Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 64,352
|
Post by Tennesseer on Dec 8, 2018 20:24:49 GMT -5
A Republican controlled House of Representatives has impeached for less: Bill Clinton: "I did not have sex with the woman." "Although proceedings were delayed due to the bombing of Iraq, on the passage of H. Res. 611, Clinton was impeached on December 19, 1998, by the House of Representatives on grounds of perjury to a grand jury (by a 228–206 vote)[17] and obstruction of justice (by a 221–212 vote).[18] Two other articles of impeachment failed – a second count of perjury in the Jones case (by a 205–229 vote)[19] and one accusing Clinton of abuse of power (by a 148–285 vote).[20] Clinton thus became the second U.S. president to be impeached, following Andrew Johnson in 1868. (Clinton was the third sitting president against whom the House of Representatives initiated impeachment proceedings since 1789.)" Impeachment of Bill ClintonFortunately, the Republican controlled senate was a little more reasonable but it was close: "The perjury charge was defeated with 55 "not guilty" votes and 45 "guilty" votes. On the obstruction-of-justice article, the chamber was evenly split, 50-50." How the senators voted on impeachmentFirstly, the man repeatedly lied under oath in open court. The situations would be comparable if Mr. Mueller called on Pres. Trump to testify as to whether he'd paid hush money to his mistress, and Pres. Trump lied under oath. Trump might well oblige if given the chance, but unless/until he does, he's done nothing so heinous as lying in open court (at least when it comes to concealing his adultery).
Secondly, the charges against Pres. Clinton were defeated--as you point out--despite the obvious perjury. In no small part, I imagine, because the government of the day felt Pres. Clinton's office dalliances were his private business and the investigation shouldn't have existed in the first place. I happen to agree with them. If the Democrats go after Pres. Trump on the basis of something Middle America genuinely resent, e.g. quid pro quo or large-scale tax evasion, they'll stand a fighting chance of impeaching him without looking like vindictive bullies. If they go after him on the basis of legal technicalities, especially relating to private issues, they'll be 2/3rds of the way to handing him his second term.
And trump lies, and lies, and lies in public. Looks like don jr. might be next to be indicted. Getting real close to papa. Real close.
|
|
dezii
Distinguished Associate
Joined: May 18, 2017 14:26:36 GMT -5
Posts: 20,671
|
Post by dezii on Dec 9, 2018 3:00:35 GMT -5
"The Five" on Fox are discussing it right now. "Fox"...u mean the blond ladies with the stiletto heels?
|
|
dezii
Distinguished Associate
Joined: May 18, 2017 14:26:36 GMT -5
Posts: 20,671
|
Post by dezii on Dec 9, 2018 3:02:49 GMT -5
Anything redacted in the report? You do know trump could be in the redacted, yes? Not sure. Fox News is just giving talking points, but no mention of redactions. Interviewing Alan Dershowitz now, and he says it looks like prosecutors are underwhelmed with the cooperation, as in no smoking gun. Would u expect "Fox" to have anyone on who would be against the Donald?
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 21,442
|
Post by happyhoix on Dec 10, 2018 9:22:10 GMT -5
A Republican controlled House of Representatives has impeached for less: Bill Clinton: "I did not have sex with the woman." "Although proceedings were delayed due to the bombing of Iraq, on the passage of H. Res. 611, Clinton was impeached on December 19, 1998, by the House of Representatives on grounds of perjury to a grand jury (by a 228–206 vote)[17] and obstruction of justice (by a 221–212 vote).[18] Two other articles of impeachment failed – a second count of perjury in the Jones case (by a 205–229 vote)[19] and one accusing Clinton of abuse of power (by a 148–285 vote).[20] Clinton thus became the second U.S. president to be impeached, following Andrew Johnson in 1868. (Clinton was the third sitting president against whom the House of Representatives initiated impeachment proceedings since 1789.)" Impeachment of Bill ClintonFortunately, the Republican controlled senate was a little more reasonable but it was close: "The perjury charge was defeated with 55 "not guilty" votes and 45 "guilty" votes. On the obstruction-of-justice article, the chamber was evenly split, 50-50." How the senators voted on impeachmentFirstly, the man repeatedly lied under oath in open court. The situations would be comparable if Mr. Mueller called on Pres. Trump to testify as to whether he'd paid hush money to his mistress, and Pres. Trump lied under oath. Trump might well oblige if given the chance, but unless/until he does, he's done nothing so heinous as lying in open court (at least when it comes to concealing his adultery).
Secondly, the charges against Pres. Clinton were defeated--as you point out--despite the obvious perjury. In no small part, I imagine, because the government of the day felt Pres. Clinton's office dalliances were his private business and the investigation shouldn't have existed in the first place. I happen to agree with them. If the Democrats go after Pres. Trump on the basis of something Middle America genuinely resent, e.g. quid pro quo or large-scale tax evasion, they'll stand a fighting chance of impeaching him without looking like vindictive bullies. If they go after him on the basis of legal technicalities, especially relating to private issues, they'll be 2/3rds of the way to handing him his second term.
Virgil, I actually agree with you on this!
Next - dogs and cats getting married! The world turned upside down!
One of the media outlets recently compiled a list of 14 Trump campaign employees who had contacts with the Russians during the campaign. I know you roll your eyes every time someone says this, but Mueller has not finished his investigation, and when that finally does conclude, if there is enough evidence to show that Trump Sr personally knew about the contacts (or made contact himself) in some scheme to get approval to build a Trump Tower Moscow in exchange for helping to throw a monkey wrench into the American election, then that would be something worth impeaching him over. I think you would probably agree with me on that, too. If there is not enough evidence to prove Trump's campaign collude with the Russians (and Trump knew about it) then I think there's no 'there' there - at least not on the collusion with the Russians issue. What Mueller released last Friday were two sentencing memos, with a ton of stuff redacted. We won't know for sure what he's got until he releases his whole, unredacted report.
|
|
Value Buy
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 17:57:07 GMT -5
Posts: 18,680
Today's Mood: Getting better by the day!
Location: In the middle of enjoying retirement!
Favorite Drink: Zombie Dust from Three Floyd's brewery
Mini-Profile Name Color: e61975
Mini-Profile Text Color: 196ce6
|
Post by Value Buy on Dec 11, 2018 9:35:08 GMT -5
Not sure. Fox News is just giving talking points, but no mention of redactions. Interviewing Alan Dershowitz now, and he says it looks like prosecutors are underwhelmed with the cooperation, as in no smoking gun. Would u expect "Fox" to have anyone on who would be against the Donald? Ever watch Sheppard Smith and his show in the afternoon? Not a fan of Trump's. Sometimes I forget I am not watching CNN.
|
|
dezii
Distinguished Associate
Joined: May 18, 2017 14:26:36 GMT -5
Posts: 20,671
|
Post by dezii on Dec 11, 2018 10:56:15 GMT -5
Would u expect "Fox" to have anyone on who would be against the Donald? Ever watch Sheppard Smith and his show in the afternoon? Not a fan of Trump's. Sometimes I forget I am not watching CNN. No and I am not familier with him...I understand that there are occasional spots of real news and different opinions regarding the Donald but I don't believe it is up to me to all of a sudden remember to tune in a particular individual....I have tuned to Fox occasionally and to me it is a constant refrain of the Donald doing no wrong and the liberals being "anti Christ".....and on and on...If u are one who watches the channel the majority of the time ...have to ask as a intelligent individual...u are....so question is "Why"? Just to hear what u believe politically repeated on the air...? Makes no sense to me so again...."why"....
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,321
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 17, 2018 0:27:16 GMT -5
Mueller is asking for substantial jail time for Cohen regardless of so called "cooperation". Cohen had created massive fraud concernig certain agreements with madeup contracts where he received funds from the proceeds. No link yet, but it sounds like he made Avenatti look like a stand up lawyer! and to think, he is probably the most honest guy to ever associate with Trump.
|
|