Welcome, Guest

 or  Register
NewsFeed

Notable Comments on Upcoming Trump Impeachment Trial
#11
(01-08-2020, 12:04 PM)St. Blue Dude Wrote:
(01-08-2020, 11:53 AM)Tac Wrote:
(01-07-2020, 03:40 PM)Guest Wrote: Impeachment is an indictment of a sitting President or other elected official.  It is not the "removal from office" some brain dead democrats that slept through civic class think it is.

The senate will hold a trial.

If found guilty, they will then decide if the offense is serious enough to remove from office.

Bill Clinton WAS found guilty of lying under oath....

He was not removed from office.  He was disbarred and did lose his licesne to practice law.  Most people forget this or just never paid attention.

You Sir are wrong! Here are the facts;

On Feb. 12th 1999 in the Senate Impeachment Trial, President Bill Clinton was acquitted of both articles of impeachment which were voted on and passed in the Lower House of Congress.  These articles were "Lying under Oath" and "Obstruction of Justice".  In this Senate Impeachment Trial he was acquitted on both articles and remained in office as president BECAUSE NEITHER ARTICLE RECEIVED THE REQUIRED 2/3RDS MAJORITY VOTE REQUIRED TO CONVICT HIM AND REMOVE HIM FROM OFFICE.

IMHO, he was guilty as Hell, just like OJ, Michael Jackson, Epstein, and many others

However, with the exception of Public Opinion, he was not found guilty of anything.  FACT

It does raise the question, how could he have been acquitted for "Lying Under Oath"?   That he lied under oath is an established fact, with video evidence.

Easy explanation ....it was politics, pure and simple
just for the record the vote was 45 / 55 on 1st article guilty/innocent. 50 / 50 on 2nd article guilty/innocent
BadBrad, Firefly  likes this!
Reply Share
#12
(01-08-2020, 12:30 PM)Tac Wrote:
(01-08-2020, 12:04 PM)St. Blue Dude Wrote:
(01-08-2020, 11:53 AM)Tac Wrote: You Sir are wrong! Here are the facts;

On Feb. 12th 1999 in the Senate Impeachment Trial, President Bill Clinton was acquitted of both articles of impeachment which were voted on and passed in the Lower House of Congress.  These articles were "Lying under Oath" and "Obstruction of Justice".  In this Senate Impeachment Trial he was acquitted on both articles and remained in office as president BECAUSE NEITHER ARTICLE RECEIVED THE REQUIRED 2/3RDS MAJORITY VOTE REQUIRED TO CONVICT HIM AND REMOVE HIM FROM OFFICE.

IMHO, he was guilty as Hell, just like OJ, Michael Jackson, Epstein, and many others

However, with the exception of Public Opinion, he was not found guilty of anything.  FACT

It does raise the question, how could he have been acquitted for "Lying Under Oath"?   That he lied under oath is an established fact, with video evidence.

Easy explanation ....it was politics, pure and simple
just for the record the vote was 45 / 55 on 1st article guilty/innocent.  50 / 50 on 2nd article guilty/innocent

I'm not that up on impeachment, but I guess the subtle difference is whether you are voting as a jurist, saying guilty of this charge or not guilty, or whether you are voting as a political official, on 'he deserves to be removed from office for doing this' or 'he may be guilty but this is not sufficient to remove him'.
Reply Share
#13
(01-08-2020, 12:48 PM)St. Blue Dude Wrote:
(01-08-2020, 12:30 PM)Tac Wrote:
(01-08-2020, 12:04 PM)St. Blue Dude Wrote: It does raise the question, how could he have been acquitted for "Lying Under Oath"?   That he lied under oath is an established fact, with video evidence.

Easy explanation ....it was politics, pure and simple
just for the record the vote was 45 / 55 on 1st article guilty/innocent.  50 / 50 on 2nd article guilty/innocent

I'm not that up on impeachment, but I guess the subtle difference is whether you are voting as a jurist, saying guilty of this charge or not guilty, or whether you are voting as a political official, on  'he deserves to be removed from office for doing this' or 'he may be guilty but this is not sufficient to remove him'.

I don't think many people are well informed on Impeachment.  However, as I understand it at this point maybe the following is the truth; If a President is found guilty of ANY Impeachment Article which makes it to a Senate Impeachment Trial, and is found guilty by a 2/3rds majority then, The President will have to step down (no appeal) period!  Possibly it was strictly a partisan political thing with Clinton, or it might have been a Senate Jury Nullification situation where many Senators did not feel the basis for the charges did not rise to a level where guilty or not they would not vote to remove him from office.  I think there are many close similarities between the feelings of partisanship and jury nullification with a Trump Impeachment.
So yes we are in agreement .... I think.
Reply Share
#14
But acquitted means not guilty and cannot be tried for the same crime again ever.....

free (someone) from a criminal charge by a verdict of not guilty.

"she was acquitted on all counts" ·
[more]


synonyms:

absolve · clear · exonerate · exculpate · declare innocent · find innocent ·
[more]
9mms, Firefly  likes this!
Reply Share
#15
(01-08-2020, 01:11 PM)Tac Wrote:
(01-08-2020, 12:48 PM)St. Blue Dude Wrote:
(01-08-2020, 12:30 PM)Tac Wrote: Easy explanation ....it was politics, pure and simple
just for the record the vote was 45 / 55 on 1st article guilty/innocent.  50 / 50 on 2nd article guilty/innocent

I'm not that up on impeachment, but I guess the subtle difference is whether you are voting as a jurist, saying guilty of this charge or not guilty, or whether you are voting as a political official, on  'he deserves to be removed from office for doing this' or 'he may be guilty but this is not sufficient to remove him'.

I don't think many people are well informed on Impeachment.  However, as I understand it at this point maybe the following is the truth; If a President is found guilty of ANY Impeachment Article which makes it to a Senate Impeachment Trial, and is found guilty by a 2/3rds majority then, The President will have to step down (no appeal) period!  Possibly it was strictly a partisan political thing with Clinton, or it might have been a Senate Jury Nullification situation where many Senators did not feel the basis for the charges did not rise to a level where guilty or not they would not vote to remove him from office.  I think there are many close similarities between the feelings of partisanship and jury nullification with a Trump Impeachment.
So yes we are in agreement .... I think.

That is exactly the question I am asking. Is this really jury nullification or is the charge not actually 'did he lie under oath' but rather 'should he be removed from office for lying under oath'.
Reply Share
#16
(01-08-2020, 02:34 PM)hurchel Wrote: But acquitted means not guilty and cannot be tried for the same crime again ever.....

free (someone) from a criminal charge by a verdict of not guilty.

"she was acquitted on all counts" ·
[more]


synonyms:

absolve · clear · exonerate · exculpate · declare innocent · find innocent ·
[more]

I wonder though, does that apply to US Senate trials? I could see where being tried in a criminal court is a different thing all together. I don't think the Senate can throw you in jail.
Reply Share
#17
(01-08-2020, 05:27 PM)St. Blue Dude Wrote:
(01-08-2020, 01:11 PM)Tac Wrote:
(01-08-2020, 12:48 PM)St. Blue Dude Wrote: I'm not that up on impeachment, but I guess the subtle difference is whether you are voting as a jurist, saying guilty of this charge or not guilty, or whether you are voting as a political official, on  'he deserves to be removed from office for doing this' or 'he may be guilty but this is not sufficient to remove him'.

I don't think many people are well informed on Impeachment.  However, as I understand it at this point maybe the following is the truth; If a President is found guilty of ANY Impeachment Article which makes it to a Senate Impeachment Trial, and is found guilty by a 2/3rds majority then, The President will have to step down (no appeal) period!  Possibly it was strictly a partisan political thing with Clinton, or it might have been a Senate Jury Nullification situation where many Senators did not feel the basis for the charges did not rise to a level where guilty or not they would not vote to remove him from office.  I think there are many close similarities between the feelings of partisanship and jury nullification with a Trump Impeachment.
So yes we are in agreement .... I think.

That is exactly the question I am asking.  Is this really jury nullification or is the charge not actually 'did he lie under oath'  but rather  'should he be removed from office for lying under oath'.

You are beating a dead horse. It does not matter. The bar for conviction IS a 2/3rds super majority. Anything less is an acquittal. In that sense it is not like where in a civilian capital offense a 12 out of 12 jurors have to say not guilty or say guilty to get a verdict. Otherwise it is a hung jury and the perp can be retried. Not the case in a 100 Senate Juror Impeachment Trial. In an Impeachment they MUST get a 2/3rds super majority to find him guilty or he gets a (not guilty) acquittal, and IT IS OVER AND DONE!
Reply Share
#18
A very recent Rasmussen polling shows only 12% of those polled believe Trump will be found guilty in the Senate Impeachment Trial and be removed from office.
Reply Share
#19
Did we enter alternate reality?

Could have sworn he was guilty of lying under oath but that is not an offense worthy of removal from office

Pretty sure Clinton was disbarred and lost his law license though
BadBrad, Tac  likes this!
Reply Share
#20
your representatives are lying to you everyday
if you live in the USA
these people /demons are evil incarnated
Reply Share

Post Thread  Back To Forum
[-]
Quick Reply
Message
Type your reply to this message here.

Please select the number: 8
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10