Real World Event Discussions
Presidential lies
POSTED BY: chrisisall
UPDATED: Friday, August 29, 2025 15:06
VIEWED: 27467
PAGE 16 of 24
Thursday, May 22, 2014 5:32 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Oonjerah:
From Wiki FWIW:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment#Officials_subject_to_impeachm
ent
Impeachment is a formal process in which an official is accused
of unlawful activity, the outcome of which, depending on the country,
may include the removal of that official from office as well as criminal
or civil punishment.
Officials subject to impeachment:
The central question regarding the Constitutional dispute about the
impeachment of members of the legislature is whether members of
Congress are officers of the United States. The Constitution grants
the House the power to impeach "The President, the Vice President,
and all civil Officers of the United States." It has been suggested that
members of Congress are not officers of the United States. Others,
however, believe that members are civil officers and are subject to
impeachment.
Process:
At the federal level, the impeachment process is a two-step procedure.
The House of Representatives must first pass, by a simple majority of
those present and voting, articles of impeachment, which constitute
the formal allegation or allegations. Upon passage, the defendant has
been "impeached". Next, the Senate tries the accused.
When it comes to Reality, I like to keep my options open. ~Oonjerah
I'll assume you were replying to my post prior.
I was referring to your claim that Impeachment cannot proceed against former government officials. However, Jongstraw already clarified that detail 2 posts after your original post stating that claim. I had not goten that far.
Or are you saying both Jongstraw and myself (and President Ford and his Counsel) are incorrect about former officeholders being still subject to Impeachment?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Thursday, May 22, 2014 5:49 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by MIKER:
Wow JSF, I just saw you carry on a conversation with me for about 8 or 9 posts without one response from me. Well, here is something that has a quote from Gerald Ford stating he saw Nixon's resignation as an admission of guilt. Guilt of the charges listed in the Articles of Impeachment.
“His resignation was an implicit admission of guilt, and he could have to carry forever his burden of guilt.”
"Calls for indictment will increase".
If they are calling for indictment the Impeachment process was continuing.
Category Tags: Nixon Pardon
August 28, 1974: Nixon Lawyer Argues for Pardon; ‘It’s a Done Deal’
Edit event
Leonard Garment.
Leonard Garment. [Source: Spartacus Educational]
Former President Nixon’s White House counsel, Leonard Garment, delivers a three-page handwritten memo to the White House outlining his arguments in favor of a pardon (see August 27, 1974). Garment writes that the time for a pardon is now, otherwise President Ford risks “losing control of the situation.” Calls for indictment will increase, Garment says, and “the whole miserable tragedy will be played out to God knows what ugly and wounding conclusion.” Once the initial negative reaction to a pardon blows over, Garment argues, Ford will be viewed as “strong and admirable.… There will be a national sigh of relief.” Garment also argues that Nixon well may not survive a prosecution because of his physical debilities and near-suicidal depression. Ford does not immediately see the memo, but his ad hoc chief of staff Alexander Haig does. Ford and Haig discuss the pardon in private, and though Ford will later write that Haig did not try to argue for a pardon, after the meeting Haig calls Garment to tell him, “It’s a done deal.” For his part, Ford doesn’t think the country wants to, in his words, “see an ex-president behind bars.” Nixon’s suffering is enormous, Ford believes: “His resignation was an implicit admission of guilt, and he could have to carry forever his burden of guilt.” Moreover, Ford worries that the nation is essentially overdosing on the political drama. Everyone has become “Watergate junkies,” as one of Ford’s military aides, Robert Barrett, tells him. “Some of us are mainlining, some of us are sniffing, some are lacing it with something else, but all of us are addicted,” Barrett says. “This will go on and on unless someone steps in and says that we, as a nation, must go cold turkey. Otherwise, we’ll die of an overdose.” [Werth, 2006, pp. 212-214]
Entity Tags: Richard M. Nixon, Gerald Rudolph Ford, Jr, Alexander M. Haig, Jr., Leonard Garment, Robert Barrett
Category Tags: Nixon Pardon
No reason to pardon someone not guilty of a crime. PEROID
Incorrect. The pre-emptive pardon was exercised to forestall the political mudslinging that was building up. You seem to fall victim to the claim that Nixon was guilty just because the POLITICS of the 93rd Congress were tilting towards an Impeachment vote eventually.
An analogy: just because more of the electorate checked Obama in 2012 does not mean Obama did not lie, does not mean he does not lie every day, does not mean he does not commit crimes every day, does not mean he does not violate the Constitution every day. It only means that, politically speaking, he was elected.
Similarly, whether the House of the 93rd Congress would have voted for Impeachment or not is not relevant to whether Nixon actually performed any criminal activity.
He was not guilty.
He was not Impeached.
He was granted an unconditional pardon.
You have already mentioned that it is your OPINION that Nixon was Impeached. Does this mean you do understand that the facts clearly show that Nixon was never Impeached? We can agree that you wish to have an OPINION which is opposite of fact, that is not a problem for me. I've just been pointing out that that claim is not true, and the clown linked to in the OP was lying when he claimed it was true - he was not claiming that it was his OPINION that an Impe
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Thursday, May 22, 2014 6:02 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by MIKER:
What is your point here. To talk past the topic of the thread to something else, I don't get your last post. Are you still suggesting Nixon was not Impeached? Are you willing to concede perhaps I have a point here? Or are you as adamant as ever he was not? I have shown you all document after document compared to not much else but conjecture.
Generally, I am usually replying to a quoted post when that post is included in my post. This happens often when I don't have time to completely catch up to thread activity in one sitting.
So are you saying that you understand that Nixon was never Impeached but you want to say that, since you claim he was guilty or something, you think his Impeachment was implied? This is the first I've heard of Impeachment by Implication.
I'll say that if he was not Impeached, then he was not Impeached.
I don't agree that if he was not Impeached, then he was Impeached.
Impeachment is accomplished via vote by the full House.
Impeachment is not accomplished via implication, suggestion, discussion, consultation, or obfuscation.
I don't mind your opinion, but the fact remains that Nixon was never Impeached.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Thursday, May 22, 2014 6:10 AM
I have noticed some agravated references to some posters in this thread.
I would like to state that, regarding Jongstraw and OOneraj, I usually find their input beneficial in the sense that they are making attempts to make positive contributions to the various sides of the arguments at hand, without regard to whether they are successful in every instance nor whether I agree with their statements each time. I normally find their input worthy of consideration, often thoughtful or provoking thought, and useful. I often peruse the list of posters for a thread on the right side of the column, and if they are amongst the group, I am encouraged to explore the thread in question.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Thursday, May 22, 2014 6:13 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by MIKER:
All you did was cut and paste what I posted. Go back and read the next one about the White House lawyer and his interpretation of the law. He explained to Gerald Ford that Nixon's guilt was conclusive if he accepted the pardon. He states a pardon means an admission of guilt. Read the section of the pardon I posted. I have made my point with documentation over and over again.
I also posted a quote from Ford who saw Nixon's resigning as proof of guilt. It is posted for all to see. All you are doing is showing all who view this thread you are not reading the documents posted, but instead cherry picking a line two and taking them out of context.
I read it.
That particular lawyer did not write the Constitution.
When you get somebody to Amend the Constitution to read the way you want it to, and then make it retroactive, then we'll have discussion regarding your interpretation.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Friday, May 23, 2014 4:33 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by MIKER:Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
I read it.
That particular lawyer did not write the Constitution.
When you get somebody to Amend the Constitution to read the way you want it to, and then make it retroactive, then we'll have discussion regarding your interpretation.
I have given you many documents showing Gerald Ford being quoted as believing in Nixon's guilt.
Gerald Ford did not Impeach any President, nor did he vote to Impeach any President. If you are trying to use this statement to prove Nixon was Impeached, you have failed with this statement. Gerald R. Ford, the sole House of Representatives member of The Warren Commission, trying to convince us sheep that Lee Harvey Oswald did the impossible, shot better than any human on the planet, and was the Lone Gunman who shot and killed JFK - yeah, I'm really gonna believe everything that spews from his pie hole.
Quote:
This along with the White House Lawyers research that led him to advise President Ford that the pardon is an admission of guilt, goes far beyond anyone heres opinion.
I'm fairly sure that some unelected lawyer lounging around the White House did not Impeach Nixon, nor vote to Impeach anybody, nor write the Constitution which specifies the process and Constitutional definition of Impeachment. He has as much power to Impeach a President as you or I do. If you are trying to use this statement to prove that Nixon was Impeached, you have failed with this statement.
Quote:
If they claim the Impeachment process is ongoing, which they do, and they believe in Nixon's guilt, which they do.
If the Impeachment process is ongoing, then that means an Impeachment has not occurred. If you are trying to use this statement to prove that Nixon was Impeached, then you have failed miserably because you have just stated that Nixon was in fact not yet Impeached.
Quote:
That, along with the law as interpreted by them suggesting Nixon or anyone else accepting a pardon as prof of guilt impels me to then suggest to you.
Suggestions are not Impeachments. No matter who makes the suggestion, it is still not an Impeachment, nor is it a vote amongst the full House for Impeachment. If you trying to use this statement to prove Nixon was Impeached, then you have failed to prove Nixon was Impeached with this statement.
Quote:
Your or anyone else here's opinion of their interpitation of the Constitution matters not.
Whomever's opinion or whomever's interpretation you are talking about, The Constitution clearly defines the Impeachment process and the meaning of Impeachment as it applies within the Constitution. None of what you have said falls within the parameters of Constitutional Impeachment, other than the Impeachments of the 17th (once) and 42nd (twice) Presidents. Those are Johnson and Clinton, neither of which are named Nixon, nor ever were. If you were trying to use this statement to prove Nixon was Impeached, then you have failed with this statement.
The issue of whether Nixon was guilty of anything, although debatable, does not determine whether he was Impeached or not.
The issue of whether Nixon was likely or not to be potentially Impeached at some point, although debatable, does not determine whether he was Impeached or not.
The issue of whether or not some people believe Nixon was Impeached does not determine whether he was Impeached or not.
The issue of whether or not some people believe Nixon should have been Impeached or not does not determine whether he was Impeached or not.
The issue of whether or not some people think Nixon should not have resigned does not determine whether he was Impeached or not.
The only thing that determines whether Nixon was Impeached or not was whether he was Impeached, which he was not. The House of Representatives never voted with at least 218 Yeas to Impeach him, therefore he was not Impeached, not ever, never. Since he was not Impeached, that is the only thi
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME