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

---

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

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

Quote:

---

Your or anyone else here's opinion of their interpitation of the Constitution matters not.

---

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.

---

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".

---

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.

---

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.

---

Quote:

---

Opps I forgot, you offered Ton Clancy's fictional book as prof. Wow that was a good one. Remember that?

---

Quote:

---

Try actually reading this, this time.

---

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]

---

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.

---

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.

---

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
*-------------------------------------------------*

---

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,

---

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.

---

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.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Glad you were entertained.

---

Quote:

---

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

---

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.

---

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.

---

Quote:

---

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

---

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.

---

Quote:

---

Of which you are.

---

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,

---

Quote:

---

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

---

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.

---

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.

---