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

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

10 minutes ago, remake it said:

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.

Fail again. 

This is a very simple question.  Asked for the 4th time.  This is not a difficult question:

What crime has Trump committed?

 

Murder?

Treason?

Bribery?

 

What crime has Trump committed?

 

 

 

 

 

[Otis11 + 551]

1 hour 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.

Interesting note - it's actually incredibly hard to get a computer to properly use punctuation correctly. As such, most AI's avoid it completely.

(Not saying remake it is an AI - I'm still reserving judgement as there are glimpses of someone there. Other times it's just word salad. Ignore the word salad.)

1 hour ago, remake it said:

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

It's a violation of the Constitution to say someone else is butchering the constitution? 

I'd actually argue it is upholding the Constitution to point out where others violate it and use it for their own political purpose instead of it's intent. So if he didn't call Nancy out on this he'd be failing to uphold his oath... which means he's upholding his oath more than previous presidents!

How's that for logic?

50 minutes ago, Jabbar said:

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

Mitch McConnell needs to grow a pair.  Nancy is not a Senator.  She can not extort the Senate to accommodate what she wants.

Mitch needs to grow a pair.

 

As far as I can find, the Constitution gives 'sole power' to the Senate once the House has 'adopted' the articles. It states nothing about their delivery. Further, the Supreme Court has ruled to give both the House wide discretion in how they apply their Constitutionally bestowed authority on the articles of Impeachment - and similarly given the Senate very wide discretion in how they apply their Constitutionally bestowed authority to run the trial on those articles.

As far as I can tell - there is no precedent, nor written direction, on the process between adoption of the articles and the delivery of those articles to the Senate.

In other words, if Mitch were to simply pull them from the public record of the vote, in the language as written in the vote, and proceed - the only action Nancy could take would be to throw a Constitutional Challenge. This could be done in 2 ways - take it to the Supreme Court, which she doesn't want to do as it would expose the articles to the scrutiny of the Supreme Court, or to open impeachment proceedings against Mitch - which history has establish precedent (1787 - William Blount) that the Senate ruled the articles dismissed as they were not qualified to hear the impeachment of one of their own. Standing with the Supreme Court would support them in their interpretation as during a later issued opinion on the Senates rights (a relevant place necessary to counter potentially precedent setting decisions that have yet to be weighed on), no mention countering this claim was made (confirmation by omission - I forget the legal term for this). 

All this to say, I believe the ball is in Mitch's Court, as Nancy has no 'acceptable' (to her) measure of recourse. And even if she took one of those measures, the result would likely rule against her.

I'd be very interested in hearing why the above reasoning is wrong, or what other paths this could take if anyone has insight...?

48 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.

Misdemeanor is a crime.

"A misdemeanor is any "lesser" criminal act in some common law legal systems"

So Mr Kirkman's question stands - what CRIME did he commit?

[Otis11 + 551]

"Any public statement is perjury if it is a lie, and not necessary to deceive an enemy." - not so sure I agree with your source, Tom.

All the President would have to claim to be able to lie and still uphold his oath of office is to believe that telling the lie is in the best interest of the country. It doesn't even have to actually BE in the best interest of the country... simply believe it is would be sufficient to allow it under his oath.

The oath of office is very distinct from the oath of a witness.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Otis11 said:

"Any public statement is perjury if it is a lie, and not necessary to deceive an enemy." - not so sure I agree with your source, Tom.

He called Tim Cook ''Tim Apple'', so perjury and slander.

14 minutes ago, Otis11 said:

So Mr Kirkman's question stands - what CRIME did he commit?

We sorted it. 

[remake it + 288]

18 minutes ago, Otis11 said:

I'd actually argue it is upholding the Constitution to point out where others violate it and use it for their own political purpose instead of it's intent. So if he didn't call Nancy out on this he'd be failing to uphold his oath... which means he's upholding his oath more than previous presidents!

How's that for logic?

The logic is very simple in that one who swears an Oath as prescribed does not get to abuse his undertakings without there being consequences and those undertakings applied to all that the Constitution entails without exception.

18 minutes ago, Otis11 said:

Misdemeanor is a crime.

"A misdemeanor is any "lesser" criminal act in some common law legal systems"

So Mr Kirkman's question stands - what CRIME did he commit?

The nature of impeachable misdemeanors do not necessarily constitute crimes and this was covered in the Hearings but are nevertheless explained in great detail in all the material currently available and which apparently some here are choosing to wave away..

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

6 minutes ago, Otis11 said:

"Any public statement is perjury if it is a lie, and not necessary to deceive an enemy." - not so sure I agree with your source, Tom.

All the President would have to claim to be able to lie and still uphold his oath of office is to believe that telling the lie is in the best interest of the country. It doesn't even have to actually BE in the best interest of the country... simply believe it is would be sufficient to allow it under his oath.

The oath of office is very distinct from the oath of a witness.

Understood.

[Guest]

In fairness to Remake It, this chat is going on and on and on just like the Shale one, and no offence but a lot of you can't agree on certain aspects of it either, apart from ''what remake it says is wrong''. How are you all so sure of that when you can't agree yourselves, plus as Papillon has just pointed out, Remake asks shit all the time that doesn't get answered or counters claims with little argument back. Just an observation, I admittedly don't understand the majority of your weird politics, or care much deep down.  

I will get my coat ...

''Tim Apple'' = perjury and slander. They are crimes. He is going down ...

** Also can people try and just quote a little of others' posts please? I think this thread could be 80% shorter but people have this habit of quoting entire chunks for no reason, so the majority of the thread is actually duplication. Sort it out clowns. Cheers.

Edited December 20, 2019 by Guest

[remake it + 288]

22 minutes ago, Otis11 said:

All the President would have to claim to be able to lie and still uphold his oath of office is to believe that telling the lie is in the best interest of the country.

That argument is wholly contradicted by Clinton's impeachment although there are going to be occasions where hiding the truth may well be in the national interest and that is why the Constitution provides checks and balances.

[Jabbar + 465]

41 minutes ago, Otis11 said:

"Any public statement is perjury if it is a lie, and not necessary to deceive an enemy." - not so sure I agree with your source, Tom.

All the President would have to claim to be able to lie and still uphold his oath of office is to believe that telling the lie is in the best interest of the country. It doesn't even have to actually BE in the best interest of the country... simply believe it is would be sufficient to allow it under his oath.

The oath of office is very distinct from the oath of a witness.

Senator Graham meets with Trump.

Then Fox interviews Graham

"Trump mad as hell want his day in court."

Graham said this trial will be handled exactly like Clinton trial :

* House managers present their case.

* Presidents Lawyers respond to Articles

* No motion to dismiss

* No witneses allowed, like Clinton

* Vote as to aquit or guilt

 

The Interview goes into detail.

https://video.foxnews.com/v/6117185717001#sp=show-clips

Graham said if DEMs were to be successful in getting four Republican Senators (Romney) to agree with DEMs re the four witnesses they want, Graham assumes Trump would excert his executive privilege.

Edited December 20, 2019 by Jabbar

[remake it + 288]

1 hour ago, DayTrader said:

**  quote a little - Sort it 

Sorted

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

6 hours ago, Otis11 said:

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...) 🤣

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

6 hours ago, Otis11 said:

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) 

Nancy (bless her heart 😘), for all her "I'm in charge here" chest-thumping, does not appear to be the driver in this mess.  Bumbling spokesperson at best at times....

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Dan Warnick said:

Nancy (bless her heart 😘), for all her "I'm in charge here" chest-thumping, does not appear to be the driver

I hope not with those kinda 'alcohol in blood' levels.

Edited December 20, 2019 by Guest

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

6 hours ago, Otis11 said:

https://youtu.be/v7XXVLKWd3Q

Hank, the Democrat Congressman in that video, was on the "impeachment panel", if you will, and for the life of me I cannot believe that no other candidate stood up in his district to run against him.  I hate to laugh at him simply because he is trying, and he appears to be both mentally challenged and sedated.  Again, he was one of the Democrat Congressmen/women who sat in judgement of a President.  The mind boggles.  Schiff and company were just filling chairs with people who would believe and support anything, anything, their leader told them to believe and support.

[PE Scott + 563]

2 hours ago, remake it said:

3 hours 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.

I have politely asked the question as well. I am not well versed in law, but as you have shown a strong opinion and seem very confident in your reasoning, I would be interested in a fuller, in depth explanation of your reasoning. Respectfully, I don't think you're a bot and I know from past conversations you're more than capable of writing well, using appropriate punctuation, and even going as far as attacking my own writing to expose mistakes I make.

So please, I would like to know, in your opinion:

What are some specific examples of how trump had violated his oath? What laws had he broken? How has he failed to uphold the constitution or uphold his sworn oath as president?

I'm interested in what you have to say, in your words or even quotes from other people to support your position. Please don't just divert with something like the answer above.

Respectfully,

Scott

[remake it + 288]

2 hours ago, PE Scott said:

What are some specific examples of how trump had violated his oath?

From the very outset of House Judiciary Committee hearings Trump intimidated witness Marie Yovanovitch and this would in normal court proceeding constitute witness tampering aside from also potentially affecting the willingness of other witnesses to appear.

Edited December 20, 2019 by remake it
added "tampering" to correct earlier omission

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

30 minutes ago, DayTrader said:

I hope not with those kinda 'alcohol in blood' levels.

If she were driving herself she would not make the first appointment on any given day.  Nancy is far too important to have to drive herself around town (that's what they tell her so she'll get in the car).

[PE Scott + 563]

2 hours ago, remake it said:

From the very outset of House Judiciary Committee hearings Trump intimidated witness Marie Yovanovitch and this would in normal court proceeding constitute witness aside from also potentially affecting the willingness of other witnesses to appear.

"Everywhere Marie Yovanovitch went turned bad. She started off in Somalia, how did that go?”

“Then fast forward to Ukraine, where the new Ukrainian President spoke unfavorably about her in my second phone call with him. It is a U.S. President’s absolute right to appoint ambassadors.”

-President Trump

I can see what you're getting at and what this article is asserting as being intimidating.  I really don't think that was the intention here and, as unbecoming and poorly timed as the statement may be, it seems more like he was defending his reasoning for removing her as ambassador, not trying to intimidate her or future witnesses. I'll agree that wasn't the smoothest move though and not one of President Trumps finer moments. In fact, he often puts his foot in his mouth with ill advised comments like that. Something I also wish he would cut back on. I don't think the motivation was to intimidate though. 

Thank you for the link and explanation though. Its helpful in understanding your position.

Edited December 20, 2019 by PE Scott

[remake it + 288]

2 hours ago, PE Scott said:

 I really don't think that was the intention here and, as unbecoming and poorly timed as the statement may be, it seems more like he was defending his reasoning for removing her as ambassador, not trying to intimidate her or future witnesses. I'll agree that wasn't the smoothest move though and not one of President Trumps finer moments. In fact, he often puts his foot in his mouth with ill advised comments like that. Something I also wish he would cut back on. I don't think the motivation was to intimidate though. 

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

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

17 hours ago, Jabbar said:

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)

I would have to disagree with your assessment.  First up, Trump is not even "indicted" [your term], as the ministerial act of Presentment has not been undertaken.  Right now, as things stand, all you have is a "vote."

Here is an interesting (and scholarly) take on the current situation:  [bold print added by me]

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

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

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

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

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

Edited December 20, 2019 by Jan van Eck
Added close-quotation mark at end of quoted passage

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

13 hours ago, Otis11 said:

Misdemeanor is a crime.

"A misdemeanor is any "lesser" criminal act in some common law legal systems"

So Mr Kirkman's question stands - what CRIME did he commit?

Foreign readers should understand that the USA does NOT have a "common law legal system" when it comes to the Criminal Code  [for that matter, neither does Canada].  All criminal acts are codified by Statute, and the offenses are Statutory.  Before anyone yells "hair-splitting!" at me, the distinction is not insignificant.  Under the so-called "common law" system, the crime can be inferred or found by the simple act of observation.  This was used by feudal Lords to dispose of pesky people such as poachers hunting game such as deer on the Lord's lands:  you were found on the lands, thus you are guilty of trespassing   (and if you had a gun, then guilty of poaching).  As those crimes (in England, for example) could get you sentenced to "transportation," where you were taken off to some boat in the harbor and sold to the captain, for re-sale in America as an indentured servant, basically a white slave, these common-law charges were serious and had "irreparable harms," which is why they were abolished in the North Americas. 

In the US system, the criminal offense is set forth in Statute, both State Statutes  and in Federal Statutes.  The Federal ones tend to be clogged up with what are essentially political acts, including that all-time favorite, "treason."  The politicians love that one.  Moving on, I observe that all US criminal statutes excepting drunken driving require the government ["the Crown" in monarchical systems such as England} to first establish the element of "intent."  If you had no intent to commit the crime, then the act itself is not a violation of Statute.  For example, the passing of counterfeit money is a Federal Statutory offense, punishable by long imprisonment.  However, if you have unknowingly and unwittingly received the counterfeit bills and were unwittingly handing them to someone else (say, a store clerk), then there is no intent, thus no crime.  So, prosecutors have to always establish intent, and lots of those prosecutions falter on the inability of government to establish intent. 

An interesting anomaly is the issue of drunken driving.  Currently US Law has evolved to have "inferred intent," where going out drinking and then getting behind the wheel of some car and driving off is sufficient to infer the intent of committing the offense.  But if busted, the State (here, the police) still have to establish that you are drunk.  So you get these legal wrangles of "blow into the breathalyzer machine" to try to get a blood-alcohol reading, and get out of the car and do the "walk the line," and recite the alphabet backwards, that sort of thing, all of which are mechanisms to provide evidence.  And when the motorist refuses, yes he gets his license to drive administratively suspended, but can the State prove a crime beyond reasonable doubt?  Typically "no."  

In Britain a smart attorney once advised a motorist:  if you have been drinking and are stopped, wait until the policeman gets to your window, then with great gusto take a large swig of whisky or gin out of a bottle wrapped in a brown wrapper, and swallow it, so now what?  You took a drink in a stopped car under the control of the police, and what evidence can they take that is not contaminated by that act?  Hah!   [I do not recommend that approach in the USA, you might end up shot, but in England, it is an interesting gambit!]

And all this implies that the old Constitutional prohibition against "misdemeanors" likely has a different interpretation than what you have today.  Watch out for these little traps. 

Edited December 20, 2019 by Jan van Eck
scrivener error

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

9 hours ago, Tom Kirkman said:

This is a very simple question.  Asked for the 4th time.  This is not a difficult question:

What crime has Trump committed?

None.   But you already knew that.  

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.  And that one is totally unforgivable!  Renegades that refuse to genuflect are sentenced to being burned at the stake.  The French were especially talented at this. 

[Rob Plant + 2,756]

9 hours ago, DayTrader said:

In fairness to Remake It, this chat is going on and on and on just like the Shale one, and no offence but a lot of you can't agree on certain aspects of it either, apart from ''what remake it says is wrong''. How are you all so sure of that when you can't agree yourselves, plus as Papillon has just pointed out, Remake asks shit all the time that doesn't get answered or counters claims with little argument back. Just an observation, I admittedly don't understand the majority of your weird politics, or care much deep down.  

 

Yep this sums it up pretty well for me too.

Is it me or is the constitution just a very grey fuzzy mess that not even the lawyers can agree on?

Anyway as I've said before we've got our own political mess that we're finally sorting out. The shit storm in American politics is only just beginning.

Enjoy

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

8 minutes ago, Rob Plant said:

is the constitution just a very grey fuzzy mess that not even the lawyers can agree on?

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.

[Rob Plant + 2,756]

3 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.

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?? 

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

The French were far more prolific in culling their monarchy than we ever were, fortunately!

Yep the House of Lords is about as undemocratic as you can get, it is possibly the worst organisation on the planet, jobs for the boys!