Jenna Ellis: Trump impeachment trial – Here are four legal problems House Democrats have to face
Here are the four legal problems the president’s brief reveals that House Democrats have:
1. The Substance Problem — The Articles don’t identify any impeachable offense or even any crime
Article II, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution clearly and intentionally limits impeachment to instances of “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” The two articles of impeachment do not allege any conduct that fits within that constitutional definition, or even any crime whatsoever. “Abuse of power” and “obstruction of Congress” are vague allegations and a newly invented theory from the Democrats — not an allegation that is a violation of any actual law.
2. The Process Problem — The Impeachment inquiry was irredeemably flawed
House Democrats violated all precedent and due process while conducting their impeachment inquiry and their goal was never to ascertain the truth. Certain constitutional protections, including due process, are afforded to every defendant and the context of an impeachment and a trial is no different legally in terms of constitutional protections.
3. The Evidence Problem — House Democrats have no evidence to support their claims
The evidence in the House record shows President Trump didn’t condition security assistance or a presidential meeting on announcement of any investigations. Further, witnesses only provided their beliefs, interpretation, and speculation, and most were not even directly knowledgable of the July 25 call. The two people actually on the call— President Trump and Ukraine President Zelensky—both have affirmed there was no pressure or condition. In fact, Ukraine wasn’t even aware the aid was temporarily held, which was entirely unrelated to the phone call.
4. The Structure Problem — The Articles are structurally deficient and can only result in acquittal.
In law, there is a prohibition against a charge that is “duplicitous”— that is, if it charges two or more acts or offenses in the same count.
试想，讲来民主党总统上台了，和司法部长一合计，在给习大大打个电话，DO US A FAVOR， 出个黑名单，单子上有伊万卡，库什纳，小川普，赵小兰.......
不要小看深州的记仇和报复能力，老川老龟的前途，我都不敢想......
不过，有了这个弹劾案，民主党总统就算是想利用公权力报复老川老龟家族，也得掂量掂量了。
【 在 cellcycle (vacoule) 的大作中提到: 】 : Jenna Ellis: Trump impeachment trial – Here are four legal problems House : Democrats have to face : Here are the four legal problems the president’s brief reveals that House : Democrats have: : 1. The Substance Problem — The Articles don’t identify any impeachable : offense or even any crime : Article II, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution clearly and intentionally : limits impeachment to instances of “treason, bribery, or other high crimes : and misdemeanors.” The two articles of impeachment do not allege any : conduct that fits within that constitutional definition, or even any crime : ...................
Jenna Ellis: Trump impeachment trial – Here are four legal problems House
Democrats have to face
Here are the four legal problems the president’s brief reveals that House
Democrats have:
1. The Substance Problem — The Articles don’t identify any impeachable
offense or even any crime
Article II, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution clearly and intentionally
limits impeachment to instances of “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” The two articles of impeachment do not allege any
conduct that fits within that constitutional definition, or even any crime
whatsoever. “Abuse of power” and “obstruction of Congress” are vague
allegations and a newly invented theory from the Democrats — not an
allegation that is a violation of any actual law.
2. The Process Problem — The Impeachment inquiry was irredeemably flawed
House Democrats violated all precedent and due process while conducting
their impeachment inquiry and their goal was never to ascertain the truth.
Certain constitutional protections, including due process, are afforded to
every defendant and the context of an impeachment and a trial is no
different legally in terms of constitutional protections.
3. The Evidence Problem — House Democrats have no evidence to support their claims
The evidence in the House record shows President Trump didn’t condition
security assistance or a presidential meeting on announcement of any
investigations. Further, witnesses only provided their beliefs,
interpretation, and speculation, and most were not even directly
knowledgable of the July 25 call. The two people actually on the call—
President Trump and Ukraine President Zelensky—both have affirmed there was no pressure or condition. In fact, Ukraine wasn’t even aware the aid was
temporarily held, which was entirely unrelated to the phone call.
4. The Structure Problem — The Articles are structurally deficient and can only result in acquittal.
In law, there is a prohibition against a charge that is “duplicitous”—
that is, if it charges two or more acts or offenses in the same count.
But you are talking sense, Democrap does not talk sense, so no problem.
是的，该说还要说说，情绪过后，人还是能恢复些理智的..
【在 chikhao(chike)的大作中提到：】
：But you are talking sense, Democrap does not talk sense, so no problem.
impeachment不行，是根本不用说的。甚至根本不用进行专业的分析。退后三步从远处
看，一个超级大国的总统，跟另一国总统打了个电话，做出了一项关于是否把自己国家纳税人的钱用于援助另一个国家的决定，结果被国会要求逐字逐句解释，周边的staff
纷纷被要求作证提供前因后果，全国媒体一起分析“总统是怎么想的”，而且出发点还是有罪推定。这种待遇，在美国历史上是首次，在世界历史上属罕见，随便问任何一个国家有常识的民众，都会觉得匪夷所思，开国国父们和宪法制定者，更是想都没想过弹劾系统还能这么用。
最可怕的是这个国家居然有几千万人认为这个弹劾是有道理的。我仿佛在看一部魔幻讽刺小说。
民主党的弹劾行为，其实还是保护了老川和老龟。
试想，讲来民主党总统上台了，和司法部长一合计，在给习大大打个电话，DO US A
FAVOR， 出个黑名单，单子上有伊万卡，库什纳，小川普，赵小兰.......
不要小看深州的记仇和报复能力，老川老龟的前途，我都不敢想......
不过，有了这个弹劾案，民主党总统就算是想利用公权力报复老川老龟家族，也得掂量掂量了。
【 在 cellcycle (vacoule) 的大作中提到: 】
: Jenna Ellis: Trump impeachment trial – Here are four legal problems House
: Democrats have to face
: Here are the four legal problems the president’s brief reveals that House
: Democrats have:
: 1. The Substance Problem — The Articles don’t identify any impeachable
: offense or even any crime
: Article II, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution clearly and intentionally
: limits impeachment to instances of “treason, bribery, or other high
crimes
: and misdemeanors.” The two articles of impeachment do not allege any
: conduct that fits within that constitutional definition, or even any crime
: ...................
发春又想多了。。。，你得了疫症了，天天冥想。。
这事有早爆了。。
【在 comeandgo(春困秋乏夏打盹)的大作中提到：】
：民主党的弹劾行为，其实还是保护了老川和老龟。
：
今天早上看新闻，采访以前的哈佛宪法教授，现在的trump辩护团队成员：Alan
Dershowitz。 老头说现在弹劾没有crime 基础，因为这里没有犯罪事实。你不能对总
统的mind或者是motion进行弹劾，这个非常危险。如果这个成为案例，那么以后的每一个总统都会被弹劾，因为总统会有不同的想法和决定。一旦有另一个党派反对就可以对这个进行弹劾。这个对美国来说非常危险，会导致不可避免的政治动荡。
这让我想到一个搞笑的东西：在东成西就里，王祖贤去客栈大骂小二：想也不可以，想也有罪.....
Trump就是那个被骂的店小二，老佩就是王祖贤（表妹）：）
Alan Dershowitz就是这么替OJ Simpson脱罪的。
so？
【 在 hulooo (hulu) 的大作中提到: 】
: Alan Dershowitz就是这么替OJ Simpson脱罪的。