Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Impeachment Charges

29 views
Skip to first unread message

hal lillywhite

unread,
Dec 11, 2019, 12:28:52 PM12/11/19
to
So the dems articles of impeachment are for "abuse of power" and "obstruction of
Congress." I have to wonder if there are actually any laws against such? If not,
they can hardly accuse Trump of breaking the law.

And what is abuse of power? Seems rather nebulous and undefined. In fact, I
see Obama's institution of DACA by fiat after Congress rejected as much more
an abuse of power than what Trump is accused of doing.

And why should it be illegal to obstruct Congress? The whole idea of checks and
balances indicates that other arms of government should be able to obstruct
Congress.

I look for the Senate trial to be short and return a not-guilty verdict. This
whole thing looks more and more like political grandstanding.

Expert

unread,
Dec 11, 2019, 3:16:43 PM12/11/19
to
On Wednesday, December 11, 2019 at 9:28:52 AM UTC-8, hal lillywhite wrote:
> So the dems articles of impeachment are for "abuse of power" and "obstruction of
> Congress." I have to wonder if there are actually any laws against such? If not,
> they can hardly accuse Trump of breaking the law.

Why not parse "high crimes". That seems to fit what they are charging trump with.


>
> And what is abuse of power? Seems rather nebulous and undefined. In fact, I
> see Obama's institution of DACA by fiat after Congress rejected as much more
> an abuse of power than what Trump is accused of doing.

Complain to the Senate and have Obama arrested.


>
> And why should it be illegal to obstruct Congress? The whole idea of checks and
> balances indicates that other arms of government should be able to obstruct
> Congress.

Again parse "high crimes".


>
> I look for the Senate trial to be short and return a not-guilty verdict. This
> whole thing looks more and more like political grandstanding.

You just might be correct this time. But OTOH, there are several repub senators facing close elections who might see this otherwise. And, if the conservatives decide to "punish" anyone who votes against trump by "primarying them" it will give the next election to the dems. The repubs just might find themselves in a lost-lose situation.

BT

unread,
Dec 11, 2019, 3:40:05 PM12/11/19
to
The Ekth-Bert wrote:


> Why not parse "high crimes". That seems to fit what they are
> charging trump with.


Yeah, but calling something a high crime doesn't make it so. There's
also over charging - like when someone who guilty of negligent homicide
is charged with First Degree Murder by an ambitious prosecutor is found
Not Guilty.


> Complain to the Senate and have Obama arrested.


At this point if he's done something serious enough he could be,
but not when he was a sitting president - something you did
not know until I told you. Ekth-Bert.

B. T.

hal lillywhite

unread,
Dec 11, 2019, 4:21:05 PM12/11/19
to
On Wednesday, December 11, 2019 at 12:16:43 PM UTC-8, Expert wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 11, 2019 at 9:28:52 AM UTC-8, hal lillywhite wrote:
> > So the dems articles of impeachment are for "abuse of power" and "obstruction of
> > Congress." I have to wonder if there are actually any laws against such? If not,
> > they can hardly accuse Trump of breaking the law.
>
> Why not parse "high crimes". That seems to fit what they are charging trump with.

A crime, by definition, is something illegal. If there is no law against it, it
is not illegal.

> > And what is abuse of power? Seems rather nebulous and undefined. In fact, I
> > see Obama's institution of DACA by fiat after Congress rejected as much more
> > an abuse of power than what Trump is accused of doing.
>
> Complain to the Senate and have Obama arrested.

I did not claim that he violated any law.

> > And why should it be illegal to obstruct Congress? The whole idea of checks and
> > balances indicates that other arms of government should be able to obstruct
> > Congress.
>
> Again parse "high crimes".

See above

Baxter

unread,
Dec 11, 2019, 6:09:29 PM12/11/19
to
hal lillywhite <hlil...@juno.com> wrote in
news:135258d9-5e84-450e...@googlegroups.com:

> So the dems articles of impeachment are for "abuse of power" and
> "obstruction of Congress." I have to wonder if there are actually any
> laws against such? If not, they can hardly accuse Trump of breaking
> the law.
>
> And what is abuse of power? Seems rather nebulous and undefined. In
> fact, I see Obama's institution of DACA by fiat after Congress
> rejected as much more an abuse of power than what Trump is accused of
> doing.
>
> And why should it be illegal to obstruct Congress? The whole idea of
> checks and balances indicates that other arms of government should be
> able to obstruct Congress.

That is the stupidest thing I have ever heard. Congress has Oversight of
the Executive branch.

>
> I look for the Senate trial to be short and return a not-guilty
> verdict. This whole thing looks more and more like political
> grandstanding.
>

... and the horse you rode in on.

Expert

unread,
Dec 11, 2019, 6:32:40 PM12/11/19
to
On Wednesday, December 11, 2019 at 12:40:05 PM UTC-8, BT wrote:
> The Ekth-Bert wrote:
>
>
> > Why not parse "high crimes". That seems to fit what they are
> > charging trump with.
>
>
> Yeah, but calling something a high crime doesn't make it so.

You should complain to the House leadership. they are the ones who determine the definition of the terms. The Constitution gives them that right and responsibility.

Expert

unread,
Dec 11, 2019, 6:38:11 PM12/11/19
to
On Wednesday, December 11, 2019 at 1:21:05 PM UTC-8, hal lillywhite wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 11, 2019 at 12:16:43 PM UTC-8, Expert wrote:
> > On Wednesday, December 11, 2019 at 9:28:52 AM UTC-8, hal lillywhite wrote:
> > > So the dems articles of impeachment are for "abuse of power" and "obstruction of
> > > Congress." I have to wonder if there are actually any laws against such? If not,
> > > they can hardly accuse Trump of breaking the law.
> >
> > Why not parse "high crimes". That seems to fit what they are charging trump with.
>
> A crime, by definition, is something illegal. If there is no law against it, it
> is not illegal.

You confuse the common law and constitutional law. In this case what is "illegal" is determined by the House of Rep as they interpret the Constitution.

Some years ago the repubs in the house led by Gingrich decided that Monica sucking Bill's cock fit the description of a "high crime" and impeached Clinton.


>
> > > And why should it be illegal to obstruct Congress? The whole idea of checks and
> > > balances indicates that other arms of government should be able to obstruct
> > > Congress.
> >
> > Again parse "high crimes".
>
> See above

Not much of an answer.

hal lillywhite

unread,
Dec 11, 2019, 7:21:02 PM12/11/19
to
On Wednesday, December 11, 2019 at 3:38:11 PM UTC-8, Expert wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 11, 2019 at 1:21:05 PM UTC-8, hal lillywhite wrote:
> > On Wednesday, December 11, 2019 at 12:16:43 PM UTC-8, Expert wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, December 11, 2019 at 9:28:52 AM UTC-8, hal lillywhite wrote:
> > > > So the dems articles of impeachment are for "abuse of power" and "obstruction of
> > > > Congress." I have to wonder if there are actually any laws against such? If not,
> > > > they can hardly accuse Trump of breaking the law.
> > >
> > > Why not parse "high crimes". That seems to fit what they are charging trump with.
> >
> > A crime, by definition, is something illegal. If there is no law against it, it
> > is not illegal.
>
> You confuse the common law and constitutional law. In this case what is "illegal" is determined by the House of Rep as they interpret the Constitution.

Go read the Constitution! The House cannot make law by itself, it requires the
Senate to agree and either the president to agree or 2/3 of each house.

And if they were to claim that they can now make what Trump is accused of illegal,
that would be a clearly unconstitutional ex post facto law.

> Some years ago the repubs in the house led by Gingrich decided that Monica sucking Bill's cock fit the description of a "high crime" and impeached Clinton.

Are you really that ignorant? He was impeached for lying under oath, and was
clearly guilty of that. In fact he lost his law license over it. His sleazy
relationship with Lewinsky was bad but not the reason for impeachment.

hal lillywhite

unread,
Dec 11, 2019, 7:23:47 PM12/11/19
to
On Wednesday, December 11, 2019 at 3:09:29 PM UTC-8, Baxter wrote:
> hal lillywhite <hlil...@juno.com> wrote in
> news:135258d9-5e84-450e...@googlegroups.com:
>
> > So the dems articles of impeachment are for "abuse of power" and
> > "obstruction of Congress." I have to wonder if there are actually any
> > laws against such? If not, they can hardly accuse Trump of breaking
> > the law.
> >
> > And what is abuse of power? Seems rather nebulous and undefined. In
> > fact, I see Obama's institution of DACA by fiat after Congress
> > rejected as much more an abuse of power than what Trump is accused of
> > doing.
> >
> > And why should it be illegal to obstruct Congress? The whole idea of
> > checks and balances indicates that other arms of government should be
> > able to obstruct Congress.
>
> That is the stupidest thing I have ever heard. Congress has Oversight of
> the Executive branch.

Just where in the Constitution does it say that?

Baxter

unread,
Dec 11, 2019, 8:06:12 PM12/11/19
to
hal lillywhite <hlil...@juno.com> wrote in
news:99387fa4-6475-41cf...@googlegroups.com:
I posted that in a separate article.

Expert

unread,
Dec 11, 2019, 8:35:54 PM12/11/19
to
On Wednesday, December 11, 2019 at 4:21:02 PM UTC-8, hal lillywhite wrote:

> Are you really that ignorant? He was impeached for lying under oath, and was
> clearly guilty of that. In fact he lost his law license over it. His sleazy
> relationship with Lewinsky was bad but not the reason for impeachment.

It was.

Expert

unread,
Dec 11, 2019, 8:37:20 PM12/11/19
to
On Wednesday, December 11, 2019 at 4:23:47 PM UTC-8, hal lillywhite wrote:

> Just where in the Constitution does it say that?

The House has the right to impeachment. That is congressional oversight of the president.

How much more powerful could it be?

hal lillywhite

unread,
Dec 11, 2019, 10:45:01 PM12/11/19
to
Could be the power to actually change executive decisions, which even impeachment cannot do.

The Constitution does not give the House power over the executive. Even
impeachment is just words without concurrence of 2/3 of the Senate.

hal lillywhite

unread,
Dec 11, 2019, 10:45:31 PM12/11/19
to
On Wednesday, December 11, 2019 at 5:06:12 PM UTC-8, Baxter wrote:

> >> That is the stupidest thing I have ever heard. Congress has
> >> Oversight of the Executive branch.
> >
> > Just where in the Constitution does it say that?
> >
> I posted that in a separate article.

Can't give a reference, can you? So you claim to have done so but refuse to
say where.

BT

unread,
Dec 12, 2019, 12:40:25 AM12/12/19
to
Ekth-Bert wrote:

> BT wrote:


>> Yeah, but calling something a high crime doesn't make it so.


> You should complain to the House leadership.


Why should I? I'm merely stating a fact on a newsgroup - the
Democratic majority is going to do what it wants to do.


> they are the ones who determine the definition of the terms.

Not really. If a president issues a few Executive Orders that
the Congress absolutely hates but which are well within
his powers to issue, and calls that "high crimes", that
doesn't make it so. Sure, they can call it that. Good luck.

But then, it has been duly noted here that you now agree that
the Bill Clinton was indeed guilty of High Crimes when he
was going through this - just 'cause the Repub Congress said so!

Do you ever think more than a minute ahead when you reveal
your ignorance?

B. T.

BT

unread,
Dec 12, 2019, 12:42:51 AM12/12/19
to
Hal said:


> Ekth-Bert said:


>> Some years ago the repubs in the house led by Gingrich
>> decided that Monica sucking Bill's cock fit the description
>> of a "high crime" and impeached Clinton.


> Are you really that ignorant? He was impeached for lying under
> oath, and was clearly guilty of that. . . .His sleazy relationship
> with Lewinsky was bad but not the reason for impeachment.


But he a ekth-bert !

B. T.

BT

unread,
Dec 12, 2019, 12:46:44 AM12/12/19
to
Ekth-Bert wrote:

> Some years ago the repubs in the house led by Gingrich decided
> that Monica sucking Bill's cock fit the description of a "high
> crime" and impeached Clinton.


As has been pointed out, that wasn't the reason.

But since you brought it up again, you need to be reminded that
that the relationship you consider to be a non-crime between two
adults was in fact a crime per legislation lobbied for by feminist
groups and signed into law by Clinton himself.

So stop lying about this and try to at least sound like a ekth-bert.

B. T.

BT

unread,
Dec 12, 2019, 8:54:43 AM12/12/19
to
Ekth-Bert wrote:

> Again parse "high crimes".

It's still so weak that it's desperation on their part.

The second charge - obstruction of congress - is a joke. Every president
from Washington to Obama and now Trump had/has every right to challenge (not
"obstruct") orders by either House of Congress based on Executive Privilege
with the right to request judicial review in each case.

Schiff and Nadler are claiming that just by exercising these rights
there is "obstruction" when this has been settled time and again. It
would be like someone arrested and put on trial getting an additional
charge of obstructing justice by delaying sentencing by requestion a
trial.

Nadler, in fact, as we saw in the earlier hearings he held many weeks ago,
wasn't even aware of Executive Privilege - and he's the *Judicial"
committee chair !

As for the other charge, I note the absence of "bribe" which was a
talking point a few weeks ago, and it's all based on opinion.

B. T.

Expert

unread,
Dec 12, 2019, 1:19:37 PM12/12/19
to
On Wednesday, December 11, 2019 at 9:40:25 PM UTC-8, BT wrote:
> I'm merely stating a fact on a newsgroup - the
> Democratic majority is going to do what it wants to do.


You have finally come to your senses. Now let us see if you have finally figured out how the Constitution works.

hal lillywhite

unread,
Dec 12, 2019, 1:44:15 PM12/12/19
to
What an ignorant response! Just do a web search for his impeachment. eg.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_Bill_Clinton

" The specific charges against Clinton were lying under oath and obstruction of
justice. The charges stemmed from a sexual harassment lawsuit filed against
Clinton by Paula Jones and from Clinton's testimony denying that he had engaged
in a sexual relationship with White House intern Monica Lewinsky."

The Lewinsky affair motivated the perjury, but it was perjury, not the affair
deemed an impeachable offense.

BT

unread,
Dec 12, 2019, 3:23:49 PM12/12/19
to
Ekth-Bert wrote:

> BT wrote:

>> I'm merely stating a fact on a newsgroup - the
>> Democratic majority is going to do what it wants to do.



> You have finally come to your senses.


You have yet to come yo yours since you have once again
replied to the wrong thing.



> Now let us see if you have finally figured out how
> the Constitution works.


Giving the Congress the power to remove a president is one thing.
It can't, apparently, stop Congress from abusing its powers and
using its own definition of "high crimes" to remove a president
just because they don't like him.

Might never makes right.

But stop acting like an ekth-bert on the Constitution - after all,
you weren't even aware that a sitting president could not be arrested.

B. T.

0 new messages