How Much Clinton is too Much Clinton

[RopeaDope 0]

quade

***The House Judiciary Committee is not the House.

You're right. It's the Judiciary Committee for the HOUSE. It held IMPEACHMENT HEARINGS and voted to convict on two out of three counts.

That is, in fact, how this works. Nixon was subject to an IMPEACHMENT trial in the HOUSE. He was IMPEACHED.

The only thing stopping him from being forcibly removed from office was he resigned before the formality of the Senate doing the same.

Everything else is simply a whitewash of the facts. It's like saying a murderer who has been indicted is somehow absolved of his sins simply because he commits suicide the night before sentencing.

Don't get me wrong Sir, Nixon was as wrong as wrong as the "2 girls 1 cup" video, but he was not impeached.

"Nixon was subject to an IMPEACHMENT trial in the HOUSE."

"he resigned before the formality of the Senate doing the same."

To be impeached the proceedings must pass boy the house and senate.

He was subject to, yes. He was undoubtedly guilty, yes. HOWEVER, he resigned BEFORE being impeached and was subsequently pardoned by Gerald Ford.

It would be more comparable to a murderer being indicted, but during the trial, before reaching a guilty verdict, the DA decides to drop the charges. Doesn't change what he did, but it means he was not convicted of murder.

[RopeaDope 0]

kallend

***

Kallend- The Jefferson issue is speculation. A person made accusations after Jefferson denied him a position as the Post Master General. Some scholars believe it never happened and some believe he had a long term relationship with one of them after his wife died.

Nope. DNA testing has proved that he fathered children by Sally Hemings. Even the Thomas Jefferson Foundation concluded in 2012 "evidence strongly supports the conclusion that Jefferson was the father of Sally Hemings' children."

The DNA testing is circumstantial because Jefferson had 5 sons who were well known for fraternizing with the family slaves. DNA from his blood line could have come from one or some of them just as easily as it could have come from him.

- As well, there is the possible scenario, that he fathered children with Sally Hemings during a long term committed relationship with her after the death of his wife, which is quite different than "sneaking around slinging the D at all of his female slaves behind his wife's back" as some would assert.

[normiss 871]

Good to see you back!
How's the Brazos doing?

[RopeaDope 0]

normiss

Good to see you back!
How's the Brazos doing?

?? I don't get it.

[RopeaDope 0]

wmw999

Few people have disagreements with GHWB other than political and policy. He was an honorable and straight-up president.
The Clinton "scandals" were largely (though not entirely) blown up by outraged people who were looking for things to hang on them. They were no more significant than "GWB walked out of the National Guard" or "GWB was an alcoholic" or "Laura Bush was the driver in a fatal accident." Those are all true or interpretations as well, and while some consider them to be "scandals," it's just BS, and examples of the kinds of things that nearly every adult has in their background.

For instance, I have none of those specific issues in my background, but it would be possible to find things that could be trumped up. And I'm sure that just about every other adult on here has stuff in their background.

None of it was anything like Nixon; a generation earlier, much of that just wasn't addressed by the press as part of privacy. Look at philandering that went on with Kennedy, Eisenhower and Roosevelt; all the really awful stuff during Harding (which was closer to the perversion of power under Nixon).

Calling something a scandal doesn't really make it one. Saying it again and again and again and again doesn't change it, it just changes the perception of people who listen to news for their information.

Everything includes perspective and context. It's impossible to present every single piece of ancillary information. So scandal is best judged by history, just as whether a president is good or bad. Consider the downstream effects of decisions or actions, and just do the best you can.

Which is why, to me, the decision to invade Iraq, and particularly when we were already in Afghanistan, was almost criminal. It showed no thought about likely results of the actions.

Wendy P.

Wendy, I agree, and your post was well stated. I'm just not in favor of the life long career politicians. I believe them to be out of touch, beyond the law, and their actions are questionable at best, being motivated by corruption and political favors.

Personally, I was hoping to see Fiorina do a lot better, but that doesn't really seem to be an option know. This year we are merely trying to whittle each party down it the lessor of its evils, and then hoping the victor doesn't put us in too big of a jam in the next four years.

[Driver1 0]

Based on what Quade was saying... The House impeached Nixon. The Senate was in the process of doing the same but Nixon resigned before it could happen, nullifying the whole process. Is that about right?

There will be no addressing the customers as "Bitches", "Morons" or "Retards"!

[RopeaDope 0]

Driver1

Based on what Quade was saying... The House impeached Nixon. The Senate was in the process of doing the same but Nixon resigned before it could happen, nullifying the whole process. Is that about right?

This is what I learnt in school. Nixon was planning on going through with it thinking he could beat it, and then the "smoking gun" tapes were revealed and he knew he was screwed, so he promptly resigned and in exchange for a Presidential pardon from his Vice President/successor, Gerald Ford.

Therefor he had resigned and been pardoned of any wrong doing before an impeachment could be completed. To wit, the argument came about betwixt Quade and I as he challenged my claim that Clinton was the second Prezzy to be impeached, and not the third.

A thin line between semantics I suppose.

[winsor 236]

Driver1

Based on what Quade was saying... The House impeached Nixon. The Senate was in the process of doing the same but Nixon resigned before it could happen, nullifying the whole process. Is that about right?

No.

The House initiated impeachment proceedings, but before he could be subjected to impeachment, he resigned.

The criminal law equivalent would be indicted, but not brought to trial.

Was he guilty? They had him dead to rights.

Were the charges against Clinton factual? Every bit as much as those being brought against Tricky Dick.

Was the finding of 'not guilty' an indication that Clinton did not commit the offenses of which he was accused? Not hardly - Congress quite rightly concluded that ejecting him from office would cause MUCH more damage than they were willing to endure, so he got a pass.

I try not to let my likes and dislikes cloud my ability to discern facts.

Anyone who thinks Nixon was impeached should be subject to remedial Civics study.


BSBD,

Winsor

[jakee 1,571]

Driver1

Based on what Quade was saying... The House impeached Nixon. The Senate was in the process of doing the same but Nixon resigned before it could happen, nullifying the whole process. Is that about right?

Based on what Quade is saying that's right... but Quade is wrong

The House did not impeach Nixon. The House Judiciary Committee ratified Impeachment Articles to be considered by the House but the House never got to look at them, let alone the Senate trial.

Quade is essentially arguing that a Grand Jury indictment is the same thing as a conviction.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?