Lawyer Explains ABSURDITY of Trump Impeachment Hearings Day 1

[RJB]

Trump will be found guilty. He just must! There is so much evidence hidden. Where are the transcripts of conversations between himself and his 13 year old son, Barron? Where are the stool samples from Ivanka's dog? Why aren't Zippy and the Count allowed to give testimony before Congress about how miserable their lives are because the bad orange man was elected. We need to get to the bottom of this travesty. If Ukraine is a bust like Russia and everything else, we must find something else. We just have to.

[Swordsmyth]

Trump will be found guilty. He just must! There is so much evidence hidden. Where are the transcripts of conversations between himself and his 13 year old son, Barron? Where are the stool samples from Ivanka's dog? Why aren't Zippy and the Count allowed to give testimony about how miserable their lives are because the bad orange man was elected. We need to get to the bottom of this travesty. If Ukraine is a bust like Russia and everything else, we must find something else. We just have to.

The Reasonable Suspicion for all those investigations and any more that they think of is that it was her turn.

[TheCount]

I see, but saying the House has the power of impeachment DOES mean they have unlimited power?

First:
A thing that exists is more than a thing that does not exist.

A power is more power than no power.


Second:
What legal document restricts the House's power of impeachment?

You imagine all sorts of standards and requirements, but are unable to support them.


Again:
Limited by what? Where? Can I read it somewhere? Can you show it to me?

5thA:

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

It's not a criminal case, and he is not going to be deprived of life, liberty, or property.

Therefore, the Constitution does not entitle him to due process.


It's just that easy!


Also, nowhere in the 5th Amendment does it say that it prevents or prohibits others from testifying, only the accused themselves, so even if it did apply, it in no way supports the concept of allowing the President to prevent an aide or official from testifying to Congress.


Drilling home on that last part: Which Founding Father do you think would support the idea that government officials do not have to answer to the representatives of the people? Anyone? Anyone at all?

Where in the proceedings of the Constitutional Convention is such a concept proposed or discussed?

There are laws governing the instigation and conduct of investigations and Congress is NOT immune from them.

They only apply to Congress if they say that they apply to Congress.

Do they?

Again:
Limited by what? Where? Can I read it somewhere? Can you show it to me?

No crime has been committed to be investigated and no conduct meets the reasonable suspicion threshold.

No crime needs to be committed for Congress to conduct oversight of the executive branch.

[Swordsmyth]

First:
A thing that exists is more than a thing that does not exist.

A power is more power than no power.


Second:
What legal document restricts the House's power of impeachment?

You imagine all sorts of standards and requirements, but are unable to support them.


Again:
Limited by what? Where? Can I read it somewhere? Can you show it to me?



It's not a criminal case, and he is not going to be deprived of life, liberty, or property.

Therefore, the Constitution does not entitle him to due process.


It's just that easy!


Also, nowhere in the 5th Amendment does it say that it prevents or prohibits others from testifying, only the accused themselves, so even if it did apply, it in no way supports the concept of allowing the President to prevent an aide or official from testifying to Congress.


Drilling home on that last part: Which Founding Father do you think would support the idea that government officials do not have to answer to the representatives of the people? Anyone? Anyone at all?




They only apply to Congress if they say that they apply to Congress.

Do they?

Again:
Limited by what? Where? Can I read it somewhere? Can you show it to me?





No crime needs to be committed for Congress to conduct oversight of the executive branch.

LOL

Congress isn't bound by the Constitution?
They ARE bound by it and all laws that are pursuant to it.

Impeachment IS a criminal case, it specifically is according to the Constitution and his term in office IS his property.

Congress may indeed investigate and prosecute the President but they MUST have a crime or at least reasonable suspicion to do so.


Congress doesn't have the power to harass or impeach the President for any or no reason, what makes you think the founders intended to allow Congress to abuse and fire the representative of the people chosen to be President?

We are NOT a parliamentary democracy.

[Stratovarious]

They openly gloat about not following any rules and try to tell us that the rules don't apply to them.
Then their trolls come and tell us they are right and that we must follow all the rules while the enemy breaks them all.


Nobody ever survived a gunfight using boxing gloves.

So true,,,,,

[TheCount]

Completely abandoned the argument, huh? That's fine, I'll still take you apart piece by piece.

LOL

Congress isn't bound by the Constitution?

Congress is bound by the Constitution. They are granted a power by it, and so far as I can see, that power is not otherwise limited.

They ARE bound by it and all laws that are pursuant to it.

Correct!

They are, therefore, bound by their own rules for impeachment, which were passed in 2015 by a Republican House and remain in effect to this day.


Oh... but you don't like those rules, do you? You want some other rules to apply, rules which would be more favorable to your of-the-instant feelings... a shame, really.

Impeachment IS a criminal case, it specifically is according to the Constitution and his term in office IS his property.

No, no, and no. This is just as stupid of an argument as when you made it last time.

Despite what you claim, nowhere in the Constitution does it say that impeachment is a criminal matter. In fact, it says the opposite:

Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

Congress may indeed investigate and prosecute the President but they MUST have a crime or at least reasonable suspicion to do so.

Again:
Limited by what? Where? Can I read it somewhere? Can you show it to me?

Congress doesn't have the power to harass or impeach the President for any or no reason

Again:
Limited by what? Where? Can I read it somewhere? Can you show it to me?

what makes you think the founders intended to allow Congress to abuse and fire the representative of the people chosen to be President?

The very thing that you so completely despise: Knowledge.


Better not read it, it might be more than you need to know.

if the President be connected, in any suspicious manner, with any person, and there be grounds to believe he will shelter him, the House of Representatives can impeach him.

There is another provision against the danger, mentioned by the honorable member, of the President receiving emoluments from foreign powers. If discovered, he may be impeached.

[RJB]

Translation:. theCount knows that no crime has been committed, but Orange Man bad.

Completely abandoned the argument, huh? That's fine, I'll still take you apart piece by piece.




Congress is bound by the Constitution. They are granted a power by it, and so far as I can see, that power is not otherwise limited.



Correct!

They are, therefore, bound by their own rules for impeachment, which were passed in 2015 by a Republican House and remain in effect to this day.


Oh... but you don't like those rules, do you? You want some other rules to apply, rules which would be more favorable to your of-the-instant feelings... a shame, really.





No, no, and no. This is just as stupid of an argument as when you made it last time.

Despite what you claim, nowhere in the Constitution does it say that impeachment is a criminal matter. In fact, it says the opposite:






Again:
Limited by what? Where? Can I read it somewhere? Can you show it to me?




Again:
Limited by what? Where? Can I read it somewhere? Can you show it to me?






The very thing that you so completely despise: Knowledge.


Better not read it, it might be more than you need to know.

[TheCount]

Translation:. theCount knows that no crime has been committed, but Orange Man bad.

Maybe try reading the convention minutes that I posted.

[Swordsmyth]

Completely abandoned the argument, huh? That's fine, I'll still take you apart piece by piece.




Congress is bound by the Constitution. They are granted a power by it, and so far as I can see, that power is not otherwise limited.

Wrong, they are limited by the BoR among other limitations.

Correct!

They are, therefore, bound by their own rules for impeachment, which were passed in 2015 by a Republican House and remain in effect to this day.


Oh... but you don't like those rules, do you? You want some other rules to apply, rules which would be more favorable to your of-the-instant feelings... a shame, really.

Their rules are not law and were never passed as legislation and signed by a President.
They remain bound by the actual laws governing investigations and by the Constitution which even a law passed by them couldn't breach.

No, no, and no. This is just as stupid of an argument as when you made it last time.

Despite what you claim, nowhere in the Constitution does it say that impeachment is a criminal matter. In fact, it says the opposite:

It most certainly does say it is a criminal matter:

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.

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

The limitation on what punishment Congress may inflict upon CONVICTION doesn't change a criminal case into anything else.

Again:
Limited by what? Where? Can I read it somewhere? Can you show it to me?

The Constitution and the law.
Ask a lawyer about the laws that govern investigations, they are well known.

Again:
Limited by what? Where? Can I read it somewhere? Can you show it to me?

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.

The very thing that you so completely despise: Knowledge.

Projection.

if the President be connected, in any suspicious manner, with any person, and there be grounds to believe he will shelter him, the House of Representatives can impeach him.

That is about issuing pardons to those who commit crimes on the order of the President.
That hasn't even been alleged and it certainly isn't true.
There is no reasonable suspicion of it even.

There is another provision against the danger, mentioned by the honorable member, of the President receiving emoluments from foreign powers. If discovered, he may be impeached.

That has been alleged but it is not involved in the current impeachment and it isn't true.

And none of that implies a power to prosecute, convict, remove from office and bar from any future office for any or no reason.
They may only do so for actual crimes and they must follow the laws and Constitution in order to investigate them.

[Swordsmyth]

Maybe try reading the convention minutes that I posted.

Yes.

Everyone should get a good laugh at your expense.

[RJB]

Maybe try reading the convention minutes that I posted.

Sounds legit.

[TheCount]

Wrong, they are limited by the BoR among other limitations.

The Bill of Rights is the Constitution. So yes, they are limited by the Constitution... and empowered by the Constitution.


Among other limitations:
Limited by what? Where? Can I read it somewhere? Can you show it to me?

Their rules are not law and were never passed as legislation and signed by a President.

Doesn't matter. They have the sole power of impeachment. Their own rules for their own proceedings are the only rules which govern impeachment, because that is a proceeding of their house of Congress.

If it were any other way, then the Senate and the President would be able to govern impeachment. That is plainly not the intent of the Constitution.

They remain bound by the actual laws governing investigations and by the Constitution which even a law passed by them couldn't breach.

Only if those laws were written to govern Congress or are unlimited. Given that you can't or won't post any such law, I think that we know where this is going...

It most certainly does say it is a criminal matter:

The House cannot and will not convict anyone of anything.

The limitation on what punishment Congress may inflict upon CONVICTION doesn't change a criminal case into anything else.

Again, you are confusing the Senate and the House. Maybe you need a bit more knowledge. Not a lot more, but some.

The Constitution and the law.
Ask a lawyer about the laws that govern investigations, they are well known.

Again:
Only if those laws were written to govern Congress or are unlimited. Given that you can't or won't post any such law, I think that we know where this is going...

That is about issuing pardons to those who commit crimes on the order of the President.

Exactly. The pardon is an explicit and unlimited power given to the President by the Constitution.

Is the use of the pardon a crime? No. It is not a criminal act, and it is against no law.

And yet there it is, clearly stated, that the President could be impeached for it.


You asked for the founders' intent. Well, here you go:
The President could be impeached for the wholly legal and Constitutional use of his power, if Congress so judges that his use of his powers is unacceptable in some way.


It's even worse for your nonsense than that. Read this again:

there be grounds to believe he will shelter him

Even if the President hasn't done anything yet but there is reason to believe that he might, he could still be impeached in anticipation of some conduct that the Congress opposes.

That hasn't even been alleged and it certainly isn't true.
There is no reasonable suspicion of it even.


That has been alleged but it is not involved in the current impeachment and it isn't true.

And none of that implies a power to prosecute, convict, remove from office and bar from any future office for any or no reason.
They may only do so for actual crimes and they must follow the laws and Constitution in order to investigate them.

Again, it's not a crime and yet the President could be impeached for doing it.

[Swordsmyth]

The Bill of Rights is the Constitution. So yes, they are limited by the Constitution... and empowered by the Constitution.


Among other limitations:
Limited by what? Where? Can I read it somewhere? Can you show it to me?

The laws defining Due Process which the Bill of Rights refers to.

Doesn't matter. They have the sole power of impeachment. Their own rules for their own proceedings are the only rules which govern impeachment, because that is a proceeding of their house of Congress.

If it were any other way, then the Senate and the President would be able to govern impeachment. That is plainly not the intent of the Constitution.

WRONG, the Constitution and laws govern impeachment and Congress power over it is restricted by them

Only if those laws were written to govern Congress or are unlimited. Given that you can't or won't post any such law, I think that we know where this is going...

The laws define Due Process which the Constitution gives to all including the President without limit or exception for impeachment.

The House cannot and will not convict anyone of anything.

That doesn't mean they aren't dealing with a criminal matter and aren't bound by the BoR.
Prosecutors and detectives don't convict either but they must abide by Due Process.

Again, you are confusing the Senate and the House. Maybe you need a bit more knowledge. Not a lot more, but some.

Again, it doesn't matter.
Prosecutors and detectives don't convict either but they must abide by Due Process.

Again:
Only if those laws were written to govern Congress or are unlimited. Given that you can't or won't post any such law, I think that we know where this is going...

Again:
The laws defining Due Process which the Bill of Rights refers to.
The laws define Due Process which the Constitution gives to all including the President without limit or exception for impeachment.

Exactly. The pardon is an explicit and unlimited power given to the President by the Constitution.

Is the use of the pardon a crime? No. It is not a criminal act, and it is against no law.

And yet there it is, clearly stated, that the President could be impeached for it.

Misusing the power is a "High Crime" which is specified in the Constitution as impeachable and which is by definition a CRIME.
It's a principle of common law.

You asked for the founders' intent. Well, here you go:
The President could be impeached for the wholly legal and Constitutional use of his power, if Congress so judges that his use of his powers is unacceptable in some way.

WRONG
Again:
Misusing the power is a "High Crime" which is specified in the Constitution as impeachable and which is by definition a CRIME.
It's a principle of common law.

It's even worse for your nonsense than that. Read this again:


Even if the President hasn't done anything yet but there is reason to believe that he might, he could still be impeached in anticipation of some conduct that the Congress opposes.

If the President is involve in the crime, if he ordered it and promised a pardon, for example.
There is no reasonable suspicion of any such thing and that principle doesn't apply to anything but pardons for crimes.

Again, it's not a crime and yet the President could be impeached for doing it.

It IS a crime, it is specifically prohibited in the Constitution which is the supreme law of the land.

AGAIN:

That has been alleged but it is not involved in the current impeachment and it isn't true.

And none of that implies a power to prosecute, convict, remove from office and bar from any future office for any or no reason.
They may only do so for actual crimes and they must follow the laws and Constitution in order to investigate them.

[TheCount]

The laws defining Due Process which the Bill of Rights refers to.

Due process differs depending on context, which is why there are laws specifying due process for various proceedings. It is not universal.

What due process is due an impeachment proceeding, and who decides what that due process should be?

WRONG, the Constitution and laws govern impeachment and Congress power over it is restricted by them

You're arguing nothing with no one. What is wrong? What are you correcting?

The laws define Due Process which the Constitution gives to all including the President without limit or exception for impeachment.

Again:
Due process differs depending on context, which is why there are laws specifying due process for various proceedings. It is not universal.

What due process is due an impeachment proceeding, and who decides what that due process should be?

That doesn't mean they aren't dealing with a criminal matter and aren't bound by the BoR.

The BoR says what it applies to. Impeachment does not meet the standard specified.

Even if it did meet the standard of a criminal proceeding, that only applies to one sub-clause of the 5th amendment, not the rest. It's also not the part that you keep arguing about.

Prosecutors and detectives don't convict either but they must abide by Due Process.

There are laws that govern the action of prosecutors and detectives. I can show them to you, if you'd like.

Meanwhile, you are unable to show the laws governing impeachment. Why is that?

Again:
Due process differs depending on context, which is why there are laws specifying due process for various proceedings. It is not universal.

What due process is due an impeachment proceeding, and who decides what that due process should be?

Again:
The laws defining Due Process which the Bill of Rights refers to.
The laws define Due Process which the Constitution gives to all including the President without limit or exception for impeachment.

Which laws, Swordy? Show them to us. C'mon.

Misusing the power is a "High Crime" which is specified in the Constitution as impeachable and which is by definition a CRIME.

What constitutes misuse of a pardon?

Where is that specified?

What limits the President's ability to pardon?

Where does it say that?

It's a principle of common law.

Again:
Where? Can I read it somewhere? Can you show it to me?

WRONG
Again:
Misusing the power is a "High Crime" which is specified in the Constitution as impeachable and which is by definition a CRIME.
It's a principle of common law.

Saying it twice doesn't make it magically true.

If the President is involve in the crime, if he ordered it and promised a pardon, for example.
There is no reasonable suspicion of any such thing and that principle doesn't apply to anything but pardons for crimes.

Nowhere does it say that.

It IS a crime, it is specifically prohibited in the Constitution which is the supreme law of the land.

If it's a crime, what is the punishment?

And none of that implies a power to prosecute, convict, remove from office and bar from any future office for any or no reason.

Why not? They are the sole arbiter of what it means.

They may only do so for actual crimes and they must follow the laws and Constitution in order to investigate them.

A pardon is not an actual crime.

[Swordsmyth]

Due process differs depending on context, which is why there are laws specifying due process for various proceedings. It is not universal.

What due process is due an impeachment proceeding, and who decides what that due process should be?



You're arguing nothing with no one. What is wrong? What are you correcting?



Again:
Due process differs depending on context, which is why there are laws specifying due process for various proceedings. It is not universal.

What due process is due an impeachment proceeding, and who decides what that due process should be?



The BoR says what it applies to. Impeachment does not meet the standard specified.

Even if it did meet the standard of a criminal proceeding, that only applies to one sub-clause of the 5th amendment, not the rest. It's also not the part that you keep arguing about.



There are laws that govern the action of prosecutors and detectives. I can show them to you, if you'd like.

Meanwhile, you are unable to show the laws governing impeachment. Why is that?

Again:
Due process differs depending on context, which is why there are laws specifying due process for various proceedings. It is not universal.

What due process is due an impeachment proceeding, and who decides what that due process should be?




Which laws, Swordy? Show them to us. C'mon.




What constitutes misuse of a pardon?

Where is that specified?

What limits the President's ability to pardon?

Where does it say that?



Again:
Where? Can I read it somewhere? Can you show it to me?





Saying it twice doesn't make it magically true.




Nowhere does it say that.




If it's a crime, what is the punishment?




Why not? They are the sole arbiter of what it means.




A pardon is not an actual crime.

You aren't worth educating.

[TheCount]

You aren't worth educating.

You couldn't possibly pay me a greater compliment.

[acptulsa]

You couldn't possibly pay me a greater compliment.

You conducted an interesting experiment. It would seem that if the truth is repeated often enough, the truth can become the truth.

When the truth comes out that this impeachment is a circus, I wonder if anyone will repeat that? The truth is, Clinton's impeachment was a circus, but there were crimes he could have been properly impeached for, and removed, and jailed. I don't see anyone repeating that.

[misterx]

I'm really getting bored with the TDS. I can't even be bothered to respond to these people anymore. At this point everyone knows that it's all just blind hatred.

[TheCount]

When the truth comes out that this impeachment is a circus, I wonder if anyone will repeat that? The truth is, Clinton's impeachment was a circus, but there were crimes he could have been properly impeached for, and removed, and jailed. I don't see anyone repeating that.

Worse.

In the time of Clinton's impeachment, no one argued that Congress couldn't impeach him, only that they shouldn't.


How far we've come since then...

[jmdrake]

\\

[jmdrake]

Worse.

In the time of Clinton's impeachment, no one argued that Congress couldn't impeach him, only that they shouldn't.


How far we've come since then...

Straw man argument. Nobody is arguing that Trump can't be impeached. In fact it's pretty much a forgone conclusion that he will be impeached but he won't be removed. The same was true for Clinton.

[jmdrake]

That's what you are doing.
You are either ignorant or making things up.
Hitlery and the coup plotters conspired with Ukrainians to manufacture dirt on Trump as part of the Russiagate hoax.

I post facts and give links. You post your opinion as fact. You have not posted a single link to support your claim that there is a connection between the Crowdstrike server and corruption within the Ukrainian government or the Ukrainian government interfering with the U.S. election. Those are separate issues.

[acptulsa]

Straw man argument. Nobody is arguing that Trump can't be impeached. In fact it's pretty much a forgone conclusion that he will be impeached but he won't be removed. The same was true for Clinton.

Well, maybe no one spent this thread arguing that they cannot, but somebody certainly spent it insisting that they may not.

Or are you arguing that he's a straw man?

[jmdrake]

Well, maybe no one spent this thread arguing that they cannot, but somebody certainly spent it insisting that they may not.

Or are you arguing that he's a straw man?

LOL. Maybe "he" is. Okay. I rephrase my statement. No person with any credibility is suggesting that Trump cannot or may not be impeached. Even Sean Hannity isn't saying that. Saying it would be wrong to impeach Trump isn't the same as saying it can't happen.

[Swordsmyth]

I post facts and give links. You post your opinion as fact. You have not posted a single link to support your claim that there is a connection between the Crowdstrike server and corruption within the Ukrainian government or the Ukrainian government interfering with the U.S. election. Those are separate issues.

They are connected and the evidence has been posted many times in other threads dedicated to the question.

[Swordsmyth]

Well, maybe no one spent this thread arguing that they cannot, but somebody certainly spent it insisting that they may not.

Or are you arguing that he's a straw man?

I didn't say either.
I said he can't be impeached for any or no reason and that the current impeachment effort lacks the required basis for an investigation let alone an impeachment.

[jmdrake]

They are connected and the evidence has been posted many times in other threads dedicated to the question.

Then you should have no problem posting a link to said evidence.

[Swordsmyth]

Then you should have no problem posting a link to said evidence.

Fraud Upon the FISA Court Confirmed

Obama White House engaged Ukraine to give Russia collusion narrative an early boost

Glenn Beck has audio of a Ukrainian Anti-corruption investigator saying they were trying to help Hillary, because she is part of a hegemonic cabal in America and the world, which was better for the Ukrainians, while Trump was better for America

Ukraine 'Anti-Corruption' Director Bragged About Helping Hillary Clinton In 2016: Leaked Audio

Ukraine Gave More Money To Clinton Foundation That Any Nation On Earth

This one is biased but it admits the connection:
Trump Is Pressuring Ukraine to Smear Clinton and Biden

[jmdrake]

Fraud Upon the FISA Court Confirmed

From your first link.

Meanwhile, the Crowdstrike analyst who led forensics on the DNC servers is a former FBI employee who Robert Mueller promoted while head of the agency. It should also be noted that the government of Ukraine admonished Crowdstrike for a report they later retracted and amended, claiming that Russia hacked Ukrainian military.

^That is not implicating the government of Ukraine as being a corrupt partner with Crowdstrike. Quite the opposite in fact.

[Swordsmyth]

From your first link.

Meanwhile, the Crowdstrike analyst who led forensics on the DNC servers is a former FBI employee who Robert Mueller promoted while head of the agency. It should also be noted that the government of Ukraine admonished Crowdstrike for a report they later retracted and amended, claiming that Russia hacked Ukrainian military.

^That is not implicating the government of Ukraine as being a corrupt partner with Crowdstrike. Quite the opposite in fact.

That is just one facet, Ukraine was up to their eyeballs in conspiracy with the Clinton's and the DNC and the Conspiracy was the same one that involved Crowdstrike.

The whole Russiagate hoax is all one subject and Trump is free to choose which aspect of it to pursue in any given phone call.