I'll wager that it's something different.
Remember Bill Clinton?
His guilt of perjury & suborning perjury was clear.
But the lack of conviction appeared to be based upon
judgement that removing him from office was wrong.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Poor Little Dem's Mad: Taking Their Ball and Going Home
- Thread starter esmith
- Start date
Remember Bill Clinton?
His guilt of perjury & suborning perjury was clear.
But the lack of conviction appeared to be based upon
judgement that removing him from office was wrong.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
It's called Pelosi's attempt at picking her own jury.
Mr Spinkles
Mr
This makes negative amounts of sense.
It’s not Pelosi picking her own jury - she’s not the one on trial.
She’s not trying to pick any jury at all - she doesn’t control that.
Even if she was trying to pick the jury ... in a normal trial that’s exactly what the prosecution and defense do, they pick a jury.
Are you trying to make a logical point or just lashing out in defense of the Leader?
QuestioningMind
Well-Known Member
Not sure I see the connection. In Clinton's case the senate acknowledged the indisputable evidence that he'd lied about an extramarital affair, but decided that lying about an affair wasn't sufficient to disqualify him from remaining president. Basically they -and the country as a whole I think - decided that what he'd done was a crime against his wife, not a crime against the country.
That's certainly not the case with Trump, where the indisputable evidence shows that he put his own political aspirations above the security and welfare of the nation.
His lying was to a grand jury, which is indeed a crime.
People go to prison for that. But despite his guilt, they
didn't convict. I chalk it up to their belief that keeping
him in office was the greater good...or lesser evil.
That strikes me as reasonable, given that unlike criminal
prosecution, both impeachment & the trial are political
in nature.
Shad
Veteran Member
Seems that the Dem's are "taking their ball and going home" or in this case their articles of impeachment. Seems that if they don't get their way in the Senate they will not send over the articles of impeachment to the Senate.
House Democrats impeach Trump, Pelosi floats holding up Senate trial
Nancy Pelosi won't commit to sending articles of impeachment to Senate - CNNPolitics
Pelosi says House will wait to send impeachment articles to Senate for clarity on rules
Or is it they know they are going to loose and just want to leave the impeachment articles hanging around until President Trump gets reelected in 2020
It is for optics. The GOP used the partisan slant already in the House. Now Dems are doing it with the Senate. The GOP will counter by rejecting the Dems attack as cover for a weak case which you already covered. I seriously doubt many thought this circus was going to result in a verdict of guilt nor exoneration. It is all for 2020. Both sides are already using this for rallies and such.
I'm not looking for unity. That is an unrealistic expectation given the performance of the Republicans these last several decades. I'd prefer secession.
But that's not going to happen, so we have seceded by expatriating. I could not support Trump or any other pathological liar, wannabe dictator, self-admitted serial sexual predator, serial adulterer, and career fraud under any circumstances.
But do you know who is a Trump supporter - somebody who doesn't care about any of that - I mean apart from 40+% of Americans that still support such a person? Vladimir Putin, also a career criminal and thug. And no doubt Kim as well, also a brutal dictator that hates America and wishes it harm.
And you want me to join people like that to unite a country that I'd rather see become two or more countries, which reminds me of this from 2004:
FROM THE BLUE STATES TO THE RED
Dear Red States...
We've decided we're leaving. We intend to form our own country, Nouveau California.
We're taking the other Blue States with us. In case you aren't aware, that includes the Pacific states except Alaska (California, Oregon, Washington and Hawaii), the Great Lakes states except Indiana (Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Michigan and yes, we’re taking Ohio back), New England (Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut and Rhode Island), the Mid-Atlantic states (New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania), and Maryland and Delaware.
We believe this split will be beneficial to both nations. For example, the residents of Nuevo California will be leaving Iraq at once. You’re “real Americans” in uniform from the Heartlands won’t have to fight beside elitists and intellectuals. If you need more people to fight, ask your evangelicals. They have plenty of spare kids (they practice abstinence only and have no Planned Parenthood clinics). Oh, and good luck with those WMD’s.
With the Blue States in hand, we will have firm control of 80 percent of the country's fresh water, more than 90 percent of the pineapple and lettuce, 92 percent of the nation's fresh fruit, 95 percent of America's quality wines (you can serve French wines at state dinners) 90 percent of all cheese, 90 percent of the high tech industry, most of the U.S. low-sulfur coal, all living redwoods, sequoias and condors, all the Ivy and Seven Sister schools, plus Harvard, Yale, Stanford, Cal Tech, and MIT.
With the Red States, on the other hand, you will have to cope with 88 percent of all obese Americans (and their projected health care costs), 92 percent of all U.S. mosquitoes, nearly 100 percent of the tornadoes, 90 percent of the hurricanes, 99 percent of all Southern Baptists, virtually 100 percent of all televangelists, Rush Limbaugh.
Since your Christian Coalition’s aggregate divorce rate is 22 percent higher than ours, you get a bunch of deadbeat dads, single moms and latch key kids. You can hire our big city lawyers, however.
Additionally, 38 percent of those in the Red states believe Jonah was actually swallowed by a whale, 62 percent believe life is sacred unless we're discussing the death penalty or gun laws, 53 percent believe that Saddam was involved in 9/11.
We’ll take Old Glory since you already have enough Stars and Bars to go around. Will you be calling your country the Cunfederucy or Jeebusland? By the way, we're taking the good pot, too. You’ll still have your meth labs.
We get the coasts
You get the fly over states
We get California and the nude beaches
You get Texas, Oklahoma and the rest of cowboy America
We get Manhattan and Chesapeake Bay
You get the Dukes of Hazards states like Alabama and Mississipi
We get Hollywood, Yosemite and the best beaches
You get Iowa, incest and swamps.
We get the resorts and golf courses
You get Graceland and Nascar.
We get the Statue of Liberty and the Golden Gate Bridge.
You get Dollywood, the Appalachians and the Ozarks.
We get Stanford, Columbia, Princeton and Harvard.
You get Ole' Miss, Bob Jones University, Clemson, the University of Georgia and Columbine High School.
We get 85 percent of America's venture capital and two-thirds of the tax revenue
You get the churches and people that that don’t believe in paying taxes.
We get entrepreneurs, Intel and Microsoft.
You get WorldCom and Enron.
Peace out,
Blue States
Why shouldn't she?
That's what McConnell did when they stole Obama's last Supreme Court nomination. Perhaps Pelosi can find a way to steal the Senate trial from the Republicans by waiting for the 2020 elections in the hope for a Democratic Senate. This would still lead to an acquittal, since the Democrats won't hold a 2/3 majority, and Republicans are simply no longer interested in justice or obeying the law, so the votes for conviction won't be there, but at least there could be witnesses chosen by Democrats and a majority vote to convict rather than the Soviet-type pro forma trial the Republicans intend.
esmith
Veteran Member
No that is called elections have consequences. The Dem's screwed the pooch and didn't have control of the Senate hence with a simple majority (thanks to Harry Read and his "nuclear option") the Republican had and still have control.
If you believe that I've got some beachfront property for sale in Nevada
Well you know what opinions are and that is all you got. Get over it.
It still takes a 2/3 majority to convict. That is unless the Constitution is amended so again get over it.
QuestioningMind
Well-Known Member
ROFL... hardly. When a jurist loudly announces that they have no intention of being impartial it's EVERYONE'S obligation to rectify the situation... at least everyone who cares about our nation and the rule of law. Sadly that doesn't appear to include you or the vast majority of Republicans.
QuestioningMind
Well-Known Member
Like I said everyone agreed that it was a crime to commit perjury. They also agreed that it was NOT a crime against the nation, just a crime against his wife and his marriage. They recognized that attempting to impeach a president for having an extramarital affair WAS purely political and had NOTHING to do undermining the safety of this nation.
On the other hand, Trump withholding essential military aid just to score points against his political opponents DID undermine the security of this nation and needs to be prosecuted if this nation is to continue to have any integrity.
What you illustrate is that all impeachments are political.
Some crimes are excused, & some are raged over.
It largely depends upon party affiliation.
Note that Clinton's defenders (who tend to be Trump's detractors)
are quick to say it was about an affair. But he was impeached over
very real crimes (perjury & suborning it), for which ordinary citizens
go to prison. That they refuse to recognize this points to political
bias generally governing judgment.
If they do prove his guilt, I agree they're worse crimes.
But it's still a political question, ie, do the crimes rise
to the level that the country would be better off with
the Prez ousted. Opinions vary. We shall see.
Mr Spinkles
Mr
I agree with both you and QuestioningMind.
So it’s a political question and opinions vary. What is your opinion - should he have been investigated; impeached; should he have an actual trial?
Personally I think the bar for being removed from office should be very high. I think it’s good they impeached Clinton as a president lying to a grand jury ought to be taken extremely seriously, not to mention his other shenanigans. Given the unique circumstances where he was cleared on everything else and only lied about an affair in the course of the investigation, while unacceptable, I would not have voted to remove a president from office over that. But I would have supported impeachment and some kind of official censure.
I also think reasonable minds can disagree on whether Trump should be removed from office. Certainly, it would make sense to reserve judgment on that question until there has been a fulsome trial where Trump can present his case - if, that is, the Trump Party would make good on its likely false promise that it wanted a fair trial.
What I don’t get is the apparent argument from Trump’s loyal adherents that the whistleblower complaint should have been ignored, or Trump’s obstruction and messing with Congress’ power of the purse should have been allowed; and their argument that the rightness or wrongness of Trump’s behavior was - well, who knows, let’s just not talk about it.
At the very least, it seems to me, it’s “vital” that he be impeached - as Ms Fiorina said. And that is my honest attempt to look at the matter objectively, as I do NOT (contrary to Trump Party fantasy) think impeaching a President is something to be taken lightly. The bar should be high. Trump has shockingly leaped that bar - repeatedly now - in my view, leaving us no choice.
While Trumpsters may disagree with the conclusions I wish they were not so blind to think it’s mere partisanship behind impeaching Trump. It isn’t.
Anyway, what is your view? Should he have been investigated? Impeached?
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Like I said, Pelosi's attempt at picking her own jury.
IMO....
Investigation was appropriate.
Impeachment seemed premature.
Should there be a trial?
I don't know....I see reasons to have it & to not have it.
Answered above.
Mr Spinkles
Mr
Thanks. FWIW, I would normally agree with you the impeachment was premature. However, in my view, the circumstances here were extraordinary because he is blanket obstructing across the board, he’s a repeat offender for obstruction and inciting foreign interference in elections, we have an election coming up and the evidence that exists is damning enough to warrant a trial. In my view. If it weren’t for those special circumstances, I would normally agree with you impeachment is premature.
The nearness of the election provides an alternative to
impeachment & trial, lessening the import of the latter.
"Inciting foreign interference" looks like an over-reach.
Mr Spinkles
Mr
Yeah I think it’s the opposite - the nearness of the election makes the trial very important. Since the election is the thing he’s accused of jeopardizing. I don’t see inciting foreign interference as an over reach I see that as restating the things that Trumps own staff were concerned about. I think we should take their concerns seriously.
Back to the fundamental that impeachment & the trial are political,
the imminent election is an ideal venue for judgement. It would be
just by the voters rather than Congress. One looks no worse than
the other. And the election has the advantage of not distracting
government from its regular function....if we want them doing that.
Mr Spinkles
Mr
I would normally agree with you that the electoral process is the best remedy, if it was not for the extraordinary circumstances we are dealing with here.
For one, one of the very things the President is accused of injuring, is the integrity of the electoral process itself. He is a repeat offender here.
Second, I am afraid we have reached that very rare and dangerous situation in a democracy when a demagogue has captivated a large portion of the electorate and may very well win re-election even if he, to use his own analogy, shot someone dead in the middle of Fifth Avenue. Even if 50% of the country supports him no matter what - and I am afraid we have reached that point - that still doesn't give him a license to do anything. The Constitution provides remedies in such situations, which are no less legitimate or democratic than a straight up election, and we have no good alternative but to use them.
Most importantly, if we do not proceed to trial we may not get critical documents and testimony, e.g. from Bolton and others. This is not only important to confirm the current ugly picture the evidence has painted, but also, to assert the constitutional rights of Congress (not the President) over the purse, investigation, and impeachment. The Constitution is the ultimate law of the land, even if a populist majority of the electorate, in a spasm of xenophobia, elects an orange demagogue and is fine with him trampling on it.
I note that our democracy has had to deal with a popular, but sadly criminal, president before. Nixon won his second term in a landslide victory and enjoyed a 68% approval rating as late as January 1973, before the Watergate scandal erupted. Yet it it was not until the full documentary record came out on Nixon, that a meaningful - but by no means overwhelming - majority of Americans, 57%, support his removal from office. That compares to about 52% who support Trump's impeachment and removal from office today.
I think that percentage would tick up a few points and a similar process could play out with Trump, if the full record came out. Instead, Trump has hypnotized half the country into thinking that the evidence is incomplete and therefore the impeachment unfair ... hiding, somehow, the fact that it's only incomplete because he's illegally obstructing its release.
Source: From the archives: How the Watergate crisis eroded public support for Richard Nixon
Source: A majority of Americans in a new poll support Trump's impeachment and removal from office
I see our difference in assessing the danger to democracy.
It's not just in magnitude, but also in the Dems' attempt to
overturn the prior election...from the very beginning, Trump's
impeachment was a goal in search of a legal premise.
The upshot...
We have a system which survives gaming thereof in leaders'
vying for power with all the attendant political fighting.