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

[remake it + 288]

2 minutes ago, Otis11 said:

Sorry Bud, Bob can make the same statement that the information is readily available. 

You're the one making the claim, you're the one that has to support it. The onerous is on the person making the claim to prove it, not everyone else to disprove it.

(FYI - this is how people waste your time and deflect -  make a claim and then make you spend your time disproving them. Do not let people get away with this. Make people - including me - prove their claims. Don't do all the work to research their claims for them)

That very question was raised early on in this thread and nobody addressed it so would you like to show how the President is upholding his Oath of Office as none of his actions are consistent with his undertakings.

[remake it + 288]

1 minute ago, PE Scott said:

I think this forum in its entirety provides more than enough examples to suggest that when provided with the same information people can infer different meanings.

"I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Impeachment is sanctioned under the Constitution so President Trump's many actions and words (not inferences) to subvert the process constitute evidence the reasonable person would assert.

 

 

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

9 minutes ago, Otis11 said:

Sorry Bud, Bob can make the same statement that the information is readily available. 

You're the one making the claim, you're the one that has to support it. The onus is on the person making the claim to prove it, not everyone else to disprove it.

(FYI - this is how people waste your time and deflect -  make a claim and then make you spend your time disproving them. Do not let people get away with this. Make people - including me - prove their claims. Don't do all the work to research their claims for them)

"Innocent until proven guilty" means the burden of proof rests on the accuser.

[remake it + 288]

12 minutes ago, Otis11 said:

(FYI - this is how people waste your time and deflect -  make a claim and then make you spend your time disproving them. Do not let people get away with this. Make people - including me - prove their claims. Don't do all the work to research their claims for them)

Initially it seemed unnecessary to quote the Oath of Office but maybe Americans don't really know what the President undertook on coming into office and want this spelled out before believing he has not held up his sworn commitment.

[PE Scott + 563]

4 minutes ago, remake it said:

Initially it seemed unnecessary to quote the Oath of Office but maybe Americans don't really know what the President undertook on coming into office and want this spelled out before believing he has not held up his sworn commitment.

Part of proving that claim would be providing evidence that he has in fact failed to uphold the constitution. Encouraging people not to take part in a political charade they are not legally required to participate in does not constitute a failure to uphold his oath I'm my opinion. However, I don't follow this stuff very closely so maybe you have clear examples where he has actually broken the law or encouraged others to?

Edited December 19, 2019 by PE Scott

[remake it + 288]

1 hour ago, PE Scott said:

Part of proving that claim would be providing evidence that he has in fact failed to uphold the constitution. Encouraging people not to take part in a political charade they are not legally required to participate in does not constitute a failure to uphold his oath I'm my opinion. However, I don't follow this stuff very closely so maybe you have clear examples where he has actually broken the law or encouraged others to?

Your logic is flawed as if there is a provision in the Constitution for any action and the President does not uphold the Constitution for that same action to be taken then the President has failed at the most fundamental level to protect the democracy that put him in office. 

Edited December 19, 2019 by remake it
Bolding added to help those downvoters

[PE Scott + 563]

2 minutes ago, remake it said:

Your logic is flawed as is if there a provision in the Constitution for any action and the President does not uphold the Constitution for that same action to be taken then the President has failed at the most fundamental level to protect the democracy that put him in office. 

Are you leaving the punctuation out just to drive me crazy? 

Ok, so this is what I'm trying to understand. What actions, specifically, has President Trump done to block a constitutional process illegally. 

I've read through a chunk of this thread and listened to some news here and there, so I definitely don't have the full picture. Please paint it for me so I can see where you're coming from.

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

5 minutes ago, remake it said:

Your logic is flawed as is if there a provision in the Constitution for any action and the President does not uphold the Constitution for that same action to be taken then the President has failed at the most fundamental level to protect the democracy that put him in office. 

You are incoherent.

Here is a very clear, very direct, very simple question for you, @remake it

What crime has Trump committed?

 

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

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.

 

[remake it + 288]

7 minutes ago, PE Scott said:

Are you leaving the punctuation out just to drive me crazy? 

Ok, so this is what I'm trying to understand. What actions, specifically, has President Trump done to block a constitutional process illegally. 

I've read through a chunk of this thread and listened to some news here and there, so I definitely don't have the full picture. Please paint it for me so I can see where you're coming from.

The very act of calling the impeachment process a charade or hoax renders the President's actions a violation of his Oath.

Edited December 19, 2019 by remake it
placing conjunction in the right place

[Jabbar + 465]

5 hours ago, Jan van Eck said:

Nope.   Need to have formal "Presentment,"  and that is done by having an Officer of the House hand deliver the Articles of Impeachment to the Speaker of the Senate, who is the Vice President (Mr. Pence).  It is all very formal. 

No not really.  This is all uncharted territory. Formal or informal.   There is no precedence for this . Several attorneys have spoken to this issue today stating different opinions.  

Now, a congressional bill must be sent to the Senate before they can act on it. This is not a bill, it is Articles of Impeachment. Trump has been "indicted".  

Does the President have the right to exonerate himself ? Does the President have the right to a speedy trial ? After all he is a candidate for President. Can Nancy sit on it thru the election ? Is she interfering with a national election ?  

Trump could argue the Democratic Party produced this farce to Interfering with an election. (which actually is true)

Edited December 20, 2019 by Jabbar

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

6 minutes ago, remake it said:

The very act of calling impeachment process a charade or hoax renders the President's actions a violation of his Oath.

Totally incorrect.

I will ask you again...

What crime has Trump committed?

 

[PE Scott + 563]

5 minutes ago, remake it said:

The very act of calling impeachment process a charade or hoax renders the President's actions a violation of his Oath.

Respectfully, I disagree. It's his opinion and he's entitled to it. If he illegally used executive privilege in some way to slow down or inhibit the process, I might be able to get on board with that. Has he done that? 

On the flip side, if Congress is debating impeachment, is the sitting president expected to encourage it (by your understanding of the oath)?

Edited December 19, 2019 by PE Scott

[remake it + 288]

Just now, PE Scott said:

Respectfully, I disagree. It's his opinion and he's entitled to it. If he used executive privilege in some way to slow down or inhibit the process, I might be able to get on board with that. Has he done that? 

On the flip side, if Congress is debating impeachment, is the sitting president expected to encourage it?

Not so as he may not like what the Constitution allows but he nevertheless swore to uphold it so your opinion here is despite the facts.

[Papillon + 485]

36 minutes ago, PE Scott said:

If you don't respect anyone enough to repay them that same courtesy, why bother taking you off the block list?

With respect sir, is this a reference to the user saying ''BS'' in return to Bob D? The previous post from Bob suggested ''you said the BS, you explain the BS'', and you gave this a purple trophy in response.

54 minutes ago, Bob D said:

No.  You wrote the BS.  You explain the BS.

However when the user Remake It stated back about a ''BS claim'', you attack his courtesy? I must be reading something wrong or have missed part of the thread, as it appears this user is now attacked for use of language, as well as everything else, whereas when from others it seems absolutely fine? 

49 minutes ago, remake it said:

that information is available to anyone accessing the House websites who wants to read on any matter relating to the impeachment process to date and it makes a mockery of your BS claim.

 

[PE Scott + 563]

1 minute ago, Papillon said:

With respect sir, is this a reference to the user saying ''BS'' in return to Bob D? The previous post from Bob suggested ''you said the BS, you explain the BS'', and you gave this a purple trophy in response.

I gave him the purple trophy because it's common for a claim to be made in opposition to what others are posting with absolutely nothing of substance to back it up, and its frustrating. I understand that opinions are different and such, but I agree that it's unfair to present a counter claim and give absolutely no evidence to support it or reasoning behind it. To @remake itcredit, he's been inching towards an explanation as the discussion has carried on. Also, the BS part was perhaps a little strong, and I don't mean to attack anyone, however you have to agree it's only fair to explain your position if your actually interested in engaging in a thoughtful and productive conversation, right?

Also, read through my post history. I'm pretty nice as these things go. About the only time I got heated was with the ethanol guy.

[remake it + 288]

9 minutes ago, Jabbar said:

You don't know the House needs to present it to Senate.  You might be right but it is only an educated guess.  

You shouldn't state as fact unless you know.  Some of the smartest attorneys don't know.  

Nobody does. 

Certainly the Constitution only vests an impeachment trial with the Senate and as the President is now impeached it is entirely within the Senate's powers to establish all rules as to how it may choose to proceed.

[Rob Plant + 2,631]

@Papillon I think the key question was asked by Tom repeatedly to Remake It which has not even been acknowledged let alone addressed 

“what crime has Trump committed”

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

10 minutes ago, PE Scott said:

I don't mean to attack anyone, however you have to agree it's only fair to explain your position if your actually interested in engaging in a thoughtful and productive conversation, right?

PE Scott, after seeing your frustration, you may wish to consider my opinion here:

https://community.oilprice.com/topic/8946-dumb-it-down-impeachment/?page=4#comment-80533

 

[Jabbar + 465]

On 12/19/2019 at 4:16 PM, Otis11 said:

I understand that's how it is done... but where is this constitutionally required? If Mitch just decided to do this, is there anything Pelosi could do to stop him?

This not how it's done.  Nobody knows. Uncharted territory.  Impeachment rules very loose.  House is the lower chamber of Congress.  House makes their rules, Senate makes their rules.  Nancy can not demand Senate use her rules.

Edited December 21, 2019 by Jabbar

[Papillon + 485]

3 hours ago, PE Scott said:

Also, read through my post history. I'm pretty nice as these things go. About the only time I got heated was with the ethanol guy.

I have sir and I agree, you appear very logical and informed and a nice person. However ''the ethanol guy'' is a mystery to me. 

3 hours ago, PE Scott said:

you have to agree it's only fair to explain your position if your actually interested in engaging in a thoughtful and productive conversation, right?

Of course sir, but as I have stated to other users, when he does do this, and people have no retort due to what he says being factual for example, then the insults and accusations seem to begin. Also, as I have said several times through the threads, it is verging on madness to me for people to suggest he is this famous bot and yet still converse with it everyday!! I can only assume the majority of people here do not actually believe this, as if you did you would surely just block this user? 

3 hours ago, PE Scott said:

To @remake itcredit, he's been inching towards an explanation as the discussion has carried on. Also, the BS part was perhaps a little strong, and I don't mean to attack anyone

I agree he has sir and appears to on many threads here, and when it seems to get to a stage that people have no reply, they accuse and insult, it baffles me. Not at all strong sir, no need to explain, it was not even you that said it, and I didn't feel you were attacking, if anything you were calling for courtesy so I commend you. It just feels very one sided here at times.

3 hours ago, Rob Plant said:

I think the key question was asked by Tom repeatedly to Remake It which has not even been acknowledged let alone addressed 

I am very sure sir that I could peruse these threads and find many questions Remake It has asked and not had answered too? Also I believe he has blocked or ignores certain users so this may be the reason there has been no answer forthcoming, as he has not even read the question. 

Respectfully to you both, Papillon. 

Edited December 20, 2019 by Papillon

[remake it + 288]

4 minutes ago, Rob Plant said:

@Papillon I think the key question was asked by Tom repeatedly to Remake It which has not even been acknowledged let alone addressed 

“what crime has Trump committed”

Apologies Mr Plant as a number who seem to post a great deal of irrelevances are on ignore but to respond and show why such a question from Mr Kirkland is vacuous stems from the repeated explanation that specifically includes misdemeanors as a cause for impeachment.

[remake it + 288]

47 minutes ago, PE Scott said:

Are you leaving the punctuation out just to drive me crazy? 

You now are getting shorter sentences and remain dissatisfied when those upon marriage get life.

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

8 minutes ago, remake it said:

Apologies Mr Plant as a number who seem to post a great deal of irrelevances are on ignore but to respond and show why such a question from Mr Kirkland is vacuous stems from the repeated explanation that specifically includes misdemeanors as a cause for impeachment.

Wrong again.  You appear to be willfully clueless.

Please educate yourself before reprimanding others for your own willful obfuscations.

https://constitution.org/cmt/high_crimes.htm

by Jon Roland, Constitution Society

The question of impeachment turns on the meaning of the phrase in the Constitution at Art. II Sec. 4, "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors". I have carefully researched the origin of the phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors" and its meaning to the Framers, and found that the key to understanding it is the word "high". It does not mean "more serious". It refers to those punishable offenses that only apply to high persons, that is, to public officials, those who, because of their official status, are under special obligations that ordinary persons are not under, and which could not be meaningfully applied or justly punished if committed by ordinary persons.

Under the English common law tradition, crimes were defined through a legacy of court proceedings and decisions that punished offenses not because they were prohibited by statutes, but because they offended the sense of justice of the people and the court. Whether an offense could qualify as punishable depended largely on the obligations of the offender, and the obligations of a person holding a high position meant that some actions, or inactions, could be punishable if he did them, even though they would not be if done by an ordinary person.

Offenses of this kind survive today in the Uniform Code of Military Justice. It recognizes as punishable offenses such things as perjury of oath, refusal to obey orders, abuse of authority, dereliction of duty, failure to supervise, moral turpitude, and conduct unbecoming. These would not be offenses if committed by a civilian with no official position, but they are offenses which bear on the subject's fitness for the duties he holds, which he is bound by oath or affirmation to perform.

Perjury is usually defined as "lying under oath". That is not quite right. The original meaning was "violation of one's oath (or affirmation)".

The word "perjury" is usually defined today as "lying under oath about a material matter", but that is not its original or complete meaning, which is "violation of an oath". We can see this by consulting the original Latin from which the term comes. From An Elementary Latin Dictionary, by Charlton T. Lewis (1895), Note that the letter "j" is the letter "i" in Latin.

periurium, i, n,, a false oath, perjury.

 

periurus, adj., oath-breaking, false to vows, perjured. iuro, avi, atus, are, to swear, take an oath.

 

iurator, oris, m., a swearer.

 

iuratus, adj., sworn under oath, bound by an oath.

 

ius, iuris, that which is binding, right, justice, duty.

 

per, ... IV. Of means or manner, through, by, by means of, ... under pretense of, by the pretext of, ....

By Art. II Sec. 1 Cl. 8, the president must swear: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." He is bound by this oath in all matters until he leaves office. No additional oath is needed to bind him to tell the truth in anything he says, as telling the truth is pursuant to all matters except perhaps those relating to national security. Any public statement is perjury if it is a lie, and not necessary to deceive an enemy.

When a person takes an oath (or affirmation) before giving testimony, he is assuming the role of an official, that of "witness under oath", for the duration of his testimony. That official position entails a special obligation to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, and in that capacity, one is punishable in a way he would not be as an ordinary person not under oath. Therefore, perjury is a high crime.

An official such as the president does not need to take a special oath to become subject to the penalties of perjury. He took an oath, by Art. II Sec. 1 Cl. 8, to "faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States" and to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States" to the best of his ability. While he holds that office, he is always under oath, and lying at any time constitutes perjury if it is not justified for national security.

Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr erred in presenting in his referral only those offenses which could be "laid at the feet" of the president. He functioned like a prosecutor of an offense against criminal statutes that apply to ordinary persons and are provable by the standards of "proof beyond a reasonable doubt". That is not to say that such offenses are not also high crimes or misdemeanors when committed by an official bound by oath. Most such offenses are. But "high crimes and misdemeanors" also includes other offenses, applicable only to a public official, for which the standard is "preponderance of evidence". Holding a particular office of trust is not a right, but a privilege, and removal from such office is not a punishment. Disablement of the right to hold any office in the future would be a punishment, and therefore the standards of "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" would apply before that ruling could be imposed by the Senate.

It should be noted, however, that when an offense against a statute is also a "high crime or misdemeanor", it may be, and usually is, referred to by a different name, when considered as such. Thus, an offense like "obstruction of justice" or "subornation of perjury" may become "abuse of authority" when done by an official bound by oath. As such it would be grounds for impeachment and removal from office, but would be punishable by its statutory name once the official is out of office.

An executive official is ultimately responsible for any failures of his subordinates and for their violations of the oath he and they took, which means violations of the Constitution and the rights of persons. It is not necessary to be able to prove that such failures or violations occurred at his instigation or with his knowledge, to be able, in Starr's words, to "lay them at the feet" of the president. It is sufficient to show, on the preponderance of evidence, that the president was aware of misconduct on the part of his subordinates, or should have been, and failed to do all he could to remedy the misconduct, including termination and prosecution of the subordinates and compensation for the victims or their heirs. The president's subordinates include everyone in the executive branch, and their agents and contractors. It is not limited to those over whom he has direct supervision. He is not protected by "plausible deniability". He is legally responsible for everything that everyone in the executive branch is doing.

Therefore, the appropriate subject matter for an impeachment and removal proceeding is the full range of offenses against the Constitution and against the rights of persons committed by subordinate officials and their agents which have not been adequately investigated or remedied. The massacre at Waco, the assault at Ruby Ridge, and many, many other illegal or excessive assaults by federal agents, and the failure of the president to take action against the offenders, is more than enough to justify impeachment and removal from office on grounds of dereliction of duty. To these we could add the many suspicious incidents that indicate covered up crimes by federal agents, including the suspicious deaths of persons suspected of being knowledgeable of wrongdoing by the president or others in the executive branch, or its contractors.

The impeachment and removal process should be a debate on the entire field of proven and suspected misconduct by federal officials and agents under this president, and if judged to have been excessive by reasonable standards, to be grounds for removal, even if direct complicity cannot be shown.

See also:

• A defect in the Constitution — There is no authority to criminally prosecute in federal court such offenses committed outside exclusively federal territory.

Home » Selection & Removal » Impeachment
Original URL: //www.constitution.org/cmt/high_crimes.htm | Text Version Maintained: Jon Roland of the Constitution Society Original date: 1999/01/1616 —  Last updated: 2019/12/19

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

14 minutes ago, remake it said:

Apologies Mr Plant as a number who seem to post a great deal of irrelevances are on ignore but to respond and show why such a question from Mr Kirkland is vacuous stems from the repeated explanation that specifically includes misdemeanors as a cause for impeachment.

 

1 minute ago, Tom Kirkman said:

Wrong again.  You appear to be willfully clueless.

Please educate yourself before reprimanding others for your own willful obfuscations.

https://constitution.org/cmt/high_crimes.htm

by Jon Roland, Constitution Society

The question of impeachment turns on the meaning of the phrase in the Constitution at Art. II Sec. 4, "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors".  ...

So, @remake it 

After I corrected your willful error and provided documentation that you are simply inventing allegations,  ...

I will ask you for a third time:

What crime has Trump committed?

[remake it + 288]

 

28 minutes ago, Rob Plant said:

@Papillon I think the key question was asked by Tom repeatedly to Remake It which has not even been acknowledged let alone addressed 

“what crime has Trump committed”

As this is an oil-oriented site there probably are not many versed in law so please put that aside and review what constitutional experts including Democrat Jamie Raskin who is also a Professor of Constitutional Law said during the Hearings and framing of the Articles.