War on Christmas x Impeachment Is the Collab of the Season

tulc

loves "SO'S YER MOM!! posts!
May 18, 2002
49,401
18,801
68
✟271,570.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Newt Gingrich Says Trump Impeachment Probe Hurts Christmas, Matthew Whitaker Agrees
Ol' Newt jumped on The Fox News Channel to debut the link between the impeachment inquiry into Donald Trump—and his attempts to extort a foreign power to attack free and fair American elections for his personal benefit—and the celebration of the birth of Jesus Christ. This profound grievance appears to be predicated on the fact that it is now December, the same month Christmas is in. But before he could make that point, Gingrich of course had to compare a congressional proceeding to "a modern-day lynch mob."

This is insane for a number of reasons, not least that no one is going to die. Maybe Newt should pay a visit to the National Memorial for Peace and Justice down in Montgomery. Also, the House hearings are the equivalent of a grand-jury proceeding, meaning the president has no right to representation therein. He's about to get his due process—and, if reports are anything to go on, some retributive shenanigans to boot—in the Republican Senate. The claim from Gingrich that Republican witness Jonathan Turley "is a Democrat" is also silly considering Turley offered essentially the exact opposite testimony when he advocated for Bill Clinton's impeachment in 1998.

And that, my friends, is where the true shamelessness comes in. Because it was the same Newton Leroy Gingrich who, as the then-Speaker of the House, led the ceaseless campaign to impeach Clinton for something, anything, and finally settled on the High Crime of lying about an (admittedly gross) affair. In a strange coincidence, Gingrich was having an affair with a staffer 23 years his junior at the same exact moment. Her name is now Callista Gingrich, his third wife, and she is the United States Ambassador to the Vatican. According to the AP, his first wife said Gingrich "discussed divorce terms with her while she was recuperating in the hospital from cancer surgery." Gingrich said he doesn't remember this.

Anyway, this is the guy sharing Turley's supposed wisdom that the current investigation "lowers the prestige of the House," and that "it's the House that's abusing power." As Speaker, Gingrich was known as a careful custodian of congressional prestige. He's also the guy who rounded this crap off with the idea this is a Christmas gift to the nation because the probe, which began months ago, has persisted into December. As historian Kevin Kruse pointed out on Twitter, the Gingrich-led House voted to impeach Clinton six days before Christmas in 1998.
tulc(always knows the hypocrisy is going to be very deep if they call on Newt to deliver the talking points!) :D
 

joshua 1 9

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
May 11, 2015
17,420
3,592
Northern Ohio
✟314,577.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Of course the pro impeach people are Grinches. Should we expect anything different? Of course they are going to look for a dysfunctional way to deal with their annual holiday seasonal depression. Impeachment is a perfect fit for them this time of years.
 
Upvote 0

tulc

loves "SO'S YER MOM!! posts!
May 18, 2002
49,401
18,801
68
✟271,570.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Of course the pro impeach people are Grinches. Should we expect anything different? Of course they are going to look for a dysfunctional way to deal with their annual holiday seasonal depression. Impeachment is a perfect fit for them this time of years.
That explains why Gingrich and the GOP House impeached President Clinton less then a week before Christmas in 1998? Because it's wrong to talk about impeachment this close to Christmas? Or it's only wrong if a Democrat does it, not when Republicans do it? :scratch:
tulc(is just curious) :wave:
 
Upvote 0

joshua 1 9

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
May 11, 2015
17,420
3,592
Northern Ohio
✟314,577.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
That explains why Gingrich and the GOP House impeached President Clinton less then a week before Christmas in 1998?
They should have been home enjoying their Christmas. What good did it do to drag up all that nonsense about Clinton?
 
Upvote 0

Ricky M

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Apr 19, 2017
1,905
1,319
66
Los Angeles
✟130,544.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Of course the pro impeach people are Grinches. Should we expect anything different? Of course they are going to look for a dysfunctional way to deal with their annual holiday seasonal depression. Impeachment is a perfect fit for them this time of years.
Yeah. And cops only write tickets during the holidays because they are in a foul mood.

The violation of law has nothing to do with it.

(Rolls eyes big time)
 
Upvote 0

Ricky M

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Apr 19, 2017
1,905
1,319
66
Los Angeles
✟130,544.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
it's only wrong if a Democrat does it, not when Republicans do it? :scratch:
tulc(is just curious) :wave:
That pretty much sums up a lot of what's going on in some people's heads these days
 
Upvote 0

tulc

loves "SO'S YER MOM!! posts!
May 18, 2002
49,401
18,801
68
✟271,570.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
They should have been home enjoying their Christmas. What good did it do to drag up all that nonsense about Clinton?
Maybe you should ask that of the guy who now says it's "Wrong to do this at Christmas!" since he's the one who did it. :wave:
tulc(just a thought) :)
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

tulc

loves "SO'S YER MOM!! posts!
May 18, 2002
49,401
18,801
68
✟271,570.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
What law did he break?
Still a little hazy on what impeachment is huh? maybe this will help:
Impeachment | US House of Representatives: History, Art & Archives
The House's Role
The House brings impeachment charges against federal officials as part of its oversight and investigatory responsibilities. Individual Members of the House can introduce impeachment resolutions like ordinary bills, or the House could initiate proceedings by passing a resolution authorizing an inquiry. The Committee on the Judiciary ordinarily has jurisdiction over impeachments, but special committees investigated charges before the Judiciary Committee was created in 1813. The committee then chooses whether to pursue articles of impeachment against the accused official and report them to the full House. If the articles are adopted (by simple majority vote), the House appoints Members by resolution to manage the ensuing Senate trial on its behalf. These managers act as prosecutors in the Senate and are usually members of the Judiciary Committee. The number of managers has varied across impeachment trials but has traditionally been an odd number. The partisan composition of managers has also varied depending on the nature of the impeachment, but the managers, by definition, always support the House’s impeachment action.

The Use of Impeachment
The House has initiated impeachment proceedings more than 60 times but less than a third have led to full impeachments. Just eight—all federal judges—have been convicted and removed from office by the Senate. Outside of the 15 federal judges impeached by the House, two Presidents (Andrew Johnson in 1868 and William Jefferson (Bill) Clinton in 1998), a cabinet secretary (William Belknap in 1876), and a U.S. Senator (William Blount of Tennessee in 1797) have also been impeached.

Blount’s impeachment trial—the first ever conducted—established the principle that Members of Congress and Senators were not “Civil Officers” under the Constitution, and accordingly, they could only be removed from office by a two-thirds vote for expulsion by their respective chambers. Blount, who had been accused of instigating an insurrection of American Indians to further British interests in Florida, was not convicted, but the Senate did expel him. Other impeachments have featured judges taking the bench when drunk or profiting from their position. The trial of President Johnson, however, focused on whether the President could remove cabinet officers without obtaining Congress’s approval. Johnson’s acquittal firmly set the precedent—debated from the beginning of the nation—that the President may remove appointees even if they required Senate confirmation to hold office.
tulc(hopes that helps) :wave:
 
Upvote 0

nonaeroterraqueous

Nonexistent Member
Aug 16, 2014
2,915
2,724
✟188,987.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Or it's only wrong if a Democrat does it, not when Republicans do it?

Both impeachments were pretty dumb, weren't they? Now, don't tell me you think this one is good because it's a Republican getting impeached. That would be pretty blatantly hypocritical. Glad to know you oppose this impeachment.

...he was acquitted on both charges so, no, he didn't.

Well, for one thing, he was actually impeached, successfully, so, no, he wasn't acquitted. The Senate didn't vote to remove him, and that's all. For another thing, I can't imagine anyone trusting the process at that level to be unbiased and fair enough to say that just because he was acquitted or not acquitted that it really means anything about his actual guilt. The dude was an adulterer, and that much is uncontested (and a frequent flier on Epstein airlines), so we're well beyond calling him innocent. It just happens that having a fling with an intern doesn't quite rise to the level of selling national secrets to enemy nations (not to say that he didn't. I don't trust him enough to assume that he didn't).
 
Upvote 0

Ricky M

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Apr 19, 2017
1,905
1,319
66
Los Angeles
✟130,544.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
What law did he break?
Legally, he's suspected in a lot of them. I won't bother listing them here because it's all been listed many times before. But that's the point of the inquiry, to see if there is enough true evidence to officially charge him. If there is there will be a trial, after which there will be a legal determination of whether or not he is actually guilty. But until then, he is legally considered innocent until proven otherwise. Just like every other crook in this land.
 
Upvote 0

tulc

loves "SO'S YER MOM!! posts!
May 18, 2002
49,401
18,801
68
✟271,570.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Both impeachments were pretty dumb, weren't they?
Nope, first one was, this one actually has merit. :wave:


Now, don't tell me you think this one is good because it's a Republican getting impeached.
hmmm...pretending to ask a question while implying what the answer is? That's adorable. How about this: you ask me what I think about something, then you wait for me to answer it before deciding what I do or don't think? :D

That would be pretty blatantly hypocritical.
No hypocritical would be pretending to ask a question while trying to answer it for someone. ;)

Glad to know you oppose this impeachment.
I'm a little confused. Why post this in a thread when it obviously belongs instead in your blog? It's not like you're actually talking to anyone in the thread so far. It's you, pretending to ask me something, then it's you pretending to answer for me, then it's you showing "how "I'm wrong!" Then you taking a victory lap. One nice thing though, you're so bad at this it's more funny then it is irritating, so, I'll give you points for that. When you want to actually talk to me? I'll be here. :wave:



Well, for one thing, he was actually impeached, successfully, so, no, he wasn't acquitted.
I see you also don't understand what "impeached" means. That might explain why you're so unclear about the difference between this impeachment and the Clinton one. Tell you what, you find out what "impeached" means and when you do, we can discuss what the difference is between "found guilty and acquitted". :)

(snip) The dude was an adulterer, and that much is uncontested
...the irony in this line alone? it was worth wading through the rest of your post to get to it. :oldthumbsup:

(snip) so we're well beyond calling him innocent. (snip)
No one said he was innocent, I said he was acquitted. I see you're a little unclear on what that means as well. :sigh:
tulc(thanks nonaeroterraqueous, this was the funnest post he read all night) :clap:
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

BarnyFyfe

Deputy Seventh-day Adventist
Dec 20, 2019
92
41
74
Southern
✟10,026.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
What law did he break?
Well... None as long as we're all in agreement on what the meaning of the word "is" is. (ROTFL)
When I first heard that I thought "Well now I have truly heard everything" and to this day I've never heard anything to top it. And I like Bill Clinton! He's one of those "lovable scoundrel" characters.
 
Upvote 0