WATCH LIVE: Senate Impeachment Trial of Donald Trump (Day Six)

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2381

Treason definition. Note that there's nothing in there relating to monetary aid, or the use of monetary aid. And because no bribe is observable, one can't charge bribery or extortion either.

 

Which when questioned, turned out to be their personal opinion, presumptions and belief.

Not fact.

 

That's nonsense. They testified to what they saw and heard. Do you think Hill just made up her testimony regarding the meetings with Sondland and the Ukrainians or her conversations with Bolton? Do you think Sondland made up his testimony about conversations with the President?

 

Why'd you quote Bush Lawyer lol? He's on your side and I dont believe he was talking about what your talking about

 

'Akin.'

 

Akin- a word used as cover so one can embellish their opponents views to an illogical point or position

 

Here it means of similar character. In the US?

 

And none of them saw or heard anything that can be definitively confirmed as fact.

It is just their personal opinion, presumption and belief.

 

My comment was for "MolonLabe2009."

 

What you said is akin to a grammar teacher saying opaque is transparent....

Now when you say "I didn't say that!" I can point to me using the word akin to say I just thought it was smiliar

Hence the definition in debate terms

Akin:
a word used as cover so one can embellish their opponents views to an illogical point or position

 

Ah ok was confused why you quoted bl

 

I am not debating. I am stating fact.

 

You are doing neither.

 

What would you call anybody who sold out their own Country's national security interests?

 

When you used the word were you debating? I'd contend yes and my evidence for that is that you are on a debate forum

 

I'll ask you as well.

What would you call anybody who sold out their own Country's national security interests?

 

What would you call a person who states things as fact that there is no possible way they could have 100% verified their statement?

 

Obama.

 

My guess is that our Founders aimed for political crimes more serious than policy differences, but not necessarily statute crimes. They all knew pretty much what treason was, so were able to define it in the Constitution. Bribery, close to the same. But impeachment was originally a tool for the Parliament's assumption of power from the monarchy and aimed at the King's Minister's who still believed in the monarch's sovereignty and occasionally went against the will of Parliament. According to one study, in an American classic on Impeachment, about half of the Parliament's impeachments against Ministers were for the misappropriation of funds. That wouldn't have been treason (which involves a foreign power) or necessarily bribery. Just the refusal to use funds as directed by Parliament and that became "high crimes and misdemeanors." It was something between a vote of no confidence and bribery or treason and deliberately left vague for definition by future Congresses.

Also, I am guessing, but I doubt your Prime Minister is immune from prosecution. If he committed a statute crime, he would be arrested and then would either resign or be put to a vote of confidence and ousted, upon conviction of the crime, if not sooner.

Dershowitz & Colleagues are neglecting the fact that Trump blocking the funds, even temporarily, without notifying Congress, was a violation of law. The President get's one crack at blocking legislation via the veto power. If he signs the bill and it becomes law, the law must be carried out, which is his prime function. If there is good cause for delay (such as reevaluating all foreign aid), he must first inform Congress BEFORE taking action, and give Congress 45 days to approve or disapprove. He failed to do this. The example Dershowitz used about the President threatening to cut off aid to Israel if they didn't comply with his desire to block the settlement of the West Bank might be a stated policy goal, but without Congresses' agreement would be illegal.

 

Isn't that Kurt Voughts job? So depending on if he wanted to couldn't he just fall on that grenade?

 

Was this question too hard?

What would you call anybody who sold out their own Country's national security interests?

 

Cute as much as it is pointless.

 

What's the basis behind the question?

 

You are right, largely. He certainly is not immune from prosecution. Here, we go after politicians like rabid dogs. The 'tall poppy' syndrome is alive and very well here. If an Aussie PM did what Trump did, he'd be gone in a day.

 

Too hard to simply answer it. Worried it might have a kicker to it?