminal conduct test. As such, the articles are consistent with past practices and do not set a dangerous precedent.

---

Ray: I don't know.(5) How hard would it have been to have added the words to the first Article of Impeachment, "... thereby constituting the crime of bribery, in violation of law." And, as to the second Article of Impeachment, "... thereby constituting obstruction of justice and the lawful functions of Congress, in violation of law"?

 

(6) I am left to assume that there must be a reason why crimes were not alleged: the proof is not there and, more importantly, the elements of those offenses cannot be established.

As historian Jon Meacham wrote in reviewing the impeachment of President Andrew Johnson in the 2018 book "Impeachment: An American History," there are risks with drafting articles that don't allege crimes:

"To deploy [the weapon of impeachment] in times of great political passion but without a clear violation of law, however, risked (and risks) pushing the American system in a parliamentary direction -- a development that might have its virtues but which would be a definitive break from the original intent and the organic evolution of the constitutional order... Should he therefore have been impeached and removed from office? The verdict in his own time was no -- the decision to push him from the presidential chair should, Congress decided, lie with the voters rather than with lawmakers."

---

Zeldin: The decision not to include specific words from modern criminal statutes, I assume, was intended to avoid having to engage in the debate that Robert's suggestion invites: namely, whether "elements of those [statutory] offenses [can] be established."

As we have discussed above, impeachment is a remedy intended to redress an abuse or violation of some public trust which, in the words of Alexander Hamilton, "relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself." It is not like a trial known in our criminal courts requiring proof of specific statutory elements.

The impeachment of Andrew Johnson derived from a bitter policy dispute between Johnson, a Democrat, and the Republican-controlled Congress over post-Civil War reconstruction policies. This dispute, as Robert and Jon Meacham correctly point out, should have been resolved at the ballot box. Impeachment was a pretext to remove him from office.

To be sure, the prosecution of impeachments, as Hamilton wrote in Federalist 65, "will seldom fail to agitate the passions of the whole community, and to divide it into parties more or less friendly or inimical to the accused." The process must, therefore, be deployed sparingly and with just cause. The articles of impeachment returned against President Trump meet this test

END OF DISCUSSION BETWEEN 2 LAWYERS

 

So to summarize impeachment motion voted in House was bogus.

Senate should vote to dismiss.

Why, simple answer is: as no crime was alleged, longer answer is in 6 bolded points from the discussion of lawyers.

But guys it was not clear from what you were discussing, from partisan positions, and this is not a common knowledge.

 

[Otis11 + 551]

2 hours ago, Papillon said:

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. 

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

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.

1 hour ago, Papillon said:

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? 

''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. 

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.

28 minutes ago, Marcin said:

@Tom Kirkman@Jabbar@Rob Plant@BigJets@Dan Warnick@Jan van Eck@Bob D@Otis11

 

I think I pinged you all.

 

The fact that YOU DO NOT KNOW Constitution of the United States, impeachment due process and Senate role: (1)

 

"The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments." should not be the reason for your self satisfaction. (2)

 

House bona fide did not want to impeach President Trump so asked about all documentation and witnesses to clarify that President was not guilty of the high crime of directly interfering in election of his opponent. (3)

 

They were not provided. So House as a defender of Constitution had to impeach President Trump.(4)

 

Role of Senate is to conduct trial. (5)

 

Senate per information from @Jabbar is going to abuse his constitutional powers  and in pure political vote try to dismiss the case without the trial.(6)

 

I do not know intricases of US judiciary so I do not know whether this case can be put before Supreme Court.(7)

 

Actually this is not important, as Supreme Court vote would be partisan and Republicans have majority.(8)

 

@remake it only noticed that US is slowly destroying Montesquieu model (and China as a dictatorship is happy)(9)

 

 

(the fact that cunning Democrats found convenient political trap for Trump is a totally different matter)(10)

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.

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

10 minutes ago, remake it said:

In fact in law there is the use of evidence as quaint as it might seem and in law there is a requirement to act on subpoenas so that justice may be done so your claims here are rather fanciful although it would be interesting to see how much you claim to know and have thus far misunderstood.

^ Personality Number 1

There is a useful syntax tool called a comma.

And another fairly obscure syntax tool called a semicolon.

Just a thought.

 

[Guest]

12 minutes ago, Jan van Eck said:

Remember now, only dull in bed.

Yeah, until you get the canola oil out no doubt ... then it's party time. 

Edited December 18, 2019 by Guest

[Jabbar + 465]

1 hour ago, Jan van Eck said:

International readers here are invited to take note that the babble, quoted above, from the handlers of the Chinese military propaganda bot are utter pulp.  In the American system of government there are three "co-equal houses" of authority:   the Legislative, made up of the House of representatives and the Senate and collectively knows as "the Congress",  the Judicial, which is the Supreme Court, and the Executive, which is the White House, President, all the various administrate departments headed by "Secretaries,"  (i.e. Secretary of Transportation, which was the slot I was being asked to head), and the various foreign officers via the Secretary of State.   Now the thing to take note of is that these three branches are "co-equal," and under that scheme none can issue Orders to the others. 

Thus the reality is that Congress has zero authority to go issue a subpoena to the Executive  (the Administration).  The President is totally immune from being subpoenaed for anything, and by the invocation of "Executive Privilege" can and will Order that certain subordinates, or no subordinates, respond to "subpoenas" from the Congress.  And if the Congress does not much like it, well then they can go lump it.

Or, as they say in second grade:  "Too bad, so sad."  Congress can go figure out some other source of "evidence," such as attempting to rehabilitate convicted perjurers and confidence men, who say whatever they are told to say, but it cannot demand that the President or his men appear before them and give testimony.  That part, is verboten.  End of the Lesson. 

I would note one point of disagreement.  What Jan describes in part is called Executive Privilege .   This is the ability to keep discussions between the President and his Staff, Advisors, Cabinet or Departments in confidence.  If this was not the case it would hinder the President's ability to conduct the country's business.  

During the Nixon Impeachment process it was discovered that Nixon recorded certain conversations.  Nixon claimed Executive Privilebe. I am not familiar with the case but for some reason these tapes were ruled not to fall under Executive Privilege. The Supreme Court ruled against Nixon.

Nixon had to turn over the supeoned tapes.

 

Edited December 19, 2019 by Jabbar

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

https://community.oilprice.com/topic/8946-dumb-it-down-impeachment/?page=6#comment-80860

Title of this thread is Dumb It Down - Impeachment

 

U.S. Constitution - Article 2, Section 4

https://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A2Sec4.html

Article 2 - The Executive Branch
Section 4 - Disqualification

"The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."

 

 

< *cough* >

● Impeachment for

● and conviction of

● Treason

● Bribery

● or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors

 

Without a crime, there cannot be an impeachment.

 

The Democrats are submitting 2 vague charges of:

● "abuse of power"

● "obstruction of Congress"

 

》 Neither of these vague charges are crimes.

 

》 This is one of the many reasons why Impeachment will fail once it moves from the House of Representatives to a full trial in the Senate.

 

Is this clear enough?

Do you understand the words that are coming out of my mouth?

[remake it + 288]

9 minutes ago, Jan van Eck said:

Thus the reality is that Congress has zero authority to go issue a subpoena to the Executive  (the Administration).  The President is totally immune from being subpoenaed for anything, and by the invocation of "Executive Privilege" can and will Order that certain subordinates, or no subordinates, respond to "subpoenas" from the Congress.  And if the Congress does not much like it, well then they can go lump it.

Completely false and the concept of "Executive Privilege" in this particular matter has reasonable limits relating predominantly to issues of national security and if you think this is errant then you can only believe the US Constitution (is deficient in that it) has allowed the President to be beyond its reach.

[Marcin + 519]

@Otis11 There were 3 pages of some generic, Republican, partisan discussion in this thread, like you guys have no clue what you are speaking about, and I am not inside your brains.

This lame discussion, made mine, a little bit emotional statements, justified.

Please refer to the points I bolded in my long comment above, I was looking for this plain and simple information why Senate wants impeachment case dismissed.

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

24 minutes ago, Jan van Eck said:

Remember now, only dull in bed.  Ask my coterie of (past) women.  They will vouch for that part. 

DT was poking fun of Americans in general, and at me specifically, and not at you, Jan.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Tom Kirkman said:

DT was poking fun of Americans in general,

Yes as it is easy  ...

1 minute ago, Tom Kirkman said:

and not at you, Jan.

... as he is not American. 

Everyone knows I'm joking surely. Jan doesn't care anyway, he's googling shit about canola and ethanol probably.