• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

1000s of impeachment documents

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
Probably not. McConnell has stated that he wants a sham trial. And he has control of the Senate. But we have an election coming up. Do you think that all Republicans are immoral? I don't.
I can't speak for all Republicans, but on the face of it, McConnell is most certainly immoral. He has already stated -- before he will be required to sign the oath stating that he will be "impartial" -- made clear that he won't. And he is prepared to sign that oath -- made before God -- in contempt of his own contempt.

Even more, McConnell has stated that he is working with the Whitehouse on his defence. In other words, McConnell, who will swear to be an impartial juror, has already taken sides with the accused and acting as part of the defence team.

It would be very difficult to get more dishonest than this. And if, as he maintains, he is a true Christian, I cannot see how he reconciles his manifest deceit before the very God he claim to believe in. This is a total wonder.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
I can't speak for all Republicans, but on the face of it, McConnell is most certainly immoral. He has already stated -- before he will be required to sign the oath stating that he will be "impartial" -- made clear that he won't. And he is prepared to sign that oath -- made before God -- in contempt of his own contempt.

Even more, McConnell has stated that he is working with the Whitehouse on his defence. In other words, McConnell, who will swear to be an impartial juror, has already taken sides with the accused and acting as part of the defence team.

It would be very difficult to get more dishonest than this. And if, as he maintains, he is a true Christian, I cannot see how he reconciles his manifest deceit before the very God he claim to believe in. This is a total wonder.
I may be overly optimistic, but I am hoping for a moral awakening among the Republicans.
 

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
I may be overly optimistic, but I am hoping for a moral awakening among the Republicans.
I do think you're right about being overly optimistic, because I'm not seeing it yet. And for the record, I think this is a really, really big deal. When legislators lose their moral compass and courage to oppose evil, the state is automatically on the downward slide to tyranny. You don't have to read much history to see that...:(
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
I do think you're right about being overly optimistic, because I'm not seeing it yet. And for the record, I think this is a really, really big deal. When legislators lose their moral compass and courage to oppose evil, the state is automatically on the downward slide to tyranny. You don't have to read much history to see that...:(
It would not take very many to guarantee a loss in his reelection bid.
 

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
It would not take very many to guarantee a loss in his reelection bid.
I agree, and that's something that we can all hope for. I believe in democracy. I've always accepted the will of the electorate -- even when it didn't go my way. I think that if ordinary people are not dangerously hoodwinked, they can, en masse, make fairly good decisions. Not perfect, not great, but fairly good. And that's something.

To put it in my words, I think that the plurality of voters that preferred Clinton over Trump (about 3 million) could increase a little bit, and hopefully just enough in key districts to upend that lopsided Electoral College result that made Trump President. But of course, that depends immensely on who the Democrats nominate, and that's not close to being resolved yet. (Personal opinion, if it's not Biden, then Trump wins.)
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
I agree, and that's something that we can all hope for. I believe in democracy. I've always accepted the will of the electorate -- even when it didn't go my way. I think that if ordinary people are not dangerously hoodwinked, they can, en masse, make fairly good decisions. Not perfect, not great, but fairly good. And that's something.

To put it in my words, I think that the plurality of voters that preferred Clinton over Trump (about 3 million) could increase a little bit, and hopefully just enough in key districts to upend that lopsided Electoral College result that made Trump President. But of course, that depends immensely on who the Democrats nominate, and that's not close to being resolved yet. (Personal opinion, if it's not Biden, then Trump wins.)
And Trump seems to think Biden is his worst threat too. His current troubles arise from that fear.
 

sun rise

The world is on fire
Premium Member
Probably not. McConnell has stated that he wants a sham trial. And he has control of the Senate. But we have an election coming up. Do you think that all Republicans are immoral? I don't.
Not all of them. But in the House and Senate, the vast majority have and are violating their oath of office by kneeling and spending their days kissing His Royal Butt.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Not all of them. But in the House and Senate, the vast majority have and are violating their oath of office by kneeling and spending their days kissing His Royal Butt.
Yes, unfortunately that is the case. Though I did hear Mitt Romney saying today that he would like to see witnesses at the trial. But one out of how many?
 

shmogie

Well-Known Member
I can't speak for all Republicans, but on the face of it, McConnell is most certainly immoral. He has already stated -- before he will be required to sign the oath stating that he will be "impartial" -- made clear that he won't. And he is prepared to sign that oath -- made before God -- in contempt of his own contempt.

Even more, McConnell has stated that he is working with the Whitehouse on his defence. In other words, McConnell, who will swear to be an impartial juror, has already taken sides with the accused and acting as part of the defence team.

It would be very difficult to get more dishonest than this. And if, as he maintains, he is a true Christian, I cannot see how he reconciles his manifest deceit before the very God he claim to believe in. This is a total wonder.
You don't seem to understand the hybrid beast that is impeachment, and the resultant senate trial.

If in a criminal trial, the jury was completely aware of the details of a case before they were called before jury duty, it would be awfully hard to be impartial, yet that is the case in impeachment. The house is solely responsible for investigating the case not the senate. Hours and hours of TV coverage laid their entire case out.

The President is the head of his political party, and he is the defendant in this trial. The party who makes the rules of his trial has every right to consult with him as to how the trial is to be structured. This happened with Clinton, and I don't remember anyone being upset about it.

The senate trial, like impeachment, is a political process, not a legal process. This was how it was designed by the Founders. The idea was that the Presidents acts must be so heinous, that removal would surmount the political loyalties and intertwinings.

In other words, virtually everyone should want him to go.

This is the first time in history where impeachment is brought by one party only. Further, it is the first time in history that the Constitution has been ignored in coming up with articles of impeachment. The Constitution calls for statutory crimes, and this is the first time in history that statutory crimes have not been included in the articles of impeachment.

The case from the democrats in the house is pitiful, and so thoroughly known, and the politics so strong, Impartiality is pretty damn hard to find.

It is a political chess game, that the democrats made a big mistake in starting, they don't have half the pieces they need.

So, Mc Connell must play several roles. Being the Republican head of the senate. Setting the rules for the trial. Voting on the articles. Remember, Clinton wad exonerated by the democrats after iron clad evidence that he committed a felony, a crime that resulted in his law license being revoked.

Impeachment is a waste of time, and money. It is political Kubuki theater. No President has ever been removed, and none ever will.

I am not sure of the oath, if any, that the senators will swear, do you know where to find it ?

You, invoking God ? Will wonders never cease ?
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Not all of them. But in the House and Senate, the vast majority have and are violating their oath of office by kneeling and spending their days kissing His Royal Butt.
Another view is that impeachment is not about guilt of some crimes.
(Were that the case, Clinton would've gotten the boot.) Conviction
(& consequent removal) in the Senate is about replacing the Prez
with the Vice Prez, ie, Trump with Pence. Is that what's best for
Ameristan? Answering this question will affect votes for or against
conviction. And that is what the oath of office is more about.
 

tytlyf

Not Religious
This is the first time in history where impeachment is brought by one party only.
I'd say so, it's sad too that the republican party has gone rogue.
Further, it is the first time in history that the Constitution has been ignored in coming up with articles of impeachment.
False
The Constitution calls for statutory crimes, and this is the first time in history that statutory crimes have not been included in the articles of impeachment.
False.
 

shmogie

Well-Known Member
I'd say so, it's sad too that the republican party has gone rogue.

False

False.
Uh, have you read the Constitution ? It says " Treason, bribery ( both statutory crimes) or OTHER (statutory) high crimes and misdemeanors."


You and the democrats can pretend than an impeachment on fantasy crimes, not in any written statute is legitimate.

The Republicans won't pretend with you. exoneration, guaranteed
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Uh, have you read the Constitution ? It says " Treason, bribery ( both statutory crimes) or OTHER (statutory) high crimes and misdemeanors."


You and the democrats can pretend than an impeachment on fantasy crimes, not in any written statute is legitimate.

The Republicans won't pretend with you. exoneration, guaranteed
I wish that someone would point out that it does not say "statutory". That word does not appear in there. Worse yet the meaning of words change over the years. He needs to look up what that meant in the context of the times that it was written. Here is an article that could be linked to him that explains the history of the phrase that he abuses:

The Common Misconception About ‘High Crimes and Misdemeanors’
 

shmogie

Well-Known Member
I do think you're right about being overly optimistic, because I'm not seeing it yet. And for the record, I think this is a really, really big deal. When legislators lose their moral compass and courage to oppose evil, the state is automatically on the downward slide to tyranny. You don't have to read much history to see that...:(
Evil ? pure empty hyperbole.
 

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
Uh, have you read the Constitution ? It says " Treason, bribery ( both statutory crimes) or OTHER (statutory) high crimes and misdemeanors."


You and the democrats can pretend than an impeachment on fantasy crimes, not in any written statute is legitimate.

The Republicans won't pretend with you. exoneration, guaranteed
Except, of course, that you are reading in what isn't there. And I think that the wording in the Constitution is important, in that it quite specifically does allow for non-statutory offenses, if they are offensive enough, to serve as reason for impeachment. After all, the legal meaning of the word misdemeanor is: "a nonindictable offense, regarded in the US (and formerly in the UK) as less serious than a felony."
 
Top