[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Trump Is Planning to Send Kill Teams to Mexico to Take Out Cartel Leaders The Great Falling Away in the Church is Here | Tim Dilena How Ridiculous? Blade-Less Swiss Army Knife Debuts As Weapon Laws Tighten Jewish students beaten with sticks at University of Amsterdam Terrorists shut down Park Avenue. Police begin arresting democrats outside Met Gala. The minute the total solar eclipse appeared over US Three Types Of People To Mark And Avoid In The Church Today Are The 4 Horsemen Of The Apocalypse About To Appear? France sends combat troops to Ukraine battlefront Facts you may not have heard about Muslims in England. George Washington University raises the Hamas flag. American Flag has been removed. Alabama students chant Take A Shower to the Hamas terrorists on campus. In Day of the Lord, 24 Church Elders with Crowns Join Jesus in His Throne In Day of the Lord, 24 Church Elders with Crowns Join Jesus in His Throne Deadly Saltwater and Deadly Fresh Water to Increase Deadly Cancers to soon Become Thing of the Past? Plague of deadly New Diseases Continues [FULL VIDEO] Police release bodycam footage of Monroe County District Attorney Sandra Doorley traffi Police clash with pro-Palestine protesters on Ohio State University campus Joe Rogan Experience #2138 - Tucker Carlson Police Dispersing Student Protesters at USC - Breaking News Coverage (College Protests) What Passover Means For The New Testament Believer Are We Closer Than Ever To The Next Pandemic? War in Ukraine Turns on Russia what happened during total solar eclipse Israel Attacks Iran, Report Says - LIVE Breaking News Coverage Earth is Scorched with Heat Antiwar Activists Chant ‘Death to America’ at Event Featuring Chicago Alderman Vibe Shift A stream that makes the pleasant Rain sound. Older Men - Keep One Foot In The Dark Ages When You Really Want to Meet the Diversity Requirements CERN to test world's most powerful particle accelerator during April's solar eclipse Utopian Visionaries Who Won’t Leave People Alone No - no - no Ain'T going To get away with iT Pete Buttplug's Butt Plugger Trying to Turn Kids into Faggots Mark Levin: I'm sick and tired of these attacks Questioning the Big Bang James Webb Data Contradicts the Big Bang Pssst! Don't tell the creationists, but scientists don't have a clue how life began A fine romance: how humans and chimps just couldn't let go Early humans had sex with chimps O’Keefe dons bulletproof vest to extract undercover journalist from NGO camp. Biblical Contradictions (Alleged) Catholic Church Praising Lucifer Raising the Knife One Of The HARDEST Videos I Had To Make.. Houthi rebels' attack severely damages a Belize-flagged ship in key strait leading to the Red Sea (British Ship) Chinese Illegal Alien. I'm here for the moneuy Status: Not Logged In; Sign In U.S. Constitution See other U.S. Constitution Articles Title: House Judiciary Committee Majority Report on Constitutional Grounds for Presidential Impeachment (Dec 2019) Source: House Judiciary Committee URL Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/438 ... sidential-Impeachment-Dec-2019 Published: Dec 7, 2019 Author: Judiciary Committee Staff Post Date: 2019-12-07 21:08:07 by nolu chan Keywords: None Views: 4152 Comments: 20 House Judiciary Committee Majority Report on Constitutional Grounds for Presidential Impeachment (Dec 2019) The Foreward by Mr. Nadler contains the following disclaimer: The views and conclusions contained in the report are staff views and do not necessarily reflect those of the Committee on the Judiciary or any of its members. Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread   Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 2. #1. To: All (#0) House Report at 50-51: It is inconceivable that our Framers authorized the removal of Presidents who engage in treason or bribery, but disallowed the removal of Presidents who attempt such offenses and are caught before they succeed. Moreover, a President who takes concrete steps toward engaging in impeachable conduct is not entitled to any benefit of the doubt. As one scholar remarks in the context of attempts to manipulate elections, “when a substantial attempt is made by a candidate to procure the presidency by corrupt means, we may presume that he at least thought this would make a difference in the outcome, and thus we should resolve any doubts as to the effects of his efforts against him.”270 [...] 270 Black & Bobbitt, Impeachment, at 93. By a stroke of good fortune I just happen to have a copy of Black and Bobbitt's Impeachment, and I am able to complete the quote. The sensible rule ought to be that when a substantial attempt is made by a candidate to procure the presidency by corrupt means, we may presume that he at least thought this would make a difference in the outcome, and thus we should resolve any doubts as to the effects of his efforts against him. Yet we must confine the operation of such a rule to truly substantial constitutional crimes, lest we ensnare every successful campaign in an unending postmortem in search of nonconstitutional misdeeds. That was sure some fine editing by the Majority staff. As a note for those not acquainted with the "authors" of this book, it was not jointly authored. Charles L. Black Jr. was a preeminent legal scholar whose short work on impeachment is considered a classic. Part I of this book and ends at page 61. That copyright is from 1974. Phillip Bobbitt, a nephew of LBJ, is a less eminent legal scholar. He wrote Part II of this book, which is appended to the classic work of Charles Black, and goes from page 65 to page 162, copyright 2018. Phillip Bobbitt is known for being the then 63 year old Columbia law school professor who married a young lady (Justice Kagan presiding at SCOTUS) who stopped being one of his 3-L students when the relationship became known. The Bobbitt maid/nanny (Sophia Samuels) sued the Bobbitts this year for violations of minimum and overtime wages, spread-of-hours pay, untimely payment of wages, and notice and record-keeping requirements. https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/13585162/1/samuels-v-bobbitt/ Samuels v. Bobbitt, SDNY 1:19-cv-00576 (20 Jan 2019) Doc 1 COMPLAINT https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/26774329/Samuels_v_Bobbitt_et_al The Docket Report indicates the case was settled on 31 May 2019. nolu chan  posted on  2019-12-07   21:15:06 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #2. To: nolu chan, Impeach and Remove, *The Two Parties ARE the Same* (#1) President Trump’s evidentiary challenges are misplaced as a matter of constitutional law and common sense. The Constitution does not prescribe rules of evidence for impeachment proceedings in the House or Senate. Consistent with its sole powers to impeach and to determine the rules of its proceedings, the House is constitutionally authorized to consider any evidence that it believes may illuminate the issues before it. At this fact- finding stage, “no technical ‘rules of evidence’ apply,” and “ [e]vidence may come from investigations by committee staff, from grand jury matter made available to the committee, or from any other source.” 228 The House may thus “ subpoena documents, call witnesses, hold hearings, make legal de-terminations, and undertake any other activities necessary to fulfill [its] mandate.” 229 When deciding whether to bring charges against the President, the House is not restricted by the Constitution in deciding which evidence to consider or how much weight to afford it. President Donnell prefers to ignore the Constitution and spin some shuck 'n jive on the Sean Hannity show. Hondo68  posted on  2019-12-07   22:01:41 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   Replies to Comment # 2. #3. To: Hondo68 (#2) The Constitution does not prescribe rules of evidence for impeachment proceedings in the House or Senate. Consistent with its sole powers to impeach and to determine the rules of its proceedings, the House is constitutionally authorized to consider any evidence that it believes may illuminate the issues before it. At this fact-finding stage, “no technical ‘rules of evidence’ apply,” and “[e]vidence may come from investigations by committee staff, from grand jury matter made available to the committee, or from any other source.” 228 Footnote 228 reads, "228 Black & Bobbitt, Impeachment, at 9." Fortunately, I just happen to have that book, among others. Sloppy ass incompetent crap. The quote starts at 8, not 9. Here, the missing material between the two quotes is "(Indeed, I shall argue later that they do not apply even in the Senate trial.)" Theoretically correct, but as a matter of fact, unless the Senate Rules are changed, strict rules of evidence will continue to apply as they have for a few centuries. At this fact-finding stage, “no technical ‘rules of evidence’ apply,....” But in that faithful old government publication of Rules of Evidence in an Impeachment Trial, it states: [boldface as in original] 2218. After discussion of English precedents, the Senate ruled decisively in the Peck trial that the strict rules of evidence in force in the courts should be applied. Witnesses in an impeachment trial are required to state facts and not opinions. [...] When they get out of that "fact-finding stage," and get into the trial stage, none of the hearsay or less than "best evidence" comes in. The Republican led Senate is highly unlikely to waive centuries of precedent to help Sloppy Jerry avoid disaster. 2226. In impeachment trials the rule that the best evidence procurable should be presented has been followed. It was decided in the Belknap trial that a witness might not be examined as to the contents of an existing letter without the letter itself being submitted. Instance wherein the President pro tempore ruled on evidence during an impeachment trial. On April 4, 1868,2 in the Senate sitting for the impeachment trial of Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, Mr. Robert S. Chew, chief clerk of the State Department, was sworn as a witness on behalf of the House of Representatives, and examined by Mr. Manager Benjamin F. Butler as to the practice of making temporary appointments of assistant secretaries of Departments to perform the duties of their chiefs in the absence of the latter. The witness testified that the appointments in such cases were made by the President, or by his order. Mr. Butler then asked: Did the letter of authority in most of these cases * * * proceed from the head of the Department or from the President? Mr. William M. Evarts, of counsel for the President, objected that the letter of authority showed from whom it came, and was the best evidence on that point. In the discussion which followed, the counsel for the President intimated that they did not object if the question was intended to elicit a reply as to whose manual possession the paper came from. But if it was intended to ascertain who signed the paper, then the paper itself would be the best evidence. Mr. Butler reduced the question to writing as follows: Question. State whether any of the letters of authority which you have mentioned came from the Secretary of State or from what other officer? The Chief Justice3 thereupon made an inquiry which led to this colloquy: The CHIEF JUSTICE. ‘‘Came from the Secretary of State.’’ Do I understand you to mean signed by him? Mr. Manager BUTLER. I am not anxious upon that part of it, sir. I am content with the question as it stands. The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Chief Justice conceives that the question in the form in which it is put is not objectionable, but— Mr. Manager BUTLER. I will put it, then, with the leave of the Chief Justice. The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Chief Justice was about to proceed to say that if it is intended to ask the question whether these documents of which a list is furnished were signed by the Secretary, then he thinks it is clearly incompetent without producing them. Mr. Manager BUTLER. Under favor, Mr. President, I have no list of these documents; none has been furnished. The CHIEF JUSTICE. Does not the question relate to the list which has been furnished? Mr. Manager BUTLER. It relates to the people whose names have been put upon the list; but I have no list of the documents at all. I have only a list of the facts that such appointments were made, but I have no list of the letters, whether they came from the President or from the Secretary or from anybody else. The CHIEF JUSTICE. In the form in which the question is put the Chief Justice thinks it is not objectionable. If any Senator desires to have the question taken by the Senate, he will put it to the Senate. [To the managers, no Senator speaking.] You can put the question in the form proposed. Mr. Manager BUTLER (to the witness). State whether any of the letters of authority which you have mentioned came from the Secretary of State, or from what other officer. Mr. CURTIS. I understand the witness is not to answer by whom they were sent. Mr. Manager BUTLER. I believe I have this witness. The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Chief Justice will instruct the witness. [To the witness.] You are not to answer at present by whom these documents were signed. You may say from whom they came. __________ 2 Second session Fortieth Congress, Globe supplement, p. 118. 3 Salmon P. Chase, of Ohio, Chief Justice. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 2230. In the Swayne trial hearsay testimony introduced to show inconvenience to litigants from respondent’s conduct was ruled out. [...] - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 2235. In general during impeachment trials questions as to conversations with third parties, not in presence of respondent, have been excluded from evidence.—On March 8, 1803,2 in the high court of impeachment during the trial of John Pickering, judge of the United States district court of New Hampshire, Mr. Jonathan Steele was testifying, when, Mr. Joseph H. Nicholson, of Maryland, chairman of the managers for the House of Representatives, addressed the court. He said he wished in case it should be deemed proper by the court, to ask one of the witnesses whether he had conversed with the family physician of Judge Pickering, and what his opinion was as to the origination of his insanity. Mr. Nicholson observed that he had doubts of the propriety of this question, and therefore, in the first instance, stated it to the court. The court decided the question inadmissible. Later, on the same day, this witness, in the course of his testimony, was going on to state some conversation he had with Judge Pickering’s physician at this time which he was induced to ask in consequence of solicitude to gain true information as to the reported intemperance of the Judge, when he was interrupted by the Court,1 and informed that this species of testimony had been already decided to be inadmissible. __________ 2 First session Eighth Congress, Annals, pp. 358, 359. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 2238. In the Johnson trial declarations of respondent, made anterior to the act, and even concomitant with it, were held inadmissible as evidence. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 2245. In the Johnson trial the Chief Justice ruled that an official message transmitted after the act was not admissible as evidence to show intent. nolu chan  posted on  2019-12-08 00:57:01 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   End Trace Mode for Comment # 2. Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register]  Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com