• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

GOP confident of win on witnesses

MSgt said:
But having the power of impeachment does come with a sense of responsibility, in which the GOP has proven incapable of deserving.

- They protected Nixon until the evidence weighed more than their partisan denials...
- They reduced impeachment to a partisan tool against Clinton for his choice to lie to Congress over admitting to adultery and a blow job...
- They now refuse the power when their President actually tried to coerce a foreign government with cash to help him damage the integrity of American democracy for personal gain.

And I can go further back. Andrew Johnson, who tried to reverse the gains of the Civil War by firing congressionally appointed figures, was a Democrat. But the Democratic Party then represented the Conservatives. So maybe it's less that the GOP doesn't deserve this power, and more that it is Conservatives who don't deserve it.

Anyway, from today's behavior, the GOP is actually stating that what Trump did is not impeachable...but a lie about a blow job is?! This is not a petty inconsequential game between political Parties in a race to "win." This is our country that they ****ing toy with.
Click to expand...

Clinton wasn't impeached about a blow job. He was impeached for perjury and with obstruction of justice.

Articles referred to Senate

Article I, charging Clinton with perjury, alleged in part that:
On August 17, 1998, William Jefferson Clinton swore to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth before a federal grand jury of the United States. Contrary to that oath, William Jefferson Clinton willfully provided perjurious, false and misleading testimony to the grand jury concerning one or more of the following:
  1. the nature and details of his relationship with a subordinate government employee;
  2. prior perjurious, false and misleading testimony he gave in a federal civil rights action brought against him;
  3. prior false and misleading statements he allowed his attorney to make to a federal judge in that civil rights action; and
  4. his corrupt efforts to influence the testimony of witnesses and to impede the discovery of evidence in that civil rights action.[SUP][33][/SUP][SUP][34][/SUP]
Article II, charging Clinton with obstruction of justice alleged in part that:
The means used to implement this course of conduct or scheme included one or more of the following acts:
  1. ... corruptly encouraged a witness in a Federal civil rights action brought against him to execute a sworn affidavit in that proceeding that he knew to be perjurious, false and misleading.
  2. ... corruptly encouraged a witness in a Federal civil rights action brought against him to give perjurious, false and misleading testimony if and when called to testify personally in that proceeding.
  3. ... corruptly engaged in, encouraged, or supported a scheme to conceal evidence that had been subpoenaed in a Federal civil rights action brought against him.
  4. ... intensified and succeeded in an effort to secure job assistance to a witness in a Federal civil rights action brought against him in order to corruptly prevent the truthful testimony of that witness in that proceeding at a time when the truthful testimony of that witness would have been harmful to him.
  5. ... at his deposition in a Federal civil rights action brought against him, William Jefferson Clinton corruptly allowed his attorney to make false and misleading statements to a Federal judge characterizing an affidavit, in order to prevent questioning deemed relevant by the judge. Such false and misleading statements were subsequently acknowledged by his attorney in a communication to that judge.
  6. ... related a false and misleading account of events relevant to a Federal civil rights action brought against him to a potential witness in that proceeding, in order to corruptly influence the testimony of that witness.
  7. ... made false and misleading statements to potential witnesses in a Federal grand jury proceeding in order to corruptly influence the testimony of those witnesses. The false and misleading statements made by William Jefferson Clinton were repeated by the witnesses to the grand jury, causing the grand jury to receive false and misleading information.[SUP][33][/SUP][SUP][35][/SUP]
Impeachment of Bill Clinton - Wikipedia
Click to expand...
 
MovingPictures said:
Yes, but many Republicans there today voted for conviction then.
Click to expand...

They were wrong to do so, imo, and I've always thought the entire impeachment was nothing more than this impeachment, unnecessary for the country.

eta: The Republicans impeached Clinton for the same reason the Dems. impeached Trump. To dirty them up so one from their team takes the next election all the way to the WH.
 
Robertinfremont said:
Adam Schiff flat out screwed his pooch. He believed he convicted Trump. Now he pleads he really needs an actual witness and believes Bolton is it. But he can't speak for Bolton nor can the NY Times. The Times printed it hoping. Hopes that soon will be dashed.
Click to expand...

Why would Schiff believe that Bolton's testimoney would be any significantly different than his executive assistance, Fiona Hill? Who's already testified to the House.
 
MovingPictures said:
Yes, but many Republicans there today voted for conviction then.
Click to expand...

And there were many Democrats who voted for conviction as well. It was bi-partisan, unlike this impeachment.
 
Robertinfremont said:
You must be aware tough that in the Clinton case, he actually was charged with 2 solid crimes. He flat out got lucky.
Click to expand...
Yeah, relating to a civil suit that is small potatoes compared to using hundreds of millions of dollars of public money for a political attack scheme.

This douche we have now would have been toast in the 70's and we all know it.
 
eohrnberger said:
And there were many Democrats who voted for conviction as well. It was bi-partisan, unlike this impeachment.
Click to expand...
Wrong.

Not a single Democrat voted for conviction in the Senate. Actually, ten Republicans voted against conviction in the Senate, and so since it matters so much to you, it was conviction that was bi-partisan.

You're talking about the House, where four Democrats and four Republicans crossed party lines on the impeachment itself.
 
trixare4kids said:
They were wrong to do so, imo, and I've always thought the entire impeachment was nothing more than this impeachment, unnecessary for the country.

eta: The Republicans impeached Clinton for the same reason the Dems. impeached Trump. To dirty them up so one from their team takes the next election all the way to the WH.
Click to expand...
Personally, I do feel Clinton deserved to be impeached, but not for the perjury.

The issues was not a false statement about sex, it was Clinton lying to aides to get them involved in his problems with the Jones case, then asserting executive privilege to keep them from talking to Starr and revealing how deep he got the WH in his civil case.
 
MSgt said:
But we are talking about a very different breed of Republican today. They have been crystal clear: they simply do not care that Trump did this.

And since they have done everything to make sure that that we know that they don't care, the GOP seeking to abruptly end this process as quickly as possible has less to do with protecting Trump than it does trying to salvage a sense of integrity in the history books. The last thing they want is an actual trial in the Senate that will force them to look even further away from their duties as guardians of American democracy. Thus, they scoff, pretend, and hurry along their goal to dismiss.
Click to expand...

That is correct. No crime was committed. We don’t care if Trump did pressure Ukraine. As testified by Dershowitz, this is how foreign policy is intended to work.
 
trixare4kids said:
Clinton wasn't convicted by the senate.
There's the answer to your question.
Click to expand...

Not really. That's avoidance.

- The Republican House overwhelmingly impeached Clinton, with Democrats in the House overwhelmingly rejecting.

- The Republican Senate overwhelmingly voted to impeach, with Democrats in the senate overwhelmingly rejecting.

The reason Clinton was acquitted by the Senate was that the GOP lacked the numbers as the majority. Despite owning the Senate, they needed 67 "guilty" votes. Even if every single Republican voted to impeach (only a handful voted "nay"), they would not have had the 67 that they needed. Thus, Clinton walked. Now come forward in time to what you are witnessing right now.

- The Democratic House overwhelmingly impeached Trump, with Republicans in the House overwhelmingly rejecting.

- The Republican Senate will overwhelmingly vote to acquit, with Democrats overwhelmingly voting to impeach.

Trump will skate because the majority Republicans have the numbers to acquit. So, as I declared, the GOP is stating that what Trump did is not impeachable...but a lie about a blow job is.
 
Last edited:
MovingPictures said:
Wrong.

Not a single Democrat voted for conviction in the Senate. Actually, ten Republicans voted against conviction in the Senate, and so since it matters so much to you, it was conviction that was bi-partisan.

You're talking about the House, where four Democrats and four Republicans crossed party lines on the impeachment itself.
Click to expand...

Yes, I was talking about the House in the Clinton case, as I was talking about House in this case, where there was more bi-partisan support against this impeachment. :shrug:
 
eohrnberger said:
Clinton wasn't impeached about a blow job. He was impeached for perjury and with obstruction of justice.
Click to expand...

Yeah....I know. Hence my statement:

- "They reduced impeachment to a partisan tool against Clinton for his choice to lie to Congress over admitting to adultery and a blow job."
 
eohrnberger said:
Yes, I was talking about the House in the Clinton case, as I was talking about House in this case, where there was more bi-partisan support against this impeachment. :shrug:
Click to expand...
There were two Democratic votes against the Trump articles and four Republican against Clinton's.

The very minor number your taking refuge in is itself wrong.
 
Aberration said:
That is correct. No crime was committed. We don’t care if Trump did pressure Ukraine. As testified by Dershowitz, this is how foreign policy is intended to work.
Click to expand...

There is a very big difference between coercing a country for our national interests and coercing a country to harm Americans for domestic personal gain, thus damaging the integrity of American democracy. Do you see how one involves a proper diplomatic act in our name, whereas the other is an improper act in our name? The crime should be treason.

Dershowitz did you no favor by insisting that you play obtuse to this difference. You don't care, because you simply do not care. At least have the integrity to own that.
 
Last edited:
MovingPictures said:
Too bad. Freedom of speech.

There is no way for them to enforce executive privilege on an ex-aide. If Bolton thumbs his nose at the WH and they ask a court to block him, the case will be dismissed with a summary judgement that the WH has no authority over ex-employees, or any grounds to block their speech, and that the Senate can talk to any ex-aide they want.
Click to expand...

Yes there is. Reportedly Trump requires Non-Disclosure Agreements and the National Security Council has their own. That is why his book transcript is sitting in the WH
 
Drawdown said:
Yes there is. Reportedly Trump requires Non-Disclosure Agreements and the National Security Council has their own. That is why his book transcript is sitting in the WH
Click to expand...
Those aren't worth the paper they're written on.

The aides don't work for the President personally, but for the federally government. The only thing the government can prevent a person from talking about is top secret or classified intel, and that's all they can stop. Everything else is covered by the 1A, including conversations with the President.

If they try to enforce that idiotic NDA they'll get laughed out of court.
 
trixare4kids said:
If I misread your post, my apologies.
Care to expound on your point then? What did you mean that "we lose the power of impeachment"?
Click to expand...

My point is that the executive branch will be held accountable only if both houses of Congress are held by the supposing party. As long as the president has a hold on one house or the other, he will be free to act as he chooses.

This of course is the Trump model. I have hope that things will return to normal once he's gone.
 
trixare4kids said:
The latest news on calling witnesses...


So we shall see...

GOP confident of win on witnesses | TheHill
Click to expand...

Perhaps there maybe 1,2,3 or 4 Democrat Senators thinking about voting nay for witnesses in the Senate since that could extend their time to sitting in their Senate seats instead of being on the campaign trail running to be the Democratic Party’s Nominee for President.

Especially since them sitting in Senate seats instead of campaigning is a detrimental for them and beneficial for Joe Biden who is free to campaign to his heart content.

Roseann:)
 
trixare4kids said:
The latest news on calling witnesses...


So we shall see...

GOP confident of win on witnesses | TheHill
Click to expand...

No one really knows how some of the mealy-mouthed GOP Senators will vote. They need to consider their constituency; their chances of winning their seat this November; the retribution they might suffer (from Trump) if they vote to have witnesses; the reaction from fellow GOP Senators if they vote for witnesses; and lastly, their conscience which you can never discern in a politician desperate to stay relevant in national politics.
 
Chomsky said:
And here's where democracy dies ...
Click to expand...

Old Doom and Gloom Chompsky opines again.
You think democracy is dying and you won't agree we need to have an election and let the people determine whether Trump should stay in the White House get his walking papers.
You don't trust the American people to make the key decision on Trump.
How can you have any credibility if all you want is to see two toothless articles of impeachment sink Trump's boat.?
And you know, in your heart of hearts, that will never happen.
Democracy could die if there were more citizens like you who don't have faith in our republic.
 
MovingPictures said:
Wrong.

This is where democracy gives us a chance to fire these people. Come the glorious month of November, the seats of Ernst, Tillis, Collins, Gardner, McSally and two seats in Georgia will all be up for grabs, and it's just a matter of making people remember there's no such thing as a moderate Republican right now

Many of these fools will simply be signing their own pink slips - Gardner and Collins in particular.
Click to expand...

That's the old democratic spirit!! Although I hope you are wrong.
 
:lamo

I LOVE watching you people pissing yourself about the republicans in the senate...as if the House rats you people support held a fair process. You people are straight up ADMITTING the rats in the house impeached a man with insufficient evidence based solely on their bias and hatred (which you share)...and now you are pissing yourself because the Senate may not give you the predetermined results you people decided 3.5 YEARS ago.

Democracy dies...

You people are a ****ing crack up.

:lamo
 
Chomsky said:
How is hiding the truth from the People good?

No, I disagree with you. This whole thing (Ukraine) has specifically been to illegally influence the upcoming election. And this is more of the same. More. Not less. Democracy dies without transparency. It is that simple.
Click to expand...

Chompsky
Any and every U.S. president has the right and the duty to withhold aid to a country if that country is believed to be corrupt in its internal dealings. That's what Trump did. It is speculation to declare he did it simply to improve his political prospects this November.
Listen to Dershowitz, the Constitutional lawyer, if you can follow his reasoning.
 
swing_voter said:
You need at least a dozen republicans to vote for impeachment. Without republicans the impeachment is 100% partisan and a sham.
Click to expand...


You need 20 GOP Senators to go along with 43 Dem Senators in order to convict Trump.
Trump has already been impeached by witchy Pelosi and her minions.
 
Chomsky said:
No one is removing Trump via the Senate. And if you want Trump to be removed via electorate, the electorate needs to be informed. And informed electorate is the first tenet of democracy.

I'm not sure we all realize what's going on here. Trump is being given free reign to go out and influence the upcoming election in any way he chooses. He found he can be fully ignorant of Congress, and now he is soon to be impeachment-poof. This is some very, very, dangerous stuff. Especially with Trump. Because the moment McConnel swings the gavel, Trump will double down on fixing the upcoming election in even further ways than we can imagine.
Click to expand...

Now you're really going off the deep end. Do you know something we don't? How, pray tell, can Trump fix the upcoming election?
You believe that only if you sincerely believe the Russians were complicit in getting Trump elected.
Do you believe in aliens and flying saucers being covered up by our government?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom