Well then.....that's a valid reason to establish a precedent whereby the President can get away with impeachable offenses, no? (Sarc fully on, folks). RobOriginally Posted by jp1
Well then.....that's a valid reason to establish a precedent whereby the President can get away with impeachable offenses, no? (Sarc fully on, folks). Rob
Wasn't Gingrich among those howling loudest for Clinton's impeachment? Gingrich, for his part, said on Fox News Friday morning, "This whole thing is a joke."
Newt Gingrich is a joke.
What a buncha flaming hypocrites.
Was he? I believe he resigned from Congress just before the impeachment hearings began didn't he?
"Things should be made as simple as possible, but not one bit simpler." ~ Albert Einstein
Well, so far the process seems to be the gift that keeps on giving.
The GOP is getting a new congressman by defection.
The country got a new spending bill because the players were too distracted for the usual brinksmanship.
The public is being spared a lot of media coverage of Democratic presidential candidates maneuvering for position. How long since we’ve seen a new Warren plan for taxing and rationing and generally regulating us?
A lot of senators will be getting a lot of sound bites in their stockings.
The media can stay in DC over the holidays. Home for Christmas!
The twitter people will be getting a cornucopia of traffic.
I think Newt is wrong. The whole thing has a sort of Christmasy feel to it.
"Gingrich himself has in the past voted to impeach a president over such charges. While speaker of the House, Gingrich voted in 1998 to impeach President Bill Clinton on charges of obstruction of justice and perjury.
Now, with a Republican in power, Gingrich has changed his tune. On Friday he called the investigation into Trump a "witch hunt."" --CNN
I stand corrected. Gingrich resigned after voting for impeachment in the House but before the trial started in the Senate. Memories are often imperfect.
"Things should be made as simple as possible, but not one bit simpler." ~ Albert Einstein
The thing that's turned my hair white this weekend is realizing that apparently, the people running the impeachment proceedings think they can act with impunity to achieve whatever outcome they want. How can Mitch McConnell possibly not recuse himself if his publicly stated position is that he's going to represent the president?
In what court of law would I be chosen for a jury if I said, "I passionately want to be a juror because I believe this man is innocent and I'm going to vote him not guilty no matter what evidence is presented to me? Not only that, as a person of significant power and superiority, I will pressure everyone else on the jury to vote him not guilty and to ignore any evidence that might have been presented." WHAT?
I wish Newt Gingrich would shrivel up and blow away. I remember his face off with Bill Clinton, was it in 1994 or 1995? The government was shut down - I was living in Portland, OR, at the time, far from the Mexican border. Though I will say I was living in a more upscale area at the time - the 97206 - and politics there did not have the seemingly life and death significance that they do here.
But that said, Newt Gingrich was considered a moron by those I spoke to in the Portland neighborhood. Rob
I'm watching the Rules Committee hearings now and the Democratic Rep, Jamie Raskin of Maryland, is currently going well out of his way to remind us that this is not a court of law so we should not expect the sort of conduct we'd expect in a legal proceeding to carry over to this political proceeding.
"Things should be made as simple as possible, but not one bit simpler." ~ Albert Einstein
Right, we should expect an entirely debased and pointless waste of taxpayer money by allowing a kangaroo court. - I'm not arguing with you, Alan, da rules is da rules, but if deese is da rules, we're approaching a new low in governmental corruption.
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote