• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.
  3. Please note there is a new rule regarding the posting of videos. It reads, "Post a summary of the videos you post . An exception can be made for music videos.". Unless you are simply sharing music, please post a summary, or the gist, of the video you wish to share.

Rep. Nadler's 1998 statements About Impeachment

Discussion in 'American Politics' started by Bobber, Dec 2, 2019 at 10:32 PM.

  1. Bobber

    Bobber Well-Known Member

    +710
    Non-Denom
    So now Jerrold Nadler takes over the impeachment process. Well let's look at a few things he said about this on Dec 10th, 1998 :

    "We must not overturn and election and remove a president from office except to defend our very system of government or our constitutional liberties against a dire threat. And we must not do so without an overwhelming consensus of the American people and their representatives in congress of the absolute necessity.

    There must never be a narrowly voted impeachment or an impeachment substantially supported by one of our major political parties and largely opposed by the other. Such an impeachment would lack legitimacy, would produce divisiveness and bitterness in our politics for years to come. And will call into question the very legitimacy of our political institutions."

    Transcript: Opening statement of Rep. Nadler - December 10, 1998

    So the question to ask this fine gentleman.....what happened to wanting to make sure what you were doing had legitimacy? What about the divisiveness and bitterness for years to come?
    What about the legitimacy or the political institutions drawn into question?Does it matter anymore? And does he have an overwhelming consensus of the American people? And what about not doing it if it were largely opposed to the other party? And not only is it not largely opposed by the other party but it's 100% opposed to the other party! And not only 100% opposed by the other party TWO of his own party voted against it.

    Didn't he point out the type of restraint he felt should be applied to the Constitutional aspect of impeachment in the time which was past? So why does this good man make all the big change now?
     
    We teamed up with Faith Counseling. Can they help you today?
  2. wing2000

    wing2000 E pluribus unum Supporter

    +6,794
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    I surmise that most Americans didn't think that a President lying about sex was a threat to the constitutional order. It remains to be seen if most Americans think a President using his executive power to dig up dirt on a potential political opponent warrants impeachment.

    As for the rest of Nadler's 1998 comments - I disagree. When one party places the President above the country, the opposing party should act.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Winner Winner x 2
    • List
  3. Sparagmos

    Sparagmos Well-Known Member

    +2,646
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    if some congressmen seem to have contradictory views of impeachment now than they did in 1998, what does that say about them?
     
  4. Bobber

    Bobber Well-Known Member

    +710
    Non-Denom
    That's NOT why Clinton was impeached.

    What do you mean it remains to be seen. The evidence has been heard. Americans are pretty much evenly split on the issue which certainly is NO overwhelming consensus. Many equally believe Biden's name mentioned was a side thing and not the main intent of the President's motives for making the statement. He was concerned about general corruption in Ukraine and was wanting the Europeans to be giving their fair share of aid.

    And of course the opposing party doesn't believe that's what they're doing but very well....just know this though......you can look for future President's to be impeached over the slightest things and all you need is a simple majority in the House. Impeachments could become a common thing in the future with not too many talented people seeking to want the job which I contend is a shame. Without an overwhelming consensus the next President that's impeached might be someone you like.
     
  5. GoldenBoy89

    GoldenBoy89 We're Still Here

    +16,158
    Humanist
    Single
    US-Democrat
    20 years ago his opinion would have made more sense in the context of the politics of that time but a lots changed since 1998 and the way we engage each other in politics is almost entirely different now. I can’t hold it against him if his opinion has changed at all in two decades.
     
  6. CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN

    CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN I'm praying for my dad to get well.

    +2,713
    United States
    Seeker
    Single
    US-Others
    Yes it was . There was no good reason for Bill Clinton to be impeach.
    But , the moral police had to make Bill look so bad. But Trump is 100 percent +worse, than Bill Clinton. But Trump is a Conservator ,so who cares. I will never respect Conservative Christians again.
     
  7. Bobber

    Bobber Well-Known Member

    +710
    Non-Denom
    So what! People on the right can be prone to say they'll never respect those on the left. I'd suggest those who are wiser appreciates there's good and admirable things about others of which they disagree. Chips carried on people's shoulders can get quite heavy after a while.
     
  8. Bobber

    Bobber Well-Known Member

    +710
    Non-Denom
    Well now that Nadler is now carrying the torch of this you should know his former position on this will be broadcast far and wide. I heard it actually on a Fox show with a video clip of his speech but I put down a CNN link in my OP. You might not hold him to it but I think people who demand consistency from politicians might and in large numbers. Nadler spoke before about how horrible it would be for the nation to pursue an impeachment without an overwhelming consensus of the population in favor. Not only doesn't he have that if anything could be said he has the opposite as two in his party voted against it. And you think how we engage in politics is different now? I'd suggest you need to study the politics of the time of the framers. Things weren't always great then either.
     
  9. wing2000

    wing2000 E pluribus unum Supporter

    +6,794
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    Technically speaking, he was impeached for lying under oath and obstruction of justice. But we all know what it was all about: lying about sex.
     
  10. wing2000

    wing2000 E pluribus unum Supporter

    +6,794
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    The trial has yet to occur. And if that is the defense, I submit a jury would find him guilty. But of course the jury in this case is the US Senate.

    It's not complicated: "...we need you to do us a favor, though"
     
  11. wing2000

    wing2000 E pluribus unum Supporter

    +6,794
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    That horse left the barn already. I suggest you review the impeachment of Bill Clinton...and the years of Whitewater investigations that preceded it. Or go back even further to Gary Hart...when the so called "Moral Majority" made sex an issue in our national campaigns...that is until Donald Trump showed up.
     
  12. GACfan

    GACfan Well-Known Member

    856
    +1,085
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    US-Others
    Yes, basically that's true. He was impeached for committing perjury under oath.
     
  13. essentialsaltes

    essentialsaltes Stranger in a Strange Land

    +10,453
    Atheist
    Legal Union (Other)


    That was 9 days before the impeachment vote. We'll have to wait and see where the country is at that point in the future to see whether Nadler is inconsistent in any way.
     
  14. durangodawood

    durangodawood Dis Member

    +3,767
    United States
    Seeker
    Single
    R's will submit to any misbehavior from Trump. So their opposition to impeachment is not indicative at all of the merits of the case. Thats the age we're in now. Party first!
     
  15. whatbogsends

    whatbogsends Senior Veteran

    +4,518
    Atheist
    Nadler isn't the only person doing an about face. Both Democrats and Republicans are more concerned about politics than they are about the good of the country. Their position for or against impeachment is usually more about political benefit than it is a reflection of moral judgement or Constitutional adherence.

    Lindsey Graham is one clear example of a Republican changing 180 on his principles regarding impeachment:



     
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Winner Winner x 1
    • List
  16. GACfan

    GACfan Well-Known Member

    856
    +1,085
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    US-Others
    If Trump had stuck to his liberal views and had campaigned as a Democrat, then it's more likely that he would have been publicly condemned by conservative Christians before he had the chance to have his first campaign rally. The conservatives who faithfully support Trump can use whatever excuse they can think of, but none of their excuses will change the fact that they are now seen as hypocritical. And no amount of willful attempts to justify voting for and supporting Trump will change that fact.

    The reputation of the current Republican Party has been torn to shreds because of Trump and because he's being repeatedly defended by many conservatives Christians, despite his unchristian behavior. A Christian cannot have an effective and respectable witness if they are seen as hypocritical and accused of compromising their moral convictions. Sadly, that's what has been happening to the conservatives who support Trump because they are being accused of abandoning Christian principles. They are also being accused of selling out to politically support an immoral and unethical President. It's a sad reality.
     
    Last edited: Dec 3, 2019 at 10:15 AM
  17. Bobber

    Bobber Well-Known Member

    +710
    Non-Denom
    So why don't the Democrats stop the charade therefore and show some leadership recognizing they do not have an overwhelming consensus to move forward with this. You might argue that the Republican politicians are holding just as firm but the elephant in the room is the American people! They can read the transcript and there IS NOT an overwhelming consensus to impeach.
     
  18. Bobber

    Bobber Well-Known Member

    +710
    Non-Denom
    In your opinion and that's all it is.
     
  19. whatbogsends

    whatbogsends Senior Veteran

    +4,518
    Atheist
    Why didn't the Republicans stop the charade in 1998 with Clinton. There was no overwhelming consensus then, either.

    I can guarantee that if Trump is actually forced to testify under oath, he would perjure himself, just as Bill Clinton did.

    No one can read the transcript because it hasn't been released. They released a summary of the transcript which many people have testified that it was incomplete. The fact that Trump and his supporters keep making the false claim about the transcript is evidence of his lack of truthfulness in this process.
     
  20. iluvatar5150

    iluvatar5150 Well-Known Member

    +11,183
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    US-Democrat
    Wait... You're arguing that Democrats should demonstrate leadership by giving up in the face of a challenge? I must have missed that sentiment in Buzzfeed's list of top 20 Vince Lombardi quotes.
     
Loading...