Presidential lies
POSTED BY: chrisisall
UPDATED: Friday, August 29, 2025 15:06
VIEWED: 27467
PAGE 14 of 24
Quote:
Originally posted by MIKER:
That's because you see ghosts.
Or I am capable of recognizing a pattern, both in language usage, and whiney behavior.
I agree with Chris - a constructed persona.
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”? Isaac Asimov
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by MIKER:
It's not bull if it is accurate, which it is.
Sorry, try again. This has been debunked. Once again, you are demonstrably in error, and ensconced in the endless anti-whom-you-hate bullshit. Feel free to go on, and prove yourself more the idiot than you have already (Heh, if that's even possible at this point).
You proved me right here.
Thanks.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by MIKER:Quote:
Originally posted by Oonjerah:
^ Maybe not.
"The House Judiciary Committee usually sends the greatest number of
substantive bills to the House Floor each year."
One of the things the HJC does is, it composes & proposes New Laws.
When they create a new bill and send it to the House for discussion &
ratification, it says much the same as it will when it's voted in or voted
down. A bill is a proposed law with no power to enforce anything.
The HJC wrote in present tense, "RESOLVED, That Richard M. Nixon,
President of the United States, is impeached for high crimes and
misdemeanours ..." It wasn't a Law when it went to the floor on July
30th. It wasn't a law even on 9 Aug 1974, when Nixon resigned. ...
It was a suggestion.
He plead guilty to the charges because they were going forward with the impeachment.
Incorrect. He never plead guilty, because he was not guilty. On the other hand, you are now contradicting yourself, having claimed all this time that he was Impeached, and now you are saying he was going to be Impeached, which indicates you understand that he was not Impeached.
Quote:
There is no pardon without an admission of guilt to the charges.
Also incorrect. Ford administered an unconditional pardon to prevent further long drawn out political battle. There was no admission of guilt, because he knew he wasn't guilty. The pardon was pre-emptive.
Quote:
The charges were in the Articles of Impeachment.
You mean the proposed, suggested, presented, considered, discussed Articles. Only one Article had substance, and was only going to get near passage due to the 243-192 Democrat majority (242 Dems, 1 Independent voting as Democrat). It was only trumped up to a Committee vote based on hearsay and there was no truth to the claims. Nixon did finally admit that he should have dealt with the problem which did occur more forcefully, but he only found out about it after the event occurred.
The second and third Articles essentially say that if the First is found true, then Nixon did not notify proper authorities that the claims in the First Article did occur. These are merely piling on, as soon as the First Article is found baseless, the other 2 collapse completely. This is because, as Nixon knew, he could not have notified anybody about something which didn't happen. Also note that these 2 Articles required more arm-twisting of the Committee, barely passed out of Committee, and took more days to get a majority vote from the Committee.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Oonjerah:Quote:
Originally posted by MIKER:
He plead guilty to the charges because they were going forward with the impeachment. You do not get to plead guilty and then suggest it never happened.
No one said it didn't happen. At least 2 of his staff went to prison.
Incorrect. He never said it happened. Two of his staff went to prison for what they did. Not the same as Nixon doing something.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by MIKER:
So is it safe to say we can put this to bed JSF, you seem to have lost all your supporters?
No. Just because some can be swayed by hyped up lies, does not mean I forsake the truth. Lack of support does not mean I succumb to falsehoods and failed logic based upon incorrect assumption or claims.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
Jeeeesh .... what a bunch of dumb-ass buffoons!
There's all this mental masterbation here, and then there are historical facts.
It's simple research ... ONLY 2 U.S. Presidents have ever been impeached. They are Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton. In BOTH cases the U.S. Senate acquitted them after a trial of the charges. Johnson was saved from removal by only one vote.
Nixon was never impeached, and he never plead guilty to anything. He resigned instead. He was later pardoned by Ford as protection against any future charges for crimes he may have committed.
A voice of reason amidst a cacophony of nincompoops.
Although, "BOTH cases" should actually be "ALL THREE cases".
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by MIKER:Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
Jeeeesh .... what a bunch of dumb-ass buffoons!
There's all this mental masterbation here, and then there are historical facts.
It's simple research ... ONLY 2 U.S. Presidents have ever been impeached. They are Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton. In BOTH cases the U.S. Senate acquitted them after a trial of the charges. Johnson was saved from removal by only one vote.
Nixon was never impeached, and he never plead guilty to anything. He resigned instead. He was later pardoned by Ford as protection against any future charges for crimes he may have committed.
He was being impeached and plead guilty, what is it you don't get. I don't care what Wikipedia says or answers dot com. In school our professors do not want us to use those sites for research because they are in many cases not accurate. The impeachment process and charges against him ended with his guilty plea and not before. You can not be pardoned for the not committing a crime or not having been found guilty of said crime.
You are saying he was pardoned for something he had not been found guilty of by the courts or by his own admittance. Not possible:)
You are correct about the accuracy of websites, which use fluid facts. Use Congressional Quarterly instead. Get your facts.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
A pre-emptive pardon?
Whoa!
The breezy logic swaying in the wind accidentally ventures into real facts.
I haven't read to the end of the thread yet, so how many posts before this one sways back to being convinced the lies are truths?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME