Trump "retruthed" this.

Damocles said:
I think he would have been the first President removed from office after a conviction at an impeachment trial. He resigned to avoid that. I also noted that obstruction of justice is not an "official act" of an Executive office.
Click to expand...
Tell your Republican Party that

Your bought off judges will lap balls for the right sized check
 
evince said:
Having consensual sex isn’t impeachment material
Click to expand...
Correct, but perjury and obstruction of justice are both crimes.

Don't you see how you are simply a LW version of a MAGAt, evince? Protecting criminals for political purposes?
 
Commander Dutch said:
Not a lawyer, but if the question was already answered, why did SCOTUS not only take it up but take so long to reach a decision?

Committing a crime shouldn't be covered as an "official act". Seeking to alter an election through fraud is a crime, but, again, I'm not a lawyer.
Click to expand...
That would only be true if the motivation to list it that way was in fact to alter an election. Since the action took place after the election it is difficult to believe that was the motivation though... Anyway, if they used in part anything that is an official act as evidence this ruling would alter that particular trial and that is why the sentencing is delayed, this ruling may be set aside because some evidence was not constitutional according to the ruling. (I think it may also delayed so that he believes he can sentence and there won't be enough time to alter it until after some votes have already been cast).
 
Commander Dutch said:
Correct, but perjury and obstruction of justice are both crimes.

Don't you see how you are simply a LW version of a MAGAt, evince? Protecting criminals for political purposes?
Click to expand...
It wasn’t perjury

It was an immaterial question


Go read the law

You are still buying old Republican lies
 
Damocles said:
That would only be true if the motivation to list it that way was in fact to alter an election. Since the action took place after the election it is difficult to believe that was the motivation though... Anyway, if they used in part anything that is an official act as evidence this ruling would alter that particular trial and that is why the sentencing is delayed, this ruling may be set aside because some evidence was not constitutional according to the ruling. (I think it may also delayed so that he believes he can sentence and there won't be enough time to alter it until after some votes have already been cast).
Click to expand...
When was the phone call made and why?
 
Commander Dutch said:
He resigned when a group of Republicans came to him and advised him to resign before he was convicted by impeachment for his actions.

FWIW, Democrats should have done the same to Clinton for his perjury and obstruction of justice and the Republicans should have done the same to Trump. Neither did and now we have this.

I'm not happy about where our government is going and do not support it worsening.
Click to expand...
Impeachment is not conviction, Sybil. Redefinition fallacy.
 
evince said:
It wasn’t perjury

It was an immaterial question


Go read the law

You are still buying old Republican lies
Click to expand...
Care to bet on that, evince? $20 donation to JPP in the winner's name?

It's why he was impeached.

Not a lawyer, but I can read:
en.wikipedia.org

Impeachment of Bill Clinton - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

Contempt of court citation[edit]​

In April 1999, about two months after being acquitted by the Senate, Clinton was cited by federal District Judge Susan Webber Wright for civil contempt of court for his "willful failure" to obey her orders to testify truthfully in the Paula Jones sexual harassment lawsuit. For this, Clinton was assessed a $90,000 fine and the matter was referred to the Arkansas Supreme Court to see if disciplinary action would be appropriate.[60]

Regarding Clinton's January 17, 1998, deposition where he was placed under oath, Webber Wright wrote:

Simply put, the president's deposition testimony regarding whether he had ever been alone with Ms. (Monica) Lewinsky was intentionally false, and his statements regarding whether he had ever engaged in sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky likewise were intentionally false.[60]
Click to expand...
On the day before leaving office on January 20, 2001, Clinton, in what amounted to a plea bargain, agreed to a five-year suspension of his Arkansas law license and to pay a $25,000 fine as part of an agreement with independent counsel Robert Ray to end the investigation without the filing of any criminal charges for perjury or obstruction of justice.[61][62] On October 1, 2001, Clinton was accordingly suspended from the practice of law in the United States Supreme Court who also issued an order to show cause in 40 days "why he should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court."[63] Clinton resigned from the Supreme Court bar during the show-cause period, and the Supreme Court accordingly ordered his name "stricken from the roll of attorneys admitted to the practice of law before this Court."[64]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top