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

[Zhong Lu + 845]

If President Hillary Clinton asked Ukraine for help to investigate a domestic political opponent like Trump, a Republican Congress would be calling for her impeachment.  All the while screaming "betrayal!!!! Foreign influence!!!! Corruption!!!!"

Etc. etc.  

What goes around comes around.  

Edited December 19, 2019 by Zhong Lu

[remake it + 288]

3 minutes ago, Jabbar said:

QUESTION: 

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

I COULD THE NUMER ON ONE HAND. 

WHAT A CREW. 

Maybe your budies can help you with those numers and while they are at it can they also lend a hand to this fellow who clearly appears to be in difficulty with his count

[Rob Plant + 2,756]

47 minutes ago, remake it said:

Maybe your budies can help you with those numers and while they are at it can they also lend a hand to this fellow who clearly appears to be in difficulty with his count

Yeah but he's got 10 nailed!

[Papillon + 485]

11 hours ago, Dan Warnick said:

if there weren't so many wonderful, intelligent and diverse personalities on this forum.

Absolutely sir. Fortunately I am all three of these adjectives.     /semi sarc

[Jabbar + 465]

3 hours ago, Jabbar said:

QUESTION: 

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

I COULD COUNT THE NUMER ON ONE HAND. 

WHAT A CREW. 

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

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

You can't make this stuff up.

.

[Jabbar + 465]

4 hours ago, Jabbar said:

QUESTION: 

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

I COULD COUNT THE NUMER ON ONE HAND. 

WHAT A CREW. 

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

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

You can't make this stuff up.

QUESTION: 

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

I COULD COUNT THE NUMER ON ONE HAND. 

WHAT A CREW. 

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

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

You can't make this stuff up.

Edited December 19, 2019 by Jabbar

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

12 hours ago, Jabbar said:

I TOLD YOU SO YESTERDAY

RUMOR IS TRUE.

"Now there is a rumor that the Dems will pass the impeachment in Congress and then Nancy never forward it to the Senate.  That would be a Constitutional travesty.  I don't know if that's legal." 

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

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

 

 

11 hours ago, Jan van Eck said:

Yes, she can.   We live in interesting times. 

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

 

 

 

[Guest]

7 hours ago, Rob Plant said:

Boris will just get outmanoeuvred in any discussions with Trump. Its "Make America Great Again" not the UK.

Well we never stopped Rob. No ''again'' necessary. Duh. 

That's why our slogan was ''Get Brexit done'' (future), and not in effect ''We Used To Be Better Than This'' (past).

I worry about you sometimes. Have another coffee and throw those anti Brexit leaflets out finally. You lost. It's over mate. 

[Rob Plant + 2,756]

1 minute ago, DayTrader said:

Well we never stopped Rob. No ''again'' necessary. Duh. 

That's why our slogan was ''Get Brexit done'' (future), and not in effect ''We Used To Be Better Than This'' (past).

I worry about you sometimes. Have another coffee and throw those anti Brexit leaflets out finally. You lost. It's over mate. 

I actually voted for Boris as there truly was no alternative, so technically I'm a leaver now🤣

[Jabbar + 465]

THE NEW YORK POST GIVES NANCY PELOSI NEW MONIKER:

THE SWAMP MISTRESS

Very fitting

https://www.dailywire.com/news/its-your-funeral-new-york-post-shreds-swamp-mistress-pelosi-in-brutal-cover

Edited December 19, 2019 by Jabbar

[Bob D + 562]

16 hours ago, ronwagn said:

The Democrats' attempted coup started long before President Trump was ever nominated. There are a lot more threads to this cabal that you have not mentioned. To get the even larger picture see 

 

Critical Information on the Trump, Obama and   Hillary Investigations

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

Treasure Trove of Information

Thanks Ron

[Otis11 + 551]

18 hours ago, Jan van Eck said:

Lurker readers may take note that Otis11 is a totally brilliant intellectual and knows and will always know much more about US Law than I do - and I know quite a lot.  Readers would be well advised to be properly respectful and pay attention.  Whatever Otis says, is going to expand your intellectual horizons. 

First Jan - thank you for the kind words. Not sure I deserve them, but I'll do my best to live up to them.

(Can't compare to your knowledge of Canola though...) 🤣

 

17 hours ago, remake it said:

Irrespective of internal US machinations there are billions elsewhere who will see that the President - like him or not as per germane senses pre-WWII - has put himself above the Constitution and the next step on these slippery slopes is to abuse that privilege and become dictatorial as history shows time and again.

How, pray tell, has Trump put himself above the Constitution?

(While I actually agree in some sense, I'd also argue so has every president since - and including - Lincoln. Almost every president has been worse than the one before, until Trump. Not saying Trump is good on this metric, just better than Obama. And Bush. And a few others. So I'm interested in how you make him worse than any of the last 3-4 presidents.)

13 hours ago, Jan van Eck said:

Yes, she can.   We live in interesting times. 

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

Sadly, I think you're right. I'd be interested in any opinions to the contrary, however I believe the same Supreme Court opinion that allows the Senate to dismiss this in a variety of ways, allows the House broad latitudes in how to handle this. (1993 opinion - for those interested. Not going to look it up right now unless challenged. Probably in previous link)

There is an argument saying that 'failure to send the articles to the Senate for adjudication' is unconstitutional, but I am not finding any support for this. Anyone know better?

The one argument I see that the Senate could use is that, once the vote is formalized, that marks the transition and that they now have 'sole authority' and don't need the actual articles to be sent to proceed. They can simply take the articles from public record as submitted for the vote along with the vote tally. I haven't run this by anyone with a legal background though, so don't know if it would hold up? I don't see why not, but I'm not terribly confident. Thoughts?

7 hours ago, remake it said:

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

Andrew Jackson is not Andrew Johnson. 1833 not 1868. Wrong president. Try again.

(A little bit of niche political trivia for you... it's pretty easy to find Jackson's formal censure though.)

 

7 hours ago, Rob Plant said:

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

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

Only quoting Rob as he hit this one square.

I don't believe I mis-spoke anywhere, but my apologies if I did. The House has full rights to impeach - and in this impeachment proceeding, I am not aware of any UNCONSTITUTIONAL actions the House has taken - it's their own House rules on process of impeachment that they are violating. They held the investigation and issued subpoenas, etc, before voting to start an inquiry. (Now, I will admit with how the house is currently being run, they may have implement rule changes I am not aware of as it's a bit ridiculous how quickly they're changing procedural rules and ignoring all historical norms...)

There's also mounting evidence that they've violated other laws about due process, witness tampering, potentially a few more.

6 hours ago, Jabbar said:

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

Well, I don't believe that's technically true. You have to have a formal investigation to issue a subpoena - which would indicate reasonable suspicion a crime worthy of impeachment has been committed. Reasonable enough suspicion that the House would vote to open a formal investigation. Prior to this, you are correct, they have no grounds to issue a subpoena.

More political trivia - not every crime is an impeachable offense. Crime's deemed to be of a personal nature and not influenced by nor of impact on the political office served by the official is not impeachable by precedent (though technically impeachable by the constitution, doing so would violate prior precedent). 

Also, on your previous comment about Pelosi - I don't believe she's the driving force behind this. Her actions indicate she's being cornered into making this maneuver. Not sure who is driving. (That said, I don't think she's innocent in this) 

5 hours ago, Jabbar said:

QUESTION: 

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

I COULD COUNT THE NUMER ON ONE HAND. 

WHAT A CREW. 

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

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

You can't make this stuff up.

https://youtu.be/v7XXVLKWd3Q

[remake it + 288]

19 minutes ago, Otis11 said:

How, pray tell, has Trump put himself above the Constitution?

By not abiding by his Oath of Office and obstructing the House which has been made clear many times.

21 minutes ago, Otis11 said:

Andrew Jackson is not Andrew Johnson. 1833 not 1868. Wrong president. Try again.

Assumed you made a mistake as Andrew Jackson was never impeached so how was your claim relevant?

[Otis11 + 551]

49 minutes ago, remake it said:

By not abiding by his Oath of Office and obstructing the House which has been made clear many times.

Assumed you made a mistake as Andrew Jackson was never impeached so how was your claim relevant?

My belief is that Andrew Jackson was also attempted to be impeached, but that this was interrupted with the House and Senate adjourned because they didn't have the votes to support it. This went down as a historical footnote that isn't cited in many places due to the fact that they settled for an official sensor instead. (I could be mistaken as it's been a while since I did much with this period of history, but I still believe this to be correct).

That said, I can still make the same point with Andrew Jackson. There were 11 articles adopted by the House. Article 1-3 were voted on and did not pass. Articles 4-11 were never brought up for debate in the Senate, and therefore were 'dismissed' when the Senate adjourned without addressing them. Therefore setting precedent for these to be ignored.

And before we keep going down this path, I'd like to note that you are attempting to discredit an entire, through, thought out, and well supported argument by finding a single point you believe to be incorrect. This would not invalidate any of the other points made (even if I couldn't refute your point, as above).

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

1 hour ago, Otis11 said:

The one argument I see that the Senate could use is that, once the vote is formalized, that marks the transition and that they now have 'sole authority' and don't need the actual articles to be sent to proceed. They can simply take the articles from public record as submitted for the vote along with the vote tally. I haven't run this by anyone with a legal background though, so don't know if it would hold up? I don't see why not, but I'm not terribly confident. Thoughts?

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. 

[remake it + 288]

4 minutes ago, Otis11 said:

And before we keep going down this path, I'd like to note that you are attempting to discredit an entire, through, thought out, and well supported argument by finding a single point you believe to be incorrect. This would not invalidate any of the other points made (even if I couldn't refute your point, as above).

Not so as a good number of points you have made are borderline or inconsistent with history law and the Constitution and despite this you trot out the Andrew Jackson example again despite it debunking your claims.

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

1 minute ago, remake it said:

Not so as a good number of points you have made are borderline or inconsistent with history law and the Constitution and despite this you trot out the Andrew Jackson example again despite it debunking your claims.

@Otis11,   And this is what happens when you attempt to engage a robot  (especially one with boxing gloves on).. All you end up with are an internecine stream of arguments, with dubious consistency, because after all, what could you expect from an AI algorithm?  

And I thought I was a dullard. 

[Bob D + 562]

3 minutes ago, Jan van Eck said:

@Otis11,   And this is what happens when you attempt to engage a robot  (especially one with boxing gloves on).. All you end up with are an internecine stream of arguments, with dubious consistency, because after all, what could you expect from an AI algorithm?  

Very Frustrating indeed.  

Like this beauty ... By not abiding by his Oath of Office (BS) and obstructing the House (BS) which has been made clear many times (BS).

[Otis11 + 551]

8 minutes 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. 

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?

[remake it + 288]

6 minutes ago, Bob D said:

Very Frustrating indeed.  

Like this beauty ... By not abiding by his Oath of Office (BS) and obstructing the House (BS) which has been made clear many times (BS).

@Bob D Perhaps you can quote from the Oath which the President swore to and explain how he has upheld his end of the bargain given that Constitutional lawyers laid out clearly during recent Hearings that Trump has not been true to his word.

[Bob D + 562]

1 minute ago, remake it said:

@Bob D Perhaps you can quote from the Oath which the President swore to and explain how he has upheld his end of the bargain given that Constitutional lawyers laid out clearly during recent Hearings that Trump has not been true to his word.

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

[remake it + 288]

3 minutes ago, Bob D said:

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

No need to as 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. 

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

19 minutes ago, 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?

The nation is sailing in uncharted waters. 

[Otis11 + 551]

1 minute ago, remake it said:

No need to as 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. 

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)

[PE Scott + 563]

1 minute ago, remake it said:

No need to as 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. 

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. Most people here are polite enough to support their opposing views with thorough reasoning and sources. If you don't respect anyone enough to repay them that same courtesy, why bother taking you off the block list?

I thought there was a chance you had improved a bit or started to actually engage in discussions instead of picking up little things to harp on in an effort to do as above and discredit a person based on a single point of contention.