Presidential lies
POSTED BY: chrisisall
UPDATED: Friday, August 29, 2025 15:06
VIEWED: 27467
PAGE 17 of 24
Quote:
Originally posted by MIKER:
I have shown documents to show the Impeachment process was continuing after he left office. Jongstraw offered nothing but conjecture. Give me a break. That is all Jongstraw does is offer conjecture with pictures of fat women. This shit is too funny. My last two posts of the events clarify most everything. Once again I see you must not have read the posts but instead blindly comment on them.
My posts show Jongstraw as being more than a little incorrect.
It really doesn't matter. Look how many have read this thread. Over 1500 have seen conjecture verse documentation. That is the point of this. To show most here offer little else other than guesswork or ideology on this thread and the others they frequent. You can't erase this stuff. It lives on for all to see.
I don't see any place where you have shown that Jongstraw was incorrect by any measure. Can you specify?
If you really want to provide documentation, which I have already requested and you have refused to produce or refute, then please state the date of the vote and the vote count of the full House of Representatives on the proposed Articles of Impeachment, which is the only way for any President to become Impeached. This would actually be proof of Impeachment, which is perhaps why you have ignored it and refused to deal with the facts.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote JewelStaiteFan: "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."
^^ Exactly so. Once we/I understand the legal terms and the legal
process, it is very simple. The HoR never voted on the Articles of
Impeachment for Nixon. The only vote about those articles was when
the House Judiciary Committee voted to submit them to the House.
You can assume anything you want about the implication of Nixon's
resignation and pardon. But they are not an impeachment.
... oooOO}{OOooo ...
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Oonjerah:
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".
This thread is fun. For many reasons.
The much debated issue is clear: Upon passage, the defendant has been "impeached". The articles were written but not passed, therefore he was not impeached. The intentions of the House don't change the fact that the process was not completed. Yes, they would have impeached him given more time, but they didn't have it and he was never officially impeached.
Similarly, he was never formally found guilty of any crime.
He was guilty as hell imho and in the opinion of just about anyone with a brain capable of observing. But such is our system that when the Mighty commit crimes, they don't have to pay.
Regarding Miker...
It was unmistakeable a few pages up the thread that he began to sense his wrongness so he started wriggling like mad to get out of having to taste crow. In a classic Rappy move, he shifted the discussion to the intentions of the House, the pardon, the question of whether Nixon actually did bad stuff, etc.
None of which changes the fact that Nixon was not impeached.
What was really revealed in this thread is that Miker is the type of poster who cannot admit he is wrong and will manipulate the discussion however needed to avoid it.
Further, Miker thinks that taking a different "side" on an issue is what defines his personality as being different from Rap. Like Rappy, he does not understand that his logic (or lack thereof) is the tell-tale. I could believe that he is yet another face of the poster behind Rappy, a sock invented to argue against himself because that makes him/her feel soooooo clever.
It's happened before. It will happen again.
*-------------------------------------------------*
What trolls reveal about themselves when they troll:
http://fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=57532
*-------------------------------------------------*
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
^^
Yeah. I checked out his profile with 3 short blogs. 1st April for the 2nd one.
Is that a clue?
He's not gonna be straight. But will he be entertaining?
As for this thread, Nixon's been way overcooked.
Other Presidents have lied.
Would the Bay of Pigs or Gulf of Tonkin be worth some study & talk?
... oooOO}{OOooo ...
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by MIKER:Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
http://www.newsworks.org/index.php/local/national-interest/61883-presi
dential-lying-a-history-primer
Nice, short article on the lies Presidents have told.
What a retard, writing an article about a subject he clearly doesn't even understand. He falsely claims that Nixon was impeached, in his effort to excuse Clinton's 2 impeachments. Yes, Clinton was one of 2 Presidents to be impeached among the country's grand total of 3 impeachments, but Nixon was not among them. For those of you libtards who cannot do the math, that means Clinton was impeached more times than all other Presidents combined.
When a libtard like this cannot even get the basic facts correct, how can you subject yourselves to further drivel from his pie hole?
So, dumbisall, are you trying to claim that RWR traded weapons for hostages in the mid 80's? Can you specify which hostages in the mid 80's were released from Iran after weapons were provided? Even that blogger clown backs down by clarifying that weapons were sold, and then RWR had the gall to do the right thing by violating the Boland Amendment. For a refresher on the Boland/Iran-Contra, see the modern day parable known as Clear and Present Danger by Tom Clancy (for those of you illiterate libtards, view the movie if you cannot follow the book.)
Here is your rant. All you spoke of has been shown to be inaccurate.
Incorrect. All that I spoke of has been shown to be accurate, although you have not been paying attention.
Quote:
It is all in the posts following this one in the first page of this thread. If you are confused about something, go back through the thread and research it for yourself. While you are at it look to see how much researched documentation you have provide throughout this thread to prove your points.
Golly, perhaps I should start listing numerous references and documentation every time I mention the Sun rising, lest you forget that Mercury does not tow a ball of fire behind him, or that Earth is no longer flat, let alone that the Atlantian word for Ocean, which is Atlantic, no longer applies to every ocean on the planet (for those wondering about this reference, both MIKER and I are in the Midwest, so the Sun rises over where the Atlantic resides, which is to the East, unless you are a bride on The Newlywed Game.) I believe the phrase is still known as General Knowledge, meaning the references for most rational people are so numerous and readily available that to list them would be monotonous, tedious, tiresome, and pointless.
Quote:
Opps I forgot, you offered Ton Clancy's fictional book as prof. Wow that was a good one. Remember that?
Tom Clancy's book was mentioned in a separate topic within the same post (meaning more than one topic was juggled at once, ooooh.) This was not in reference to Nixon, but Ronald Wilson Reagan, the 40th POTUS (are you now claiming that Reagan was Impeached instead of Nixon? Or in addition to?), and this was in reply to chrisisall's prior post which was not his OP IIRC.
Quote:
Try actually reading this, this time.
Paraphrasing the following drivel: blah blah, unelected lawyer blah blah, California (which cannot Impeach the President) blah blah, more unelected lawyer blah blah, "pardon is for...what you've been accused of or are being investigated for," more unelected lawyer blah blah.
Quote:
Researching the legal and technical aspects of presidential pardons (see August 30, 1974), Benton Becker, President Ford’s lawyer, finds that they only apply to federal crimes, meaning, for example, that Richard Nixon can still be prosecuted for crimes in California arising from his connections to the Ellsberg burglary (see September 9, 1971). It would not affect a Senate impeachment trial, even though the possibility of that happening is increasingly remote. Becker finds two legalNOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME