On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 07:06:18 -0800 (PST), Frotto
<perryneheum@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>NIXON, in effect, was INDICTED, TRIED by Congress in his impeachment
>hearings. He RESIGNED to avoid a certain IMPEACHMENT VOTE -
>CONVICTION.
He was never impeached in or out of effect. He most probably
would have been had he not resigned. The Judicial Comity voted to
recommend impeachment.There was certainly enough reason to have an
impeachment, IMO.
Of course, the House still needed to vote on it. While very
unlikely, it was always possible the House would vote no.
Here's a quick civics lesson for you:
Only the Senate can hold the impeachment. Really. The House of
Representatives can only decide to have the Senate hold the trial.
You see, the House votes to have an impeachment or not. If they
vote yea, the Senate holds the impeachment. If they vote nay, the
matter is either dropped, or stalled until the next time it's brought
up for a vote.
Nixon's resigning may have been the smartest thing he ever did in
his life. It prevented him from being removed from office via
impeachment. It also allowed Ford to pardon him, preventing a
criminal trial from occurring.
>
>So, for the vast numbers of posters here who continue to demonstrate
>an inabilty to understand/analyze the basic question, try to think ...
>real hard:
>
You lack the understanding of how the impeachment process works,
yet think you can offer criticism of the abilities of others?
Hubris, thy nym is Frotto!
>"Scholars disagree about whether the current president could
>preemptively pardon members of the intelligence community without
>naming them and specifying the conduct for which they would receive
>amnesty."
There is no question in your quote.
That aside, Ford's pardon of Nixon for ANY crimes he may have
committed while Nixon was President means that Bush can pardon said
members without being specific about the crimes.
He may need to name the people being pardoned. I'm not aware of
any precedent allowing for the lack of names being given.
>
>
>You DUMB'UNS, like deadrat here, need to come up with an explanatory
>response. A simpletonian "no" is not sufficient.
The truth is the truth no matter how simple it is presented.
While I disagree with most of DR's political views, he's spot on
in regards to pardons. Deal with it.
--
When cryptography is outlawed,
bayl bhgynjf jvyy unir cevinpl.
|
