What's new
US Message Board 🦅 Political Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Democrats admit they haven't used due process

OP
Foxfyre

Foxfyre

Eternal optimist
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2007
Messages
59,232
Reaction score
23,560
Points
2,290
Location
Desert Southwest USA
Prove me wrong. Go.
Schiff lied so many times during that whole process that his word that 'Republicans and/or counsel were invited to be there' simply doesn't hold up. He repeatedly, on camera, said he had absolute proof of Trump's collusion and improper conduct, but to this day has yet to produce one shred of that evidence. We are supposed to believe him when he tells us who was invited?

 

Sixties Fan

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2017
Messages
34,018
Reaction score
5,073
Points
1,240
If you say so.
The evidence said so. And Trump's obstruction of Justice, in interfering in the investigation.

Justice catches up.

He was not convicted because he was not guilty of what he did, he was not convicted in both impeachment because the Senate was a majority Republican. Republicans who were not following the Constitution and the Rule of Law anymore. Most of them.
 

pknopp

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2019
Messages
51,637
Reaction score
17,782
Points
2,210
The evidence said so. And Trump's obstruction of Justice, in interfering in the investigation.

Justice catches up.

He was not convicted because he was not guilty of what he did, he was not convicted in both impeachment because the Senate was a majority Republican. Republicans who were not following the Constitution and the Rule of Law anymore. Most of them.

Clinton did commit perjury. You have no soap box to stand on.
 

LordBrownTrout

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2007
Messages
39,094
Reaction score
19,309
Points
1,590
Location
South Texas Republic
The evidence said so. And Trump's obstruction of Justice, in interfering in the investigation.

Justice catches up.

He was not convicted because he was not guilty of what he did, he was not convicted in both impeachment because the Senate was a majority Republican. Republicans who were not following the Constitution and the Rule of Law anymore. Most of them.

You're just partisan hacking. That's all.
 

Sixties Fan

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2017
Messages
34,018
Reaction score
5,073
Points
1,240

LordBrownTrout

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2007
Messages
39,094
Reaction score
19,309
Points
1,590
Location
South Texas Republic
Clinton did commit perjury. You have no soap box to stand on.

He did but starr was obsessed and should have never gone after such petty stuff. I was against the Rs and their impeachment carnival.
 

pknopp

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2019
Messages
51,637
Reaction score
17,782
Points
2,210
Over an affair. Thanks for changing the subject.

Over charges of sexual harassment. You made the subject about politicians taking political expedient positions.


We are talking about issues which are actually impeachable, actions taken against the country. Not lying about an extra marital affair.

This is what is impeachable:


The claims in the first impeachment we all made up.
 

LordBrownTrout

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2007
Messages
39,094
Reaction score
19,309
Points
1,590
Location
South Texas Republic

pknopp

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2019
Messages
51,637
Reaction score
17,782
Points
2,210
He did but starr was obsessed and should have never gone after such petty stuff. I was against the Rs and their impeachment carnival.

Which is all well and fine and an arguable position but he did commit perjury. Robert Byrd said he committed impeachable offenses but he would still not vote for it.
 

Sixties Fan

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2017
Messages
34,018
Reaction score
5,073
Points
1,240
You're just partisan hacking. That's all.
You have no arguments or facts. Good to know.
Which is all well and fine and an arguable position but he did commit perjury. Robert Byrd said he committed impeachable offenses but he would still not vote for it.
They impeached Clinton over lying during a sworn deposition, which the Republicans forced on him.
They all knew that he had an affair. There was no harassment with Monica. It was consensual, and she was over 21.

It has nothing to do with the reasons Trump was impeached.
 

pknopp

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2019
Messages
51,637
Reaction score
17,782
Points
2,210
You have no arguments or facts. Good to know.

They impeached Clinton over lying during a sworn deposition, which the Republicans forced on him.
They all knew that he had an affair. There was no harassment with Monica. It was consensual, and she was over 21.

It has nothing to do with the reasons Trump was impeached.

Forced or not, as Byrd pointed out Clinton committed perjury and that was an impeachable offense. As I noted, the second time one could make a legit argument for impeachment for Trump but it was a waste of time as it was never going to pass and Trump was already on his way out.
 

Sixties Fan

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2017
Messages
34,018
Reaction score
5,073
Points
1,240
Forced or not, as Byrd pointed out Clinton committed perjury and that was an impeachable offense. As I noted, the second time one could make a legit argument for impeachment for Trump but it was a waste of time as it was never going to pass and Trump was already on his way out.
The second time did not pass, because of the Republican Senate majority, again. But that does not mean that impeaching him the second time was unnecessary, or a waste of time.

Again, the Republicans forced the deposition possibly knowing that he would not tell the truth and commit perjury which would have a reason to impeach. They wanted to force him to resign for it, which he did not do, as it was not a valid reason.....the affair.....to force a President to resign.
 
OP
Foxfyre

Foxfyre

Eternal optimist
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2007
Messages
59,232
Reaction score
23,560
Points
2,290
Location
Desert Southwest USA
You're just partisan hacking. That's all.
Common tactic I think. Posting post after post after post to shut down debate on the actual topic and ignoring any rebuttal. I've noticed this on many threads that pretty much ignore the topic thesis but try to shut it down via that tactic.
 

pknopp

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2019
Messages
51,637
Reaction score
17,782
Points
2,210
The second time did not pass, because of the Republican Senate majority, again. But that does not mean that impeaching him the second time was unnecessary, or a waste of time.

Again, the Republicans forced the deposition possibly knowing that he would not tell the truth and commit perjury which would have a reason to impeach. They wanted to force him to resign for it, which he did not do, as it was not a valid reason.....the affair.....to force a President to resign.

It was over sexual harassment. The affair was uncovered in the process.

You are doing the very thing you condemn Republicans over.
 

Sixties Fan

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2017
Messages
34,018
Reaction score
5,073
Points
1,240
It was over sexual harassment. The affair was uncovered in the process.

You are doing the very thing you condemn Republicans over.
You may be confused about what sexual harassment is. The person on the other side is constantly made advances they do not want.

With Monica it was not. She says so herself:

Two decades after her extramarital affair with former president Bill Clinton, Monica Lewinsky is rethinking the issue of consent.

In an article for Vanity Fair, Lewinsky wrote she now realizes that her relationship with Clinton “constituted a gross abuse of power.” This is a profound shift from the position she took in a June 2014 piece for the same magazine.

“Sure my boss took advantage of me, but I will always remain firm on this point: it was a consensual relationship,” Lewinsky wrote in 2014. “Any ‘abuse’ came in the aftermath, when I was made a scapegoat in order to protect his powerful position.”




Abuse of power, yes.

He chased her, made her feel uncomfortable, made her think she would lose her job if she did not have sex with him? No.

Inappropriate ? Definitely, as he was the President, and she an intern.

And just as Clinton's behavior was inappropriate, so was the Republican decision to get him out of office by forcing him into a deposition about it, and then impeach him and try to force him to resign then.
 

EvilEyeFleegle

Platinum Member
Joined
Nov 2, 2017
Messages
11,938
Reaction score
5,572
Points
415
In the first impeachment, the Senate properly voted based on the lack of due process. The Democrats in the House did not produce a single witness that could say they saw or heard President Trump say or do ANYTHING improper or illegal. And each one was asked that specifically and every single one said no. There was no basis for the Senate to use to even consider conviction and removal because there was no crime.

In the second impeachment they didn't bother with witnesses at all.

In the January 6 Commission process they have used selectively edited video, allowed zero witnesses who would speak up for President Trump, no cross examination of witnesses, no introduction of exculpatory evidence, and denied the Republicans the representatives of their choice to serve on the Commission.

No due process.
One more time---Due process has no bearing on a Commission meeting....your opinion on the Impeachment is noted. To me it appeared to be a totally political process on both sides, that had little resemblance to any sort of impartial trial.

You should know that every, and I mean every, Impeachment in our history has been the result of a partisan political process.

No impartial justice is sought or even desired..from Johnson to Clinton to Trump. The last Trump impeachment was nothing but Kabuki.

As is the Jan. 6th Commission.

Those awaiting trial and those who have been convicted in the Jan. 6th trials are not patriots--they are lawbreakers getting their day in court. Some few have been acquitted --most convicted or waiting for trial.

BTW...I was never convinced on impeachment. Against it both times for obvious reasons. Partisan Bullshit--on all sides
 
OP
Foxfyre

Foxfyre

Eternal optimist
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2007
Messages
59,232
Reaction score
23,560
Points
2,290
Location
Desert Southwest USA
One more time---Due process has no bearing on a Commission meeting....your opinion on the Impeachment is noted. To me it appeared to be a totally political process on both sides, that had little resemblance to any sort of impartial trial.

You should know that every, and I mean every, Impeachment in our history has been the result of a partisan political process.

No impartial justice is sought or even desired..from Johnson to Clinton to Trump. The last Trump impeachment was nothing but Kabuki.

As is the Jan. 6th Commission.

Those awaiting trial and those who have been convicted in the Jan. 6th trials are not patriots--they are lawbreakers getting their day in court. Some few have been acquitted --most convicted or waiting for trial.

BTW...I was never convinced on impeachment. Against it both times for obvious reasons. Partisan Bullshit--on all sides
Complain to Jerry Nadler who is one who said there was no due process. Whatever the procedures or process, 'due process' implies some semblance of fairness and opportunity for both sides to present their case for conviction and/or exoneration. In EVERY other such proceeding that has been the case. But not those involving Trump.

In the first impeachment, not one witness could specify a crime or even impropriety that Trump committed. All we have is innuendo, supposition, implication, and in the case of Vindman, outright fabrication. Impeachment for no crime, much less high crime or misdemanor, is not 'due process.'

In the second impeachment, no witnesses at all. Just a partisan Democrat House declaring a crime and impeaching. That is not 'due process.'

In the January 6 Commission, selectively edited tape to be prejudicial to any involved and the only witnesses are those groomed, coached, and instructed by the 'prosecution' with no cross examination or introduction of exculpatory evidence by a defense. Not 'due process.'
 
Last edited:

pknopp

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2019
Messages
51,637
Reaction score
17,782
Points
2,210
You may be confused about what sexual harassment is. The person on the other side is constantly made advances they do not want.

With Monica it was not. She says so herself:

Two decades after her extramarital affair with former president Bill Clinton, Monica Lewinsky is rethinking the issue of consent.

In an article for Vanity Fair, Lewinsky wrote she now realizes that her relationship with Clinton “constituted a gross abuse of power.” This is a profound shift from the position she took in a June 2014 piece for the same magazine.

“Sure my boss took advantage of me, but I will always remain firm on this point: it was a consensual relationship,” Lewinsky wrote in 2014. “Any ‘abuse’ came in the aftermath, when I was made a scapegoat in order to protect his powerful position.”




Abuse of power, yes.

He chased her, made her feel uncomfortable, made her think she would lose her job if she did not have sex with him? No.

Inappropriate ? Definitely, as he was the President, and she an intern.

And just as Clinton's behavior was inappropriate, so was the Republican decision to get him out of office by forcing him into a deposition about it, and then impeach him and try to force him to resign then.

It wasn't about Monica. She did not bring the charges.
 

Sixties Fan

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2017
Messages
34,018
Reaction score
5,073
Points
1,240
It wasn't about Monica. She did not bring the charges.
[It was not about Monica. It was about forcing Bill Clinton to resign.]


White House Press Secretary Joe Lockhart said the GOP leadership has shifted tactics in recent days to a building drumbeat to try to force Clinton to resign.

To convince moderate Republicans to vote for impeachment, Lockhart said the GOP leadership made a "conscious effort" to "dumb down impeachment, to dumb down and say that this process wasn't important, that the real action was someplace else."

"And that having gone through it, turn 180 degrees in the other direction and say, it's so important, it's so important to this country and it's so damaging that the president should resign. I think, I think that that is a strategy that betrays partisanship and cynicism," Lockhart said.

Will the president resign? Vice President Al Gore said Friday, "People can forget about that."



 

💲 Amazon Deals 💲

New Topics

Forum List

Top