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

[Rasmus Jorgensen + 1,169]

45 minutes ago, Jan van Eck said:

None.   But you already knew that.  

To the outside world it is pretty clear that Trump used his office to put pressure Ukraine to get dirt on Biden. 

Does this mean that Trump is not the lesser evil? No. it doesn't even mean that there is a better alternative. 

It does however strike me how willing this forum (with a few exemptions) is to defend Trump in all things. And the same people that defend Trump blindly rant about UN, EU et all wanting to turn world into mindless drones. To a neutral observer many here defend atrocities that Trump administration commits (such as treatment of immigrant kids in internment camps) and then rant about freedom of speech and China and bla bla bla. 

I actually lost interest and energy. 

@remake it - this is what I was trying to say with an earlier comment. 

[remake it + 288]

42 minutes ago, Jan van Eck said:

The problem is that words change their meaning over the centuries.   So you have this trap of the people attempting to squeeze today's definitions onto words written hundreds of years ago.  And that is fraught with risk. 

Times change.  In England, the people no longer chop off the heads of their kings and queens with a big broad-axe.  But they still have the House of Lords.  Go figure.

The issues relating to "high crimes and misdemeanors" were teased out in detail during the Hearings and included the contemporaneous context making transference of intent a very simple matter so it is mischievous to propose matters which are not pertinent.

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

On 12/17/2019 at 9:42 PM, Jabbar said:

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

 

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.

 

[remake it + 288]

1 hour ago, Jan van Eck said:

Oh, wait a minute.  He committed the crime of not genuflecting to Democrats in the House that have been there so long they might as well have been institutionalized in the place by psychiatrists. 

This is unlikely to appease the likes of Mr van Eck and others but it does show up their continued jawboning as uninformed and grossly partisan.

[remake it + 288]

40 minutes ago, Rasmus Jorgensen said:

To the outside world it is pretty clear that Trump used his office to put pressure Ukraine to get dirt on Biden. 

It has been interesting to note that the rest of the world  cares little as he has become something of an embarrassment internationally while China's take at the political level bolsters their "communist" model and at the economic level has them dealing with a counterparty that is now egotistically wounded and dangerous.

[Rob Plant + 2,617]

39 minutes ago, remake it said:

It has been interesting to note that the rest of the world  cares little as he has become something of an embarrassment internationally while China's take at the political level bolsters their "communist" model

Personally I dont think world knows what to make of Trump and I certainly think the world does care as he is still the most powerful man on the planet.

I am interested as to why you believe this "bolsters their communist model", can you explain in more detail why you think this, I am genuinely curious. The communist model throughout history has proven not work economically, take Cuba, Russia, venezuela as examples.

However the modern Chinese version of communism is more akin to capitalism since the reform in 1978 so I understand why you put communist in inverted commas.

Edited December 20, 2019 by Rob Plant

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

1 hour ago, Rasmus Jorgensen said:

It does however strike me how willing this forum (with a few exemptions) is to defend Trump in all things.

Just for the record, I don't defend him at all.  Just because he is boorish on Twitter and in diplomatic receptions does not imply that the House of Representatives can go remove him from office.  Being a boor, or for that matter being an idiot, is not an impeachable offense.  The voters elected Mr. Trump as the President and thus they have him as their man, better or worse, for four years.  If the voters don't like it then they can toss him out at the next election.  If the voters do like it or are prepared to put up with it all because the other things he does, such as disengaging with China and making better deals with Mexico, then the voters can re-elect him for another term, assuming that he decides to submit himself for re-nomination as the Party Candidate.  That is the way it works, and for all its flaws, it works rather well, most of the time. 

The USA has had this enduring experiment in a democracy where rights and privileges are reserved to the People.  It is designed as a limited government  (admittedly, of late is has not been working out that way, just look at the NSA, CBP, FBI, the TSA, and so forth).  But that was the theory.  It is up to the People to remain true to the principles.  'Nuff said.

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

Readers may note that the Chines military AL Bot, labelled "Remake it," made the following comment about me:

"Mr van Eck..... continued jawboning as uninformed and grossly partisan"

For the record, I am not an American, I do not vote here, I am not a member of any political party, and I am not a Trump Supporter nor a Trump Detractor.   I merely observe the unfolding political scene, and put it in perspective for non-US readers here.   Ignore the Bot.  All  that is classic Chinese disinformation, intended to disrupt American discourse. 

[remake it + 288]

17 minutes ago, Rob Plant said:

I am interested as to why you believe this "bolsters their communist model",

The USA's checks and balances in this case likely leaves an impeached President in place on partisan lines and this is not just inefficient it weakens the image of the leader both internationally and in the eyes of half his nation.

[remake it + 288]

37 minutes ago, Jan van Eck said:

 I merely observe the unfolding political scene, and put it in perspective for non-US readers here.   

And when you get brought to account rather than justify your argument you blame a bot who actually is not American and typically is more capable of providing an unbiased perspective so well done sir!

[Rob Plant + 2,617]

15 minutes ago, remake it said:

and in the eyes of half his nation.

i think this was the case after the last election, so no change there!

 internationally maybe but probably not to the extent you think, it is highly unlikely he will be removed from office so other leaders still have to do business with him.

[Guest]

3 hours ago, Jan van Eck said:

But they still have the House of Lords.  Go figure.

And they still do precisely nothing. Paid to have a doze half the time. 

3 hours ago, Rob Plant said:

However I have to ask the question of why the hell isnt the US constitution updated/reformed to account for this?? 

From an outsider looking in it just looks like one big mess, sorry guys but thats the truth.

 

One big mess?? American politics?? No no no Rob. Fair's fair, come on. I would go with ''total f**king circus''.

[Rasmus Jorgensen + 1,169]

1 hour ago, Jan van Eck said:

Just for the record, I don't defend him at all.  Just because he is boorish on Twitter and in diplomatic receptions does not imply that the House of Representatives can go remove him from office.  Being a boor, or for that matter being an idiot, is not an impeachable offense.  The voters elected Mr. Trump as the President and thus they have him as their man, better or worse, for four years.  If the voters don't like it then they can toss him out at the next election.  If the voters do like it or are prepared to put up with it all because the other things he does, such as disengaging with China and making better deals with Mexico, then the voters can re-elect him for another term, assuming that he decides to submit himself for re-nomination as the Party Candidate.  That is the way it works, and for all its flaws, it works rather well, most of the time. 

The USA has had this enduring experiment in a democracy where rights and privileges are reserved to the People.  It is designed as a limited government  (admittedly, of late is has not been working out that way, just look at the NSA, CBP, FBI, the TSA, and so forth).  But that was the theory.  It is up to the People to remain true to the principles.  'Nuff said.

I agree with everything you stated save that I think technically he committed an impeachable offence. Whether the offence is enough to be removed from office is another matter.

[remake it + 288]

1 hour ago, Rob Plant said:

i think this was the case after the last election, so no change there!

 internationally maybe but probably not to the extent you think, it is highly unlikely he will be removed from office so other leaders still have to do business with him.

Please remember that your question related to the "communist model" and your response is based largely on internal US sentiment the difference being that in China you do not get a large element of disaffection.

Edited December 20, 2019 by remake it

[Rob Plant + 2,617]

2 minutes ago, remake it said:

your response is based largely on internal US sentiment

Remake It I'm English so I have no bias in this believe me, but its a fact that Trump polled less than half the popular vote in 2016.

My question regarding why this "bolsters" the Chinese communist model has nothing to do with US sentiment. So I still do not get why this is so, forgive my ignorance if I am missing the point here.

Would you agree that China's communism is economically more akin to capitalism?

I would agree that the average Chinese worker does not feel disaffected presently as their standard of living is rising, so why would they?

I also think that due to the controls the state puts on its people they are less likely to speak out against the state, thereby not showing said disaffection.

 

55 minutes ago, remake it said:

it weakens the image of the leader both internationally and in the eyes of half his nation.

As I say half the nation already do not believe in Trump nor voted for him,so weakening his position in their eyes makes no difference whatsoever!

I think there is an argument regarding international perception, but after 3 years I think most country's leaders have already formulated their opinion of POTUS.

[remake it + 288]

16 minutes ago, Rob Plant said:

As I say half the nation already do not believe in Trump nor voted for him,so weakening his position in their eyes makes no difference whatsoever!

A point at a time so here you have a democracy where partisanship can be divisive but need not be so where there is mutual respect for the President whereas the communist model has a meritocracy which obviates such a division but more importantly in the immediate sense has the almost cult-like Xi counterposed with a tainted Head of State (commas are optional).

Edited December 20, 2019 by remake it

[remake it + 288]

7 minutes ago, Rob Plant said:

Would you agree that China's communism is economically more akin to capitalism?

No but not for an obvious reason.

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, remake it said:

A point at a time ...  so here you have a democracy where partisanship can be divisive, but need not be so where there is mutual respect for the President, whereas the communist model has a meritocracy which obviates such a division, but more importantly, in the immediate sense, has the almost cult-like Xi is counterposed with tainted Head of State (commas are optional).

You're welcome. 

[remake it + 288]

2 hours ago, Jan van Eck said:

  It is up to all the People to remain true to the principles. 

This is key as a small, privileged group of these people have charge in protecting those very principles as they are enshrined in their Constitution, so when the President, as the ultimate protector, casts democratic principles to the wind then the checks of Congress demand that those individual Members remain true to the principles.

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

2 hours ago, Rasmus Jorgensen said:

I think technically he committed an impeachable offence. Whether the offence is enough to be removed from office is another matter.

Probably not.  Further, if an offence is impeached, and the Articles of Impeachment are presented, and the trial convicts him, then he "shall" be removed from office.  The Constitution explicitly invokes "shall," and Shall means Must. 

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

6 hours ago, Rob Plant said:

Agreed Jan regarding how the meaning of words evolve over time. However I have to ask the question of why the hell isnt the US constitution updated/reformed to account for this?? 

The Framers of the US Constitution deliberately designed the Amendment Process to be as tedious and difficult as possible - so that future generations would not be inflamed by the passions of the day and start to mess with it.  Also the Document is cast in sweeping principles, so that it can be a "living instrument" and evolve as times change.

For example, the Document provides that "All powers not expressly described herein for the State are reserved for the People."  Well, that is a very broad-brush Statement.  And it is meant that way, so as to preclude the State from just barging in and taking over  (Which is what it has now done with lots of individual liberties).  And you need these broad-brush reservations so that the country stay true to the original concepts of personal liberty.

You will see throughout all these Statements such as "Congress shall make no law  [restriction religion, or freedom of assembly, etc]"  The Constitution is thus a Document of Limitation:  "make no Law."  It is a Constitution that says, "Hey, Big Government, you are not in charge here in America.  The People are."   And that is a remarkable platform.  Personally, it is very much to my taste.  The idea was to prevent stifling bureaucracies.  Unfortunately, Big Govt has come along anyway, a form of "creeping bureaucracy govt."  And that is not how Americans see themselves.  Big bureaucracies is what you have in the Communist model, where the State controls your life.  

So, now you know why it is what it is. Over the centuries, it has only been amended 27 times.  And one of those amendments was to undo another amendment!   Incidentally even the original "10 Amendments" known as the "Bill of Rights" started out life as 12 Amendments:  two of the twelve did not make it past the Constitutional Conventions stage!   Talk about hard to amend.......

Edited December 20, 2019 by Jan van Eck

[Rob Plant + 2,617]

5 minutes ago, Jan van Eck said:

The Constitution is thus a Document of Limitation:  "make no Law."  It is a Constitution that says, "Hey, Big Government, you are not in charge here in America.  the People are."   And that is a remarkable platform.  Personally, it is very much to my taste.  The idea was to prevent stifling bureaucracies.  Unfortunately, Big Govt has come along anyway, a form of "creeping bureaucracy govt."  And that is not how Americans see themselves.  Big bureaucracies is what you have in the Communist model, where the State controls your life.  

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

[Guest]

10 minutes ago, Jan van Eck said:

Incidentally even the original "10 Amendments"

What are these? Just hit me / paraphrase them Jan with a line each please ...

Just now, Rob Plant said:

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.

Agreed, and look at gun laws for maniacs while you're at it? You all have no problem amending and butchering an entire language, but heaven forbid you update this parchment   

Edited December 20, 2019 by Guest

[Rob Plant + 2,617]

6 minutes ago, DayTrader said:

Agreed, and look at gun laws for maniacs while you're at it? You all have no problem amending and butchering an entire language, but heaven forbid you update this parchment   

Haha back on the old soap box re gun laws🤣

This should be your first commandment in your new Kristianity religion

Second has to be no butchering of the English language

Third Thou shalt not talk Bo**ox about climate change

I'll leave the rest to you

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

5 minutes ago, DayTrader said:

What are these? Just hit me / paraphrase them Jan with a line each please ...

Actual text of the Joint Resolution of 1789:   [note:  Articles 1 and 2 never made it past the Convention.  Article 2, after two centuries, finally became the 27th Amendment.  The very first Article never made it and has never been passed, but there is an Apportionment Scheme in place]:

-----------------------------------------

Congress of the United States begun and held at the City of New-York, on Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.

ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.

Article the first... After the first enumeration required by the first article of the Constitution, there shall be one Representative for every thirty thousand, until the number shall amount to one hundred, after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall be not less than one hundred Representatives, nor less than one Representative for every forty thousand persons, until the number of Representatives shall amount to two hundred; after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall not be less than two hundred Representatives, nor more than one Representative for every fifty thousand persons.

Article the second... No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.

Article the third... Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Article the fourth... A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Article the fifth... No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Article the sixth... The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Article the seventh... No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Article the eighth... In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Article the ninth... In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Article the tenth... Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Article the eleventh... The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Article the twelfth... The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

ATTEST,

Frederick Augustus Muhlenberg, Speaker of the House of Representatives
John Adams, Vice-President of the United States, and President of the Senate
John Beckley, Clerk of the House of Representatives.
Sam. A Otis Secretary of the Senate