REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Presidential lies

POSTED BY: CHRISISALL
UPDATED: Friday, March 31, 2023 20:46
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 18959
PAGE 4 of 5

Wednesday, May 21, 2014 7:32 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


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  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 21, 2014 7:35 PM

MIKER

Once I found Serenity



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 21, 2014 7:49 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


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 Impeachment occurred when it did not occur.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 21, 2014 8:02 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


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  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 21, 2014 8:05 PM

MIKER

Once I found Serenity



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 21, 2014 8:10 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


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  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 21, 2014 8:13 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


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  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 21, 2014 8:13 PM

MIKER

Once I found Serenity



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 21, 2014 8:18 PM

MIKER

Once I found Serenity



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, May 22, 2014 6:33 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


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 thing which determines that Nixon was not Impeached.

I hope that clarifies the issue.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, May 22, 2014 6:43 PM

MIKER

Once I found Serenity



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, May 22, 2014 6:52 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


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  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, May 22, 2014 7:31 PM

MIKER

Once I found Serenity



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, May 22, 2014 10:10 PM

OONJERAH



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  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, May 22, 2014 10:24 PM

MIKER

Once I found Serenity




NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, May 23, 2014 1:12 PM

MIKER

Once I found Serenity



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, May 23, 2014 3:00 PM

MAL4PREZ


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  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, May 23, 2014 3:30 PM

OONJERAH


^^
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  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, May 23, 2014 3:38 PM

MIKER

Once I found Serenity




NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, May 23, 2014 4:57 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


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 legal references of particular use in his research: the 1915 Supreme Court case of United States v. Burdick, which attempted to answer the fundamental question of the meaning of a presidential pardon; and an 1833 quote from the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, John Marshall, who wrote, “A pardon is an act of grace… which exempts the individual on whom it is bestowed from the punishment the law inflicts for a crime he has committed.” Becker determines that such an “act of grace” is an implicit admission of guilt. Unlike the proposed conditional amnesty for draft evaders (see August 31, 1974), a pardon will strike convictions from the books and exempt those pardoned from any responsibility for answering for their crimes, but it does not forget (in a legal sense) that those crimes took place. “The pardon is an act of forgiveness,” Becker explains. “We are forgiving you—the president, the executive, the king—is forgiving you for what you’ve done, your illegal act that you’ve either been convicted of, or that you’ve been accused of, or that you’re being investigated for, or that you’re on trial for. And you don’t have to accept this—you can refuse this.” The Burdick decision convinces Becker that by pardoning Nixon, Ford can stop his imminent prosecution, and undoubted conviction, without having to condone Nixon’s crimes. For Nixon to accept a pardon would be, in a legal sense, an admission of criminal wrongdoing. [Werth, 2006, pp. 263-265]



Nothing new here, looks like.
Maybe it would help if you provided the documentation where Nixon wrote and signed (or even spoke) that he was guilty of a crime, or that he committed a crime or violation of the Constitution.
Like all documentation which I have requested from you which would actually prove your case or argument, I expect you to refuse this as well. I admit I'm not being very fair because I only ask for documents which do not exist, because those would prove your case. Perhaps you should consider that if documents which prove your case do not exist, then your case might not have merit. This is assuming that your case is still that Nixon was Impeached.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, May 23, 2014 5:07 PM

MIKER

Once I found Serenity



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, May 23, 2014 5:17 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


Quote:

Originally posted by MIKER:
Quote:

Originally posted by Oonjerah:

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.



They did not have to continue, he admitted guilt in accepting the pardon.


Please provide documentation where he wrote and signed, or spoke, his admission of guilt of anything. This admission of guilt would need to include the words "admit" and "guilt" in close relation to each other - not, however something about how nice the sunset is as proof that he admitted guilt.
Quote:


If you are charged with something and accept guilt then you have ended the process and are sentenced.


He was never charged. That would have been the Impeachment, prior to the Senate Trial. He never "accepted guilt" for anything criminal or violating the law, he only "accepted" that he should have handled things differently. He was never sentenced.
Never charged.
Never accepted guilt.
Never sentenced.
This leaves the entirety of your statement devoid of substance.
Quote:


The pardon was given to avoid trial and a jail term. The only charges against him were in the Articles of Impeachment.


These were proposed charges, since they were never approved or voted on by the full House. The House could have voted to not approve one, two, or all three of the charges (aka Articles) and the truth/fact would still remain - he was not charged.
Quote:


"RESOLVED, That Richard M. Nixon, President of the United States, is impeached for high crimes and misdemeanours, and that the following articles of impeachment to be exhibited to the Senate".


"Richard Nixon had served a total of 2,026 days as the 37th President of the United States. He left office with 2 1/2 years of his second term remaining. A total of 25 officials from his administration, including four cabinet members, were eventually convicted and imprisoned for various crimes".



He was running. If when Richard Nixon resigned the Impeachment process ended, I would agree that he was forced out of office in disgrace yet was not Impeached.


Whoa!!
Hold the phone!!
Wait a minute!!!!
You agree that Nixon was not Impeached????
Holy Cow.
End of discussion. We now all agree Nixon was not Impeached, all who have posted in this thread.

Now we will be presented more blah blah repetition of the above blah blah ambulance chasers opine this and that blah blah.
Quote:


However the process of bringing Nixon to trial was ongoing, and a pardon was offered with great anguish on the part of Gerald Ford. This pardon prevented him from being criminally prosecuted for the crimes listed in the Articles of Impeachment. Therefore, Nixon accepted guilt of all charges in the Articles of Impeachment by accepting the pardon.

Further more:
Quote by Ford:
“His resignation was an implicit admission of guilt, and he could have to carry forever his burden of guilt.”

This is a quote from the signed pardon.

"Now,therefore, I Gerald R. Ford, President of the United States, pursuant to the pardon power conferred upon me by Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution, have granted and by these presents do grant a full, free and absolute pardon unto Richard Nixon for all offenses against the United States which he, Richard Nixon, has committed or taken part in during the period from Jan. 20, 1969, through Aug. 9, 1974."

To claim the pardon is not what stopped the Impeachment proceedings and criminal charges being brought forth, is to suggest he accepted a pardon for crimes not committed, and that there were no charges being pursued by the Congress and Senate. Charges were being perused by the Congress and United States Senate. Charges Gerald Ford along with his staff of White House lawyers, believed Nixon accepted responsibility of guilt for along with, “His resignation was an implicit admission of guilt, and he could have to carry forever his burden of guilt.” Again, this is a quote by Gerald Ford. This is what brought to an end the criminal process that started with his imminent Impeachment.

The reason it is not called an Impeachment is because he accepted guilt of all charges and to just call it an Impeachment would be to lessen the graveness of the final judgment against Richard Nixon.

Criminal! Forced to resign. Yes he was a crook.

It is clear no minds are going to be changed. Let's agree to disagree.


Yes, now that you have clearly stated that you admit that Nixon WAS NOT IMPEACHED, it is very well that we can all agree to the facts, also known as the truth.

I probably should point out that not only was Ford's ambulance chaser never elected to Federal Office, but also Ford was never elected to Federal Office, and never won any nationwide election, for anything (unless you count that he won the majority of States in 1976, I admit he did that.) Ford is the ONLY President with that distinction.
I did notice that Gerald Robinson Ford, nee Leslie Lynch King, Jr. and William Jefferson Clinton, nee William Jefferson Blythe IV were the only 2 President's elected or selected under names they weren't born with, and both are featured in this thread heavily.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, May 23, 2014 5:19 PM

MIKER

Once I found Serenity





NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, May 23, 2014 5:41 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


Quote:

Originally posted by MAL4PREZ:
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
*-------------------------------------------------*




Glad you were entertained.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, May 23, 2014 5:44 PM

MIKER

Once I found Serenity



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, May 23, 2014 5:51 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


Quote:

Originally posted by MIKER:

The reason it is not called an Impeachment is because he accepted guilt of all charges and to just call it an Impeachment would be to lessen the graveness of history's final judgment against Richard Nixon.

In this thread you all keep saying Nixon has not accepted guilt, but Gerald Ford his Vice President at the time of the offence,


Incorrect. Ford was not the Veep at the time of any of the 3 proposed charges, or Articles of alleged misdeeds. Are you claiming another charge or Article specifying misdeeds which occurred at a time when Ford was Veep?
Quote:


and then President after Nixon's resignation says it did. That is the flaw in your argument.


Incorrect. Sorry, no flaw. Nixon was not Impeached, Nixon never stated or signed any statement which clearly specifies "I am guilty" or similar, and the lying sack of poo Ford who told us all that Lee Harvey Oswald was the LONE GUNMAN after whitewashing the JFK assassination conspiracy is not worth the drivel he spews.
Quote:


When the President of the United States and his staff of White House lawyers says he has admitted his guilt in two ways, fist by his resignation and then by his acceptance of the pardon, you need to realize this is his Vice President. These are his White House lawyers. It is them your are arguing with not me. All I am, and have been doing, is say what they said at the time. You need to bring your rebuttal to them if you wish. This whole time Gerald Ford and his lawyers are the ones you guys have been arguing with.

Quote by Ford:
“His resignation was an implicit admission of guilt, and he could have to carry forever his burden of guilt.”


1833 quote from the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, John Marshall, who wrote, “A pardon is an act of grace… which exempts the individual on whom it is bestowed from the punishment the law inflicts for a crime he has committed.” Becker determines that such an “act of grace” is an implicit admission of guilt. Unlike the proposed conditional amnesty for draft evaders (see August 31, 1974), a pardon will strike convictions from the books and exempt those pardoned from any responsibility for answering for their crimes, but it does not forget (in a legal sense) that those crimes took place. “The pardon is an act of forgiveness,” Becker explains. “We are forgiving you—the president, the executive, the king—is forgiving you for what you’ve done, your illegal act that you’ve either been convicted of, or that you’ve been accused of, or that you’re being investigated for, or that you’re on trial for. And you don’t have to accept this—you can refuse this.” The Burdick decision convinces Becker that by pardoning Nixon, Ford can stop his imminent prosecution, and undoubted conviction, without having to condone Nixon’s crimes. For Nixon to accept a pardon would be, in a legal sense, an admission of criminal wrongdoing. [Werth, 2006, pp. 263-265]

" For Nixon to accept a pardon would be, in a legal sense, an admission of criminal wrongdoing. [Werth, 2006, pp. 263-265]". The need for a vote in the house was negated by the pardon and admission of guilt.

Like I said, you guys are arguing with the wrong guy. I am just showing what the guys in charge; Gerald Ford and his White House Lawyers, Republicans all, said at the time.


It is not me that won't change his mind and admit I am wrong. It is these guys, GO GET EM!



I just realized I am wearing my BrownCoats shirt. I am to misbehave.




No, Ford's ambulance chasers never said Nixon was Impeached. They never claimed the House of Representatives voted to Impeach Nixon.
This was only you.

BTW, for even more biased nonsense, you really should have thrown in some references from Stanley Kutler.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, May 23, 2014 5:52 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


Frelling double post. Don't know how that happened.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, May 23, 2014 5:53 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


Quote:

Originally posted by MIKER:
I offer your last post for all to see how you address facts presented to you. Bla, Bla, Bla after which you ask for more documents and offer an opinion. That's great, I don't have to respond except to say to all who read this thread. This is the argument presented by the one who started this. I am not claiming Nixon admitted his guilt, Gerald Ford is to which I have provided many documents. You know the ones you brush off with such words of wisdom as, Bla, Bla, Bla.

Again, JEWSTAITEFAN. I put it to you, it is Gerald Ford Nixon's Vice President;( THEE ELECTED ) official you are in conflict with not me.

Thanks for that last post, it wraps it up nicely.



Incorrect. Ford was never elected to any Federal Office, and never won any nationwide election, either as President or Veep.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, May 23, 2014 6:01 PM

MIKER

Once I found Serenity



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, May 23, 2014 7:44 PM

MAL4PREZ


Quote:

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Glad you were entertained.



Funny you should react like that.

Your personna has undergone a large shift as late. Just like Sig. Just like Rappy.

Hmmm.




*-------------------------------------------------*
What trolls reveal about themselves when they troll:
http://fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=57532
*-------------------------------------------------*



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, May 23, 2014 7:49 PM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by MAL4PREZ:
Your personna has undergone a large shift as late. Just like Sig. Just like Rappy.


Muhuhuhahahaha! All according to my evil plan!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, May 23, 2014 7:57 PM

MIKER

Once I found Serenity



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, May 23, 2014 8:17 PM

CHRISISALL


Rappy and MIKER
sitting in a tree,
D-O-R-K-I-N-G.
First comes I
am always right,
then comes maybe
I can win this fight!

Two ends of the overconfidence overload spectrum.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, May 23, 2014 8:22 PM

MIKER

Once I found Serenity




NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, May 23, 2014 8:29 PM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by MIKER:

I elect not to indulge the aforementioned clown, buffoon and or Illiterate beyond this point instead choosing to it let pass.

By posting this you are not letting it pass, Rap, oops! I mean, MIKER.
Sorry, all politically self-righteous & ultimately infallible peeps look the same to me.

I hope they're not paying you well for this nonsense.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, May 23, 2014 8:59 PM

MAL4PREZ


Quote:

Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:

Originally posted by MIKER:

I elect not to indulge the aforementioned clown, buffoon and or Illiterate beyond this point instead choosing to it let pass.

By posting this you are not letting it pass, Rap, oops! I mean, MIKER.
Sorry, all politically self-righteous & ultimately infallible peeps look the same to me.

I hope they're not paying you well for this nonsense.



Miker gets his back up when I post a dig at JSF.

Sig long ago takes a disliking to me before I ever had a shindig with her, but I did a'plenty with other "posters."

Sig undergoes an extreme change in personality after I poke her/it about her years-old symbiosis with Rap.

Miker appears at a time when Rap is clearly considered nothing but the Clown of RWED and the Sig/Rap love/hate fest has been outed and lost its glory.

Miker picks glorious fights with Rap.

JSF oicks glorious fights with Miker.

Miker/Rap/Sig/JSF/etc apparently have nothing to do all day but post back and forth with trivial stupid insults that have no actual factual content.

I am thoroughly entertained.

None of you must ever leave this site. Never.


*-------------------------------------------------*
What trolls reveal about themselves when they troll:
http://fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=57532
*-------------------------------------------------*



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, May 23, 2014 9:20 PM

MIKER

Once I found Serenity



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, May 23, 2014 10:17 PM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by MAL4PREZ:
None of you must ever leave this site. Never.


What happens in RWED stays in RWED. We are it's prisoners.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, May 23, 2014 10:39 PM

OONJERAH



As always, I'm late to the party. Pretty sure I once saw a doc or
movie about this ... unfortunate incident. Forgot it anyway.

Did Kennedy & Co seek to overthrow Castro and pretend we didn't?

Here's a short account of --


The Bay of Pigs, April 15-19, 1961
http://www.jfklibrary.org/JFK/JFK-in-History/The-Bay-of-Pigs.aspx

"On April 17, 1961, 1,400 Cuban exiles launched what became a botched invasion at the Bay of Pigs on the south coast of Cuba. ...
.
.
.
... "Over the next 24 hours, Castro ordered roughly 20,000 troops to advance toward the beach, and the Cuban air force continued to control the skies. As the situation grew increasingly grim, President Kennedy authorized an "air-umbrella" at dawn on April 19—six unmarked American fighter planes took off to help defend the brigade's B-26 aircraft flying. But the B-26s arrived an hour late, most likely confused by the change in time zones between Nicaragua and Cuba. They were shot down by the Cubans, and the invasion was crushed later that day.

"Some exiles escaped to the sea, while the rest were killed or rounded up and imprisoned by Castro's forces. Almost 1,200 members of Brigade 2056 surrendered, and more than 100 were killed.
... "Almost 50 years later, relations between Castro's Cuba and the United States remain strained and tenuous."

(Cuba badly needed medicine & baby food. The US soon traded these for the prisoners.)




... oooOO}{OOooo ...

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, May 23, 2014 11:34 PM

MAL4PREZ


Quote:

Originally posted by MIKER:
You are right about me jumping the gun and misreading that post directed at JSF. It was because it followed this one that I believed you to be nothing more than a repetitive hostile source.



LOL! You've totally lost it. You're responding to the wrong post. I accuse you and JSF of con-fusing each other (as in: you are socks of the same poster) in a LATER post. Not the one you quoted.

You messed up there, didn't you? Oops!

Quote:

Of which you are.
Again I can do nothing but point and laugh. I have not argued with "Miker" before tonight. On purpose. To flush you out.

You have not done a good job of keeping track of which post is which and when. You've been off the meds too long darling. You need to find a better cure than arguing with yourself on the site of an obscure long dead sci-fi TV show. (Clarify: I love the show. I do not love this River person clinging to its web site.)

I could mock you more but I am saddened that this is all you have. Sad, but not sad enough to ignore the outcome: you've ruined the FFF experience for too many people. You deserve every sharp little dart aimed your way.





*-------------------------------------------------*
What trolls reveal about themselves when they troll:
http://fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=57532
*-------------------------------------------------*



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, May 23, 2014 11:49 PM

MIKER

Once I found Serenity


Mistakes do happen but not this time. When I did mistake your post for being hostel towards me, (the other post) you could have just pointed it out. After all you did recognize it as being a mistake and not directed at you? It does get a little confusing all these posts and all. So why did you respond the way you did????

I see with you it is self praise your into. I love reading how you have my personality figured out. How you are so hip to me. So, your the groups psychoanalyst. I have enjoyed watching you slink in and out of conversations. Reappearing long enough to school the rest of us on our delusions or ignorance as perceived by you, only to disappear again. A bit of a narcissist huh.

"Again I can do nothing but point and laugh. I have not argued with "Miker" before tonight. On purpose. To flush you out".

This is a quote form you and appears to me to be classic narcissistic behavior.


"Sig undergoes an extreme change in personality after I poke her/it about her years-old symbiosis with Rap".

Another quote from you. You're so hip to us all. Yep, the psychoanalyst. I love the way you explain to the other participants in the thread what you are up to and how you have proceeded so brilliantly, because with you that's what its really about is it not?


Which is why you have this link in your signature:

http://fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=57532
"Peer-reviewed scientific paper: Internet Trolls are Narcissistic, Machiavellian, psychopathic, and sadistic".

Yeah, you have to show all how you are so brilliant and can stalk your victim coming in for the kill with your super wit to expose our psychosis. You pick something here someone said and pick something there someone said, because really, offering some new insight into the discussion is not what you are about. Coming to the rescue is. Trying to be everyone's champion is. After the setup of pretending to offer some new truth( which is usually little more than something you have cut and pasted ), you character assonate the one you have picked for that particular performance.

"Trolls are Narcissistic", and judging from what you have written in the post I am responding to, I would say that title fits you just fine.

Your problem is, you have no arrows in you quiver.


Nope, not impressed at all.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, May 24, 2014 11:01 AM

MIKER

Once I found Serenity



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, May 24, 2014 1:54 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


Quote:

Originally posted by MIKER:
Originally posted by MIKER:

I offer your last post for all to see how you address facts presented to you. Bla, Bla, Bla after which you ask for more documents and offer opinions. That's great, I don't have to respond except to say to all who read this thread. This is the argument presented by the one who started this. I am not claiming Nixon admitted his guilt,


If you are not claiming Nixon admitted his guilt, then stick with the program. Nobody else can admit his guilt for him, so it seems you agree that NIXON NEVER CLAIMED, ADMITTED, SUGGESTED, OR PLEADED GUILT. Futhermore, this tangent has nothing to do with Nixon never being Impeached, which was the fact you have spent pages of posts trying to convince everybody was not true.
Quote:


Gerald Ford is to which I have provided many documents. You know the ones you brush off with such words of wisdom as, Bla, Bla, Bla.



Again, JEWSTAITEFAN. I put it to you, it is Gerald Ford Nixon's Vice President;( THEE ELECTED ) official you are in conflict with not me.

I would request all further posts regarding Nixon's innocents be forwarded to Nixion's White House Staff of lawyers


Incorrect. Nixon's White House Staff of lawyers was out of the game for a month between resignation and pardon. The lawyers of Nixon's White House were preparing to defend the false charges (Articles) when Nixon himself made the decision to resign in the best interests of the nation.
Quote:


and Gerald Ford President ( who are the ones claiming his guilt) following Richard Nixon's eviction from the White House.



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, May 24, 2014 2:06 PM

MIKER

Once I found Serenity



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, May 24, 2014 2:22 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


Quote:

Originally posted by MIKER:
I offer your last post for all to see how you address facts presented to you. Bla, Bla, Bla after which you ask for more documents and offer an opinion. That's great, I don't have to respond except to say to all who read this thread. This is the argument presented by the one who started this. I am not claiming Nixon admitted his guilt, Gerald Ford is to which I have provided many documents. You know the ones you brush off with such words of wisdom as, Bla, Bla, Bla.


I asked for pertinent documents, not the waste of time documents you procure, not the obfuscating documents, not the diversionary documents, not all your documents which to not pertain to the issue of NIXON WAS NEVER IMPEACHED.
When you repeat the same nonsense having nothing to do with the topic, this is blah blah blah, the same repetitive drivel which has no bearing on the subject. When you ignore the facts, ignore the valid points posted by myself and numerous others, but re-post ad nauseum the same drivel, that is blah blah, blah blah blah blah. These are the portions of your posts which everybody would do well to ignore repetitively reading for the 5th time in a row when you had not provided any additional supportive pertinent points.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, May 24, 2014 2:27 PM

MIKER

Once I found Serenity



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, May 24, 2014 2:27 PM

MIKER

Once I found Serenity



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, May 24, 2014 2:34 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


Quote:

Originally posted by MIKER:
Now you are offering up other peoples opinions as prof of your argument. Read what you have just posted. It is about Nixon's innocents. Along with a personal opinion about me that I also found entertaining.

As I have said many times now including when I answered your quoted post the first time, it is Gerald Ford and others who say he is guilty. Take it up with them.


I have no idea which post you are referring to. This post and it's claims don't make sense, so I would respond to them if I knew what you meant.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, May 24, 2014 2:43 PM

MIKER

Once I found Serenity



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, May 24, 2014 2:49 PM

MIKER

Once I found Serenity



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Salon: NBC's Ronna blunder: A failed attempt to appeal to MAGA voters — except they hate her too
Thu, March 28, 2024 07:04 - 1 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Thu, March 28, 2024 05:27 - 6154 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Thu, March 28, 2024 02:07 - 3408 posts
Russian losses in Ukraine
Wed, March 27, 2024 23:21 - 987 posts
Elections; 2024
Wed, March 27, 2024 22:19 - 2069 posts
human actions, global climate change, global human solutions
Wed, March 27, 2024 15:03 - 824 posts
NBC News: Behind the scenes, Biden has grown angry and anxious about re-election effort
Wed, March 27, 2024 14:58 - 2 posts
BUILD BACK BETTER!
Wed, March 27, 2024 14:45 - 5 posts
RFK Jr. Destroys His Candidacy With VP Pick?
Wed, March 27, 2024 11:59 - 16 posts
Russia says 60 dead, 145 injured in concert hall raid; Islamic State group claims responsibility
Wed, March 27, 2024 10:57 - 49 posts
Ha. Haha! HAHA! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHA!!!!!!
Tue, March 26, 2024 21:26 - 1 posts
You can't take the sky from me, a tribute to Firefly
Tue, March 26, 2024 16:26 - 293 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL