Impeachment!

Discussion of current events
User avatar
Doc
Posts: 4059
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 7:09 pm
Location: Cradle To Grave

Re: Impeachment!

Post by Doc » Sun Feb 09, 2020 3:52 pm

Milo wrote:
Sun Feb 09, 2020 2:51 pm
Doc wrote:
Sun Feb 09, 2020 1:05 pm
Milo wrote:
Sat Feb 08, 2020 10:45 pm
Doc wrote:
Sat Feb 08, 2020 10:31 pm
Milo wrote:
Sat Feb 08, 2020 9:50 pm
Doc wrote:
Sat Feb 08, 2020 7:21 pm



He was accused of treason for 3 years. WITHOUT EVIDENCE. By a bunch of liars inclulding Joe Biden. As well as Bloomberg and Steyer:

Yes, no president has ever had a hard time before and everybody says the job is free of any critique!
They were trying to impeach Trump before he was even elected.
Yes, such persecution of a President is unique in all of history! Poor widdle twumpy!
It certainly is unique. Especially given that unlike Clinton Trump was not charged with any actual crimes.
No.
Trump is accused of abuse of power for his alleged efforts to strong-arm Ukraine into investigating his potential Democratic opponent, Joe Biden, by withholding military aid and an Oval Office visit; and of obstruction of Congress, for his efforts to block cooperation with Congress on its impeachment inquiry.

"Like the Clinton and Nixon articles, they don’t allege a particular statutory criminal violation by name, but they do allege facts that could be charged as a crime in an ordinary court," said Frank Bowman, author of "High Crimes and Misdemeanors: A History of Impeachment for the Age of Trump" and a University of Missouri law professor.
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2 ... impeached/
Name the statuary crime. I already know you can not name it because there is no crime named "abuse of power" There is no court that is going to convict someone for going to court to defend their rights of the "crime" of "Obstruction of congress"

BTW Clinton committed perjury. Lost his law license because of it.
“"I fancied myself as some kind of god....It is a sort of disease when you consider yourself some kind of god, the creator of everything, but I feel comfortable about it now since I began to live it out.” -- George Soros

User avatar
Milo
Posts: 2436
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 10:14 pm

Re: Impeachment!

Post by Milo » Sun Feb 09, 2020 4:05 pm

Doc wrote:
Sun Feb 09, 2020 3:52 pm
Milo wrote:
Sun Feb 09, 2020 2:51 pm
Doc wrote:
Sun Feb 09, 2020 1:05 pm
Milo wrote:
Sat Feb 08, 2020 10:45 pm
Doc wrote:
Sat Feb 08, 2020 10:31 pm
Milo wrote:
Sat Feb 08, 2020 9:50 pm


Yes, no president has ever had a hard time before and everybody says the job is free of any critique!
They were trying to impeach Trump before he was even elected.
Yes, such persecution of a President is unique in all of history! Poor widdle twumpy!
It certainly is unique. Especially given that unlike Clinton Trump was not charged with any actual crimes.
No.
Trump is accused of abuse of power for his alleged efforts to strong-arm Ukraine into investigating his potential Democratic opponent, Joe Biden, by withholding military aid and an Oval Office visit; and of obstruction of Congress, for his efforts to block cooperation with Congress on its impeachment inquiry.

"Like the Clinton and Nixon articles, they don’t allege a particular statutory criminal violation by name, but they do allege facts that could be charged as a crime in an ordinary court," said Frank Bowman, author of "High Crimes and Misdemeanors: A History of Impeachment for the Age of Trump" and a University of Missouri law professor.
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2 ... impeached/
Name the statuary crime. I already know you can not name it because there is no crime named "abuse of power" There is no court that is going to convict someone for going to court to defend their rights of the "crime" of "Obstruction of congress"

BTW Clinton committed perjury. Lost his law license because of it.
But I don't make the argument, and never have, that a crime needs to be named. I have some company in that argument.


User avatar
cassowary
Posts: 3734
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 11:30 pm

Re: Impeachment!

Post by cassowary » Sun Feb 09, 2020 4:41 pm

Milo,

The US constitution itself named the crimes - treason, bribery and high crimes and misdemeanors.

Obstruction of congress and abuse of power, even if proven are not crimes.
The Imp :D

User avatar
Milo
Posts: 2436
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 10:14 pm

Re: Impeachment!

Post by Milo » Sun Feb 09, 2020 4:56 pm

cassowary wrote:
Sun Feb 09, 2020 4:41 pm
Milo,

The US constitution itself named the crimes - treason, bribery and high crimes and misdemeanors.

Obstruction of congress and abuse of power, even if proven are not crimes.
The charge of high crimes and misdemeanors covers allegations of misconduct by officials. Offenses by officials also include ordinary crimes, but perhaps with different standards of proof and punishment than for non-officials, on the grounds that more is expected of officials by their oaths of office. Indeed the offense may not even be a breach of criminal statute. See Harvard Law Review "The majority view is that a president can legally be impeached for 'intentional, evil deeds' that 'drastically subvert the Constitution and involve an unforgivable abuse of the presidency' — even if those deeds didn’t violate any criminal laws."[1]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_cr ... sdemeanors

User avatar
Doc
Posts: 4059
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 7:09 pm
Location: Cradle To Grave

Re: Impeachment!

Post by Doc » Sun Feb 09, 2020 6:33 pm

Milo wrote:
Sun Feb 09, 2020 4:05 pm
Doc wrote:
Sun Feb 09, 2020 3:52 pm
Milo wrote:
Sun Feb 09, 2020 2:51 pm
Doc wrote:
Sun Feb 09, 2020 1:05 pm
Milo wrote:
Sat Feb 08, 2020 10:45 pm
Doc wrote:
Sat Feb 08, 2020 10:31 pm


They were trying to impeach Trump before he was even elected.
Yes, such persecution of a President is unique in all of history! Poor widdle twumpy!
It certainly is unique. Especially given that unlike Clinton Trump was not charged with any actual crimes.
No.
Trump is accused of abuse of power for his alleged efforts to strong-arm Ukraine into investigating his potential Democratic opponent, Joe Biden, by withholding military aid and an Oval Office visit; and of obstruction of Congress, for his efforts to block cooperation with Congress on its impeachment inquiry.

"Like the Clinton and Nixon articles, they don’t allege a particular statutory criminal violation by name, but they do allege facts that could be charged as a crime in an ordinary court," said Frank Bowman, author of "High Crimes and Misdemeanors: A History of Impeachment for the Age of Trump" and a University of Missouri law professor.
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2 ... impeached/
Name the statuary crime. I already know you can not name it because there is no crime named "abuse of power" There is no court that is going to convict someone for going to court to defend their rights of the "crime" of "Obstruction of congress"

BTW Clinton committed perjury. Lost his law license because of it.
But I don't make the argument, and never have, that a crime needs to be named. I have some company in that argument.

A little background on Filegate:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Hou ... iles_issue
Filegate" began on June 5, 1996, when Republican Pennsylvania Congressman William F. Clinger, Jr., chair of the House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, announced that the committee had found, during their ongoing "Travelgate" investigations, that FBI background reports on Travelgate figure Billy Dale had been delivered to the White House.[2] The following day, the White House delivered to the committee hundreds of other such files related to White House employees of the Reagan Administration and George H. W. Bush Administration,[2] for which Craig Livingstone, director of the White House's Office of Personnel Security,[3] had improperly requested and received background reports from the FBI in 1993 and 1994, without asking permission of the subject individuals.[4] Estimates ranged from 400 to 700 to 900 unauthorized file disclosures.[5][6][7][8] The incident caused an intense burst of criticism because many of the files covered White House employees from previous Republican administrations, including top figures such as James Baker, Brent Scowcroft, and Marlin Fitzwater.[6]

Initial White House explanations for what had happened varied,[9] but generally characterized it as a series of mistakes made without bad intent and offered apologies to those affected.[10][11] President Clinton said that, "It appears to have been a completely honest bureaucratic snafu."[10] However, his Republican opponent in the ongoing 1996 presidential election, Senator Bob Dole, compared it to the enemies list kept by the Nixon administration.[10] Republicans made other charges, including that the White House was trying to dig up damaging information about Republicans in general[11] and that the file transfer was motivated by a desire to slander Dale and other White House Travel Office officials in order to justify their dismissal.[12]

On June 18, 1996, Attorney General Janet Reno asked the FBI to look into it;[12] FBI Director Louis Freeh acknowledged that both the FBI and especially the White House had committed "egregious violations of privacy"[3][12] (in some cases the background reports contained information about extramarital affairs, trangressions with the law, and medical issues).[13] On June 21 Reno decided it was a conflict of interest for the U.S. Department of Justice to further investigate the matter, and thus recommended that it be folded into the overall umbrella of the Whitewater investigations, under charge of Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr.[2][7] In any case, Starr had already begun looking into it.[11]
Republican Congressman Bill Clinger's House Government Reform and Oversight Committee discovered Filegate in 1996 and held hearings on it.

On June 26, 1996, Clinger's Government Reform and Oversight Committee held hearings on the matter.[14] Livingstone, who announced his resignation at the start of his testimony that day, and his assistant, Anthony Marceca, insisted during the committee's hearings that the mishandled files were a result of a bureaucratic mixup and that no improper motivations were behind it.[14] They said that when the George H. W. Bush administrative staff left the White House in January 1993, they had taken all the files of the Office of Personnel Security with them for use in the Bush Library, as they were permitted to do under law. The OPS staff were trying to rebuild these records to include those of permanent White House employees who remained to work in the Clinton administration; Marceca, a civilian investigator for the Army, had been hired for this task.[3] In doing so, they received an outdated list from the Secret Service of White House employees, which included many names who were no longer employees. This list was then given to the FBI and the personnel background files returned as a result.[14] Lisa Wetzl, another assistant, testified that she discovered the mistake in mid-1994 and destroyed the request list.[14]

Also called to testify were former White House counsel Bernard Nussbaum and former associate counsel William Kennedy III.[14] Livingstone, Nussbaum, and Kennedy all offered apologies to those whose files had been obtained.[12] On September 24, 1996, the Government Reform and Oversight Committee approved, on party lines, an interim report on the affair, blasting the Clinton Administration for a "cavalier approach" towards sensitive security procedures and saying that further investigation was necessary to determine if the events surrounding the files handling were "a blunder, the result of colossal incompetence, or whether they are established to be more serious or even criminal."[9][15] The Committee does not seem to have ever issued a final report.[16]

The Senate Judiciary Committee was also involved in investigating the matter, holding hearings beginning June 29, 1996,[17] and focussing on allegations that White House was engaged in a "dirty tricks" operation reminiscent of the Nixon administration.[17] Looking into accusations that senior White House officials or the First Lady may have inappropriately perused the files, in October 1996, Republican committee chair Orrin Hatch requested that the FBI do a fingerprint analysis of them.[18] On November 3, 1996, the FBI informed the committee that no fingerprints of either the First Lady or any other named senior official were on the files.[18]
Who hired Livingstone issue
First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton came under examination regarding whether she had had any role in hiring for the White House's Office of Personnel Security (photo taken at the Jacqueline Kennedy Garden).

A secondary question of the Filegate controversy revolved around what the Office of Personnel Security was, who had authorized the hiring of Livingstone, and whether he was qualified for the job. The Office was not responsible for actual White House security, as that was the charge of the United States Secret Service,[3] nor did it perform background checks on potential White House employees, a task done by the FBI,[19] nor did it keep the regular personnel files of employees, which were held in a different office within the White House.[9] Rather, its role was to keep track of who was employed by the White House, make sure their security clearances were up to date, and give security briefings to new hires.[20] Nevertheless, Livingstone seemed to lack qualifications for even this position; he had worked on a number of Democratic Party campaigns and transitions,[19] including being an advance man for the Clinton-Gore 1992 campaign,[3] and his only prior job in the "security" field was that of a local bar bouncer[5] at a Washington, D.C., night club. (At the congressional hearings, Livingstone objected to "false and unfair caricatures of who I am. [...] I have worked hard for little or no pay in political campaigns for candidates who I felt would make this country a better place to live."[19] White House officials could not explain why Livingstone was hired, nor who had hired him.[14]

An FBI document suggested that Livingstone had been given his position because First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton was a friend of Livingstone's mother and recommended him. Hillary Clinton stated that while she was once photographed with the mother in a large group, she did not know her.[20] Hillary Clinton was briefly deposed at the White House by the Independent Counsel regarding this matter on January 14, 1998.[13][21] (That same day, the same Office of the Independent Counsel staff were listening to taped conversations of Linda Tripp and Monica Lewinsky; the Lewinsky scandal was soon to break.[21]) In 1999, Clinton gave a sworn statement that she had nothing to do with Livingstone's hiring.[8] Livingstone also stated under oath there was no truth to the supposed hiring relationship.[8] Hillary Clinton would later refer to the whole files matter as a "pseudoscandal".[20]
Official findings
Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr exonerated both the President and the First Lady with respect to the FBI files matter in 1998.

On November 19, 1998, Independent Counsel Starr testified before the House Judiciary Committee in connection with the Impeachment of Bill Clinton over charges related to the Lewinsky scandal. Here, for the first time, Starr exonerated both President Clinton and the First Lady of complicity in the FBI files matter, saying "while there are outstanding issues that we are attempting to resolve with respect to one individual [we] found no evidence that anyone higher [than Livingstone or Marceca] was in any way involved in ordering the files from the FBI. Second, we have found no evidence that information contained in the files of former officials was used for an improper purpose."[22] (Starr also chose this occasion to clear President Clinton in the Travelgate matter, and to say that he had not committed impeachable wrongdoing in the Whitewater matter *; Democrats on the committee immediately criticized Starr for withholding all these findings until after the 1998 Congressional elections.[23])

In March 2000, Independent Counsel Robert Ray, Starr's successor, issued the office's final report on the matter, as part of a concerted effort to wrap up all Whitewater-related cases before the end of Bill Clinton's term.[21] Ray determined that there was no credible evidence of any criminal activity by any individual in the matter.[24] It attributed the improper collection of the files by Marceca due to his having an outdated Secret Service list of White House passes, as Marceca had originally claimed.[24] It stated that even though Marceca's statements were sometimes "contradictory and misleading",[2] they were "sufficiently transparent"[2] and there was insufficient evidence to prove that Anthony Marceca had made false statements to Congress during his testimony.[8] The report ascribed the FBI files matter to "a failure of process at many levels," saying that the Secret Service had provided critically erroneous data,[2] and that this was compounded by the White House's informal process of requesting sensitive information by "inexperienced, untrained, and unsupervised personnel with backgrounds as political operatives."[2]

Based on an investigation that included the prior fingerprint analysis,[24] the report further stated that:

there was no substantial and credible evidence that any senior White House official, or First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton, was involved in seeking confidential Federal Bureau of Investigation background reports of former White House staff from prior administrations of President Bush and President Reagan.
— Independent Counsel Robert Ray, [8]

Ray's report also concluded that there was no credible evidence that Bernard Nussbaum testified falsely about not having discussed Livingstone's hiring with the First Lady, and found as well that there was no personal relationship between the First Lady and Livingstone that had formed the basis for his hiring.[8]

*Now if Starr reported to congress that Clinton had not committed any impeachable wrongdoing WRT Filegate and WhiteWater that kind of blows up your video.


Clinton was however impeached for perjury in court. That is a real crime. It is most certainly on the books. SO again Name the statues for the crimes you feel Trump committed.
“"I fancied myself as some kind of god....It is a sort of disease when you consider yourself some kind of god, the creator of everything, but I feel comfortable about it now since I began to live it out.” -- George Soros

User avatar
Milo
Posts: 2436
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 10:14 pm

Re: Impeachment!

Post by Milo » Sun Feb 09, 2020 9:05 pm

Doc wrote:
Sun Feb 09, 2020 6:33 pm
Milo wrote:
Sun Feb 09, 2020 4:05 pm
Doc wrote:
Sun Feb 09, 2020 3:52 pm
Milo wrote:
Sun Feb 09, 2020 2:51 pm
Doc wrote:
Sun Feb 09, 2020 1:05 pm
Milo wrote:
Sat Feb 08, 2020 10:45 pm


Yes, such persecution of a President is unique in all of history! Poor widdle twumpy!
It certainly is unique. Especially given that unlike Clinton Trump was not charged with any actual crimes.
No.
Trump is accused of abuse of power for his alleged efforts to strong-arm Ukraine into investigating his potential Democratic opponent, Joe Biden, by withholding military aid and an Oval Office visit; and of obstruction of Congress, for his efforts to block cooperation with Congress on its impeachment inquiry.

"Like the Clinton and Nixon articles, they don’t allege a particular statutory criminal violation by name, but they do allege facts that could be charged as a crime in an ordinary court," said Frank Bowman, author of "High Crimes and Misdemeanors: A History of Impeachment for the Age of Trump" and a University of Missouri law professor.
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2 ... impeached/
Name the statuary crime. I already know you can not name it because there is no crime named "abuse of power" There is no court that is going to convict someone for going to court to defend their rights of the "crime" of "Obstruction of congress"

BTW Clinton committed perjury. Lost his law license because of it.
But I don't make the argument, and never have, that a crime needs to be named. I have some company in that argument.

A little background on Filegate:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Hou ... iles_issue
Filegate" began on June 5, 1996, when Republican Pennsylvania Congressman William F. Clinger, Jr., chair of the House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, announced that the committee had found, during their ongoing "Travelgate" investigations, that FBI background reports on Travelgate figure Billy Dale had been delivered to the White House.[2] The following day, the White House delivered to the committee hundreds of other such files related to White House employees of the Reagan Administration and George H. W. Bush Administration,[2] for which Craig Livingstone, director of the White House's Office of Personnel Security,[3] had improperly requested and received background reports from the FBI in 1993 and 1994, without asking permission of the subject individuals.[4] Estimates ranged from 400 to 700 to 900 unauthorized file disclosures.[5][6][7][8] The incident caused an intense burst of criticism because many of the files covered White House employees from previous Republican administrations, including top figures such as James Baker, Brent Scowcroft, and Marlin Fitzwater.[6]

Initial White House explanations for what had happened varied,[9] but generally characterized it as a series of mistakes made without bad intent and offered apologies to those affected.[10][11] President Clinton said that, "It appears to have been a completely honest bureaucratic snafu."[10] However, his Republican opponent in the ongoing 1996 presidential election, Senator Bob Dole, compared it to the enemies list kept by the Nixon administration.[10] Republicans made other charges, including that the White House was trying to dig up damaging information about Republicans in general[11] and that the file transfer was motivated by a desire to slander Dale and other White House Travel Office officials in order to justify their dismissal.[12]

On June 18, 1996, Attorney General Janet Reno asked the FBI to look into it;[12] FBI Director Louis Freeh acknowledged that both the FBI and especially the White House had committed "egregious violations of privacy"[3][12] (in some cases the background reports contained information about extramarital affairs, trangressions with the law, and medical issues).[13] On June 21 Reno decided it was a conflict of interest for the U.S. Department of Justice to further investigate the matter, and thus recommended that it be folded into the overall umbrella of the Whitewater investigations, under charge of Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr.[2][7] In any case, Starr had already begun looking into it.[11]
Republican Congressman Bill Clinger's House Government Reform and Oversight Committee discovered Filegate in 1996 and held hearings on it.

On June 26, 1996, Clinger's Government Reform and Oversight Committee held hearings on the matter.[14] Livingstone, who announced his resignation at the start of his testimony that day, and his assistant, Anthony Marceca, insisted during the committee's hearings that the mishandled files were a result of a bureaucratic mixup and that no improper motivations were behind it.[14] They said that when the George H. W. Bush administrative staff left the White House in January 1993, they had taken all the files of the Office of Personnel Security with them for use in the Bush Library, as they were permitted to do under law. The OPS staff were trying to rebuild these records to include those of permanent White House employees who remained to work in the Clinton administration; Marceca, a civilian investigator for the Army, had been hired for this task.[3] In doing so, they received an outdated list from the Secret Service of White House employees, which included many names who were no longer employees. This list was then given to the FBI and the personnel background files returned as a result.[14] Lisa Wetzl, another assistant, testified that she discovered the mistake in mid-1994 and destroyed the request list.[14]

Also called to testify were former White House counsel Bernard Nussbaum and former associate counsel William Kennedy III.[14] Livingstone, Nussbaum, and Kennedy all offered apologies to those whose files had been obtained.[12] On September 24, 1996, the Government Reform and Oversight Committee approved, on party lines, an interim report on the affair, blasting the Clinton Administration for a "cavalier approach" towards sensitive security procedures and saying that further investigation was necessary to determine if the events surrounding the files handling were "a blunder, the result of colossal incompetence, or whether they are established to be more serious or even criminal."[9][15] The Committee does not seem to have ever issued a final report.[16]

The Senate Judiciary Committee was also involved in investigating the matter, holding hearings beginning June 29, 1996,[17] and focussing on allegations that White House was engaged in a "dirty tricks" operation reminiscent of the Nixon administration.[17] Looking into accusations that senior White House officials or the First Lady may have inappropriately perused the files, in October 1996, Republican committee chair Orrin Hatch requested that the FBI do a fingerprint analysis of them.[18] On November 3, 1996, the FBI informed the committee that no fingerprints of either the First Lady or any other named senior official were on the files.[18]
Who hired Livingstone issue
First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton came under examination regarding whether she had had any role in hiring for the White House's Office of Personnel Security (photo taken at the Jacqueline Kennedy Garden).

A secondary question of the Filegate controversy revolved around what the Office of Personnel Security was, who had authorized the hiring of Livingstone, and whether he was qualified for the job. The Office was not responsible for actual White House security, as that was the charge of the United States Secret Service,[3] nor did it perform background checks on potential White House employees, a task done by the FBI,[19] nor did it keep the regular personnel files of employees, which were held in a different office within the White House.[9] Rather, its role was to keep track of who was employed by the White House, make sure their security clearances were up to date, and give security briefings to new hires.[20] Nevertheless, Livingstone seemed to lack qualifications for even this position; he had worked on a number of Democratic Party campaigns and transitions,[19] including being an advance man for the Clinton-Gore 1992 campaign,[3] and his only prior job in the "security" field was that of a local bar bouncer[5] at a Washington, D.C., night club. (At the congressional hearings, Livingstone objected to "false and unfair caricatures of who I am. [...] I have worked hard for little or no pay in political campaigns for candidates who I felt would make this country a better place to live."[19] White House officials could not explain why Livingstone was hired, nor who had hired him.[14]

An FBI document suggested that Livingstone had been given his position because First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton was a friend of Livingstone's mother and recommended him. Hillary Clinton stated that while she was once photographed with the mother in a large group, she did not know her.[20] Hillary Clinton was briefly deposed at the White House by the Independent Counsel regarding this matter on January 14, 1998.[13][21] (That same day, the same Office of the Independent Counsel staff were listening to taped conversations of Linda Tripp and Monica Lewinsky; the Lewinsky scandal was soon to break.[21]) In 1999, Clinton gave a sworn statement that she had nothing to do with Livingstone's hiring.[8] Livingstone also stated under oath there was no truth to the supposed hiring relationship.[8] Hillary Clinton would later refer to the whole files matter as a "pseudoscandal".[20]
Official findings
Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr exonerated both the President and the First Lady with respect to the FBI files matter in 1998.

On November 19, 1998, Independent Counsel Starr testified before the House Judiciary Committee in connection with the Impeachment of Bill Clinton over charges related to the Lewinsky scandal. Here, for the first time, Starr exonerated both President Clinton and the First Lady of complicity in the FBI files matter, saying "while there are outstanding issues that we are attempting to resolve with respect to one individual [we] found no evidence that anyone higher [than Livingstone or Marceca] was in any way involved in ordering the files from the FBI. Second, we have found no evidence that information contained in the files of former officials was used for an improper purpose."[22] (Starr also chose this occasion to clear President Clinton in the Travelgate matter, and to say that he had not committed impeachable wrongdoing in the Whitewater matter *; Democrats on the committee immediately criticized Starr for withholding all these findings until after the 1998 Congressional elections.[23])

In March 2000, Independent Counsel Robert Ray, Starr's successor, issued the office's final report on the matter, as part of a concerted effort to wrap up all Whitewater-related cases before the end of Bill Clinton's term.[21] Ray determined that there was no credible evidence of any criminal activity by any individual in the matter.[24] It attributed the improper collection of the files by Marceca due to his having an outdated Secret Service list of White House passes, as Marceca had originally claimed.[24] It stated that even though Marceca's statements were sometimes "contradictory and misleading",[2] they were "sufficiently transparent"[2] and there was insufficient evidence to prove that Anthony Marceca had made false statements to Congress during his testimony.[8] The report ascribed the FBI files matter to "a failure of process at many levels," saying that the Secret Service had provided critically erroneous data,[2] and that this was compounded by the White House's informal process of requesting sensitive information by "inexperienced, untrained, and unsupervised personnel with backgrounds as political operatives."[2]

Based on an investigation that included the prior fingerprint analysis,[24] the report further stated that:

there was no substantial and credible evidence that any senior White House official, or First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton, was involved in seeking confidential Federal Bureau of Investigation background reports of former White House staff from prior administrations of President Bush and President Reagan.
— Independent Counsel Robert Ray, [8]

Ray's report also concluded that there was no credible evidence that Bernard Nussbaum testified falsely about not having discussed Livingstone's hiring with the First Lady, and found as well that there was no personal relationship between the First Lady and Livingstone that had formed the basis for his hiring.[8]

*Now if Starr reported to congress that Clinton had not committed any impeachable wrongdoing WRT Filegate and WhiteWater that kind of blows up your video.


Clinton was however impeached for perjury in court. That is a real crime. It is most certainly on the books. SO again Name the statues for the crimes you feel Trump committed.
See above.

User avatar
cassowary
Posts: 3734
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 11:30 pm

Re: Impeachment!

Post by cassowary » Mon Feb 10, 2020 1:09 am

Milo wrote:
Sun Feb 09, 2020 4:56 pm
cassowary wrote:
Sun Feb 09, 2020 4:41 pm
Milo,

The US constitution itself named the crimes - treason, bribery and high crimes and misdemeanors.

Obstruction of congress and abuse of power, even if proven are not crimes.
The charge of high crimes and misdemeanors covers allegations of misconduct by officials. Offenses by officials also include ordinary crimes, but perhaps with different standards of proof and punishment than for non-officials, on the grounds that more is expected of officials by their oaths of office. Indeed the offense may not even be a breach of criminal statute. See Harvard Law Review "The majority view is that a president can legally be impeached for 'intentional, evil deeds' that 'drastically subvert the Constitution and involve an unforgivable abuse of the presidency' — even if those deeds didn’t violate any criminal laws."[1]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_cr ... sdemeanors
That's nonsense. High crimes and Misdemeanors clearly mean criminal behavior. Why use the word, "crimes", if they don't mean it? Also the word misdemeanor also means committing a crime. Jefferson warned that he did not want the President to serve at the pleasure of the Senate. If you include non-criminal behavior that displeases the Senate, then it can be simply a policy difference.
The Imp :D

User avatar
Doc
Posts: 4059
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 7:09 pm
Location: Cradle To Grave

Re: Impeachment!

Post by Doc » Mon Feb 10, 2020 2:52 am

cassowary wrote:
Mon Feb 10, 2020 1:09 am
Milo wrote:
Sun Feb 09, 2020 4:56 pm
cassowary wrote:
Sun Feb 09, 2020 4:41 pm
Milo,

The US constitution itself named the crimes - treason, bribery and high crimes and misdemeanors.

Obstruction of congress and abuse of power, even if proven are not crimes.
The charge of high crimes and misdemeanors covers allegations of misconduct by officials. Offenses by officials also include ordinary crimes, but perhaps with different standards of proof and punishment than for non-officials, on the grounds that more is expected of officials by their oaths of office. Indeed the offense may not even be a breach of criminal statute. See Harvard Law Review "The majority view is that a president can legally be impeached for 'intentional, evil deeds' that 'drastically subvert the Constitution and involve an unforgivable abuse of the presidency' — even if those deeds didn’t violate any criminal laws."[1]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_cr ... sdemeanors
That's nonsense. High crimes and Misdemeanors clearly mean criminal behavior. Why use the word, "crimes", if they don't mean it? Also the word misdemeanor also means committing a crime. Jefferson warned that he did not want the President to serve at the pleasure of the Senate. If you include non-criminal behavior that displeases the Senate, then it can be simply a policy difference.
Harvard law review, a student newspaper at a leftist school once headed by Barrack Obama. "Not a smidgen of scandal" :roll:
“"I fancied myself as some kind of god....It is a sort of disease when you consider yourself some kind of god, the creator of everything, but I feel comfortable about it now since I began to live it out.” -- George Soros

User avatar
Milo
Posts: 2436
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 10:14 pm

Re: Impeachment!

Post by Milo » Mon Feb 10, 2020 8:01 am

Doc wrote:
Mon Feb 10, 2020 2:52 am
cassowary wrote:
Mon Feb 10, 2020 1:09 am
Milo wrote:
Sun Feb 09, 2020 4:56 pm
cassowary wrote:
Sun Feb 09, 2020 4:41 pm
Milo,

The US constitution itself named the crimes - treason, bribery and high crimes and misdemeanors.

Obstruction of congress and abuse of power, even if proven are not crimes.
The charge of high crimes and misdemeanors covers allegations of misconduct by officials. Offenses by officials also include ordinary crimes, but perhaps with different standards of proof and punishment than for non-officials, on the grounds that more is expected of officials by their oaths of office. Indeed the offense may not even be a breach of criminal statute. See Harvard Law Review "The majority view is that a president can legally be impeached for 'intentional, evil deeds' that 'drastically subvert the Constitution and involve an unforgivable abuse of the presidency' — even if those deeds didn’t violate any criminal laws."[1]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_cr ... sdemeanors
That's nonsense. High crimes and Misdemeanors clearly mean criminal behavior. Why use the word, "crimes", if they don't mean it? Also the word misdemeanor also means committing a crime. Jefferson warned that he did not want the President to serve at the pleasure of the Senate. If you include non-criminal behavior that displeases the Senate, then it can be simply a policy difference.
Harvard law review, a student newspaper at a leftist school once headed by Barrack Obama. "Not a smidgen of scandal" :roll:
And virtually everyone until Trump's lawyers attempted to argue that a black letter crime is required.

They also tried to argue that some sort of forms are required, except no such forms exist.
Since 1386, the English parliament had used the term “high crimes and misdemeanors” to describe one of the grounds to impeach officials of the crown. Officials accused of “high crimes and misdemeanors” were accused of offenses as varied as misappropriating government funds, appointing unfit subordinates, not prosecuting cases, promoting themselves ahead of more deserving candidates, threatening a grand jury, disobeying an order from Parliament, arresting a man to keep him from running for Parliament, helping “suppress petitions to the King to call a Parliament,” etc.[8]

Benjamin Franklin asserted that the power of impeachment and removal was necessary for those times when the Executive "rendered himself obnoxious," and the Constitution should provide for the "regular punishment of the Executive when his conduct should deserve it, and for his honorable acquittal when he should be unjustly accused." James Madison said that "impeachment... was indispensable" to defend the community against "the incapacity, negligence or perfidy of the chief Magistrate." With a single executive, Madison argued, unlike a legislature whose collective nature provided security, "loss of capacity or corruption was more within the compass of probable events, and either of them might be fatal to the Republic."[9]
It was George Mason who offered up the term "high crimes and misdemeanors" as one of the criteria to remove public officials who abuse their office. Their original intentions can be gleaned by the phrases and words that were proposed before, such as "high misdemeanor," "maladministration," or "other crime." Edmund Randolph said impeachment should be reserved for those who "misbehave." Charles Cotesworth Pinckney said, It should be reserved "for those who behave amiss, or betray their public trust." As can be seen from all these references to "high crimes and misdemeanors," the definition or its rationale does not relate to specific offences. This gives a lot of freedom of interpretation to the House of Representatives and the Senate. The constitutional law by nature is not concerned with being specific. The courts through precedence and the legislature through lawmaking make constitutional provisions specific. In this case the legislature (the House of Representatives and the Senate) acts as a court and can create a precedent.

In Federalist No. 65, Alexander Hamilton said, "those offences which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated political, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself."[10]

The first impeachment conviction by the United States Senate was in 1804 of John Pickering, a judge of the United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire, for chronic intoxication.
Same source.

User avatar
cassowary
Posts: 3734
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 11:30 pm

Re: Impeachment!

Post by cassowary » Mon Feb 10, 2020 8:32 am

Looks like impeachment depends on whatever majority of House reps and what 2/3 of the Senate say is impeachable. That still means that Trump is acquitted. Innocent.
The Imp :D

Post Reply