Trump and Conduct Unbecoming of a President
Too bad there is not an article or amendment in the Constitution that outlines how The President of the United States of America should act and behave. I don't think one has been necessary until Trump has come into office.
When I was in the Air Force, the military had/has the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) that provides all the laws that govern the military and its people. In the Air Force, you could be given an article 15 for demonstrating some act of unbecoming an Airman.
This was put into your service record. It was not as severe as a Court Martial, but, it was usually followed by some form of low level punishment issued by a high ranking officer. The punishment could be anything like being confined to quarters for a certain period of time or doing Kitchen Patrol (KP) duty, or you could even be demoted in rank.
Congress needs to be able to rely on a law, like the article 15 to reprimand a president's behavior that is unbecoming to the office. Trump's latest escapade that he denies is calling the African, Haitian, and Salvadorian people, coming from "shi*t hole countries."
I understand, it would be difficult as to when congress could adjudicate something like this. However, something needs to be done. This man/child is supposed to be setting high standards for the people and the children of the world to follow. Instead, he is an embarrassment to us, except for his base, and creates additional work for his people to get him out these negative world situations he creates." I don't think one <constitutional etiquette guidelines) has been necessary until Trump has come into office."
LOL You might want to read up on Andrew Jackson. A fascinating character, who owned as many as 300 slaves, favored whipping them if their offense was bad enough, and provided them with fishing gear in order that they could provide food for themselves so he didn't have to.
He fought as many as 100 duels, killing one man as he stood still, having fired his one shot, and waited for Jackson to kill him. He repeatedly attacked people with his hickory cane, including beating one would-be presidential assassin whose pistol misfired to near death until aides pulled him off. One of his most memorable quotes: "I have only two regrets: I didn't shoot Henry Clay and I didn't hang John C. Calhoun.".
Quote from Lem Billings: "Jack (JF Kennedy)could be shameless in his sexuality, simply pull girls' dresses up and so forth. He would corner them at White House dinner parties and ask them to step into the next room away from the noise, where they could hold a 'serious discussion.'" JFK's sexual conquests allegedly include Marilyn Monroe, Audrey Hepburn, Jayne Mansfield, Angie Dickenson, Brazilian actress Florinda Bolkan, famous burlesque stripper, and rap name pioneer Blaze Starr.
John Quincy Adams famously exercised and swam nude.
Teddy Roosevelt carried a pistol at all times...including strolling through the white house.
Didn't a recent president haul out his penis and wave it around?
Trumps antics actually pale compared to some of the people we've had in that office. And, of course, the question of just who would write the guidelines for how a President should behave to retain his office arises. Should be pick Emily Post? Jacqueline Whitmore? Elaine Swann? Or should it be the likes of OJ Simpson? Buford Pusser? Mike Tyson?I don't know how much of what we know about what President Trump says we should become all hot and bothered by. I think it's certainly stupid of him to say it in a public forum.
However, the way information gets relayed today is instantaneous and all-encompassing and we know almost everything. While we may be unhappy with how Trump conducts himself, I suspect he's not a lot different in his level of profanity than Richard Nixon or Lyndon Johnson. We just never got wind of what those two other guys said in such an immediate way.
And in terms of Trump having sex with porn stars or whomever, JFK clearly had his share of affairs, it would appear. And Bill Clinton also appears to have been a serial harasser, at the very least.
What appears to be different with Trump is the content of what he said and his willingness to say it. It's not like those who voted for him didn't know what they were getting, so why should they change their opinion of him now?Congress does have that ability in the form of Censure. The Republican House of Representatives debated censure versus impeachment with Bill Clinton and chose impeachment.
It can do the same with Trump but will not because of party loyalty.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/background/ … ensure.htmWith the constitution's Article 2:3 reading in part, "[the president] shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed" he is even higher than the SCOTUS who are, by Article 3:1, only allowed to "hold their Offices during good Behaviour" makes the president to be the same. How can he be responsible for the behavior of everyone in government and not be bound by the same standards they are or anyone else is?
You can look at Article 2:4's impeachment saying Misdemeanors, and a lie for protecting one's self is, is an impeachable crime, that is saying what standard the president and everyone else are held to. With that said, having a history of infidelity and inappropriate acts against the other gender he had proven he does not have a circumspect behavior life and can not be expected to suddenly rise to one as president. Becoming a president isn't a metamorphosis which makes such a drastic change in their life that the personality of practice will not continue.
Now, look at Article 6 saying "and all Treaties made" with the "New Landers" or natives of this land are supreme. Those treaties made their "Reservations" independent nations within the US which they have the right to prohibit industry from encroaching on if they feel it endangers them. Obama denied the oil pipeline a right to cross their territory but he, with stock in the company, reversed. That alone is an impeachable.
If we want to eliminate him from office, READ with understanding the constitution and you will find, per Article 3:3, by his pardoning Obama who pardoned Bush because 9/11 was an act of treason he has committed treason himself. What is preventing We The People [Amendment 10] from doing it? See https://hubpages.com/politics/The-U-S-C … ons-Spirit and https://hubpages.com/politics/Why-And-H … Overthrown for what can be done.Wait. How do you go from the constitution says SCOTUS may only hold their offices with "Good behavior" (undefined) to it saying a completely separate person, in a completely different branch of govt., is bound by the same requirement without ever saying so?
It either says that or it doesn't; you don't get to claim it does say it without providing evidence of saying it. Your interpretation doesn't put the words on the parchment.Supreme Court Of The United States abbreviated spells SCOTUS so I used the abbreviation instead of the words Supreme Court is how I used it because "[the president] shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed" is written in Article 2:3 that makes him to have know how to interpret the constitution, how it is to be used in deciding any case as well as how to punish behaviors.
The "[the president] shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed" clause concerning the president is what say that.I understand what SCOTUS stands for.
But I don't see anything about requirements for the president to have "good behavior" - that was the question.
But most certainly the president needn't interpret the constitution, only enforce what SCOTUS says it means. Different branches of govt. and different duties.How can someone responsible for the proper implementation of the constitution, as "(the president) shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed" require, not be the example of what the document require for all other "Trustees" of the people? Reasoning with the words' meaning should make that clear.
All jobs within the govt. carry the same requirements? I don't see that, whether as set out in the constitution or "reasoning".
Nor does anyone else, apparently: consider that Clinton was impeached for lying to congress, not for "bad behavior" although he certainly exhibited it and was not of the "good behavior" required of SCOTUS.
I think your "Reasoning with the words' meaning " is just a fancy way of interpreting as what you think should be as opposed to what is. A big problem with the law as what is written is what counts.Then you have not read Article 6 so read it now.
1: All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.
2: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
3: The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
Do you see in section 3 how it say "all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States" and "I don't see that, whether as set out in the constitution or "reasoning", in quoting you, say it does?"3: The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."
Are you now extending "take an oath to support the constitution" to mean "be of good behavior"? Because I can't find those words in there at all.When applying Article 2:4's "The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors" to it, yes it does.
The oath say they will protect the constitution from [all] enemies, if the president isn't "good behavior" how can he demand SCOTUS or anyone else to be? Are you that near "whist ever" that you don't understand how to put the constitution's requirements on its governors like it belongs?
One can not comprehend the constitution phrase by phrase, excepting the Preamble, because everything is dependent on "what the preamble intends to accomplish" since all of the other writings contained in them are not allowed take away from the preamble's intent.
Wilderness: In case you forgot or simply didn't know, Obama taught constitutional law. Of course that is all made up just like he was born in the United States.
?? You don't seem to have followed the thread: Obama's civilian job has exactly zero to do with what requirements the constitution makes for SCOTUS or the office of the president.
A instructor of the constitution has to know he was committing Treason when he pardoned Bush after 9/11 and if he had of had Bush arrested, since he was a Senator, he would have been protecting an act of treason himself and should have been arrested before becoming president. That is why Jeff Session is not doing anything about the "Notice of Impeachment" I have in his office now, he was a congressman during that time and did nothing about 9/11.
Fair enough as there was no indication of treason (you might look up the constitutional definition of that word, too). Nor does a pardon indicate treason for the same reason; presidents have that ability.
How can an Aircraft made of soft aluminum penetrate concrete and steal with the nose exiting the other side of the building without being dented and then disappear without any trace on the street below [go watch the videos]. How can an aircraft's wing disappear as it passed a building, reappear and then enter the building and leave in's imprint in it {Watch the videos]? How can the burning of any building burn hot enough to pulverize concrete and steal [watch the videos] many stories above and below the impact point?
After you have seen the many videos come back and answers those questions and give evidence of it being done by Middle Easterners so that the whole world can know it wasn't treason.I'm sorry - we've already gone over your knowledge of physics. Using idiot claims from the internet to decide that it is impossible for planes to bring down the towers only emphasizes our lack of expertise in the area.
If that's your evidence of treason you have a long ways to go.The original ones replayed for almost a whole week shows that, those are the ones I'm talking about. That is where I studied them since I am not an emotional boy.
OK. I've been over many of the conspiracy theorists claims on the matter. They are silly, uninformed and many are flatly untrue; I didn't find a single one with any merit whatsoever. You see, I DO understand basic physics; it was one of the topics studied extensively in my schooling for chemistry. And the information being presented does not agree with the realities of our world.
Should you wish to take these ridiculous claims as gospel that is your privilege, but I'm not interested in discussing the topic once again with the same old nonsense being presented. Another day, another topic with you then!
There is one mechanism in place for improper conduct and it is impeachment when the crime justifies impeachment. We learned from Bill Clinton that felony crimes including perjury and a half dozen other actions far worse than merely being crass and offensive in your emails and speach do not constitute grounds for removal from office. So suggesting impeachment of Trump is laughable.
But maybe you want some lesser censure or punishment, someone to say Mr. President you are a bad boy or someone to make him stay over on Saturday in the oval office as a form of in-school suspension, or maybe someone can whack his knuckles with a ruler, or have him write sentences on the chalk board.
The reason discipline and decorum works in the military is because those people have a boss. The elected officials in this country have no boss but the people who as voters act only every few years.
I cringe sometimes when I hear the latest story of what Trump or some other politician has said. I feel far worse when I hear of the ones who have frequently committed felonies, some to get away and some of which are now locked up. I wish the folks in DC would quit being crass and stupid, but if I am honest that is near the bottom of what I'd want to fix about them. Maybe have them quit committing felony crimes and maybe quit spending the next generations money would be a lot higher of a priority.Stan: Thanks for your comments. I don't think Donald Trump will ever change his behavior.
Stan,
To lie under oath is justifiable for impeachment, it is "PERJURY" and a higher crime than "Misdemeanors". What happened there is "if he got impeached he would have been able to take down the entire government as 9/11's treason will eventually. See Article 2:4.
Look at Article 6:3, Stan, all governors, including presidents, are "public trust" who have We The People with Amendment 10 empowering us to impeach independent of Congress [as needed since the governors protect each other like what got Clinton off] to answer to but we don't recognize it because of being conditioned to believe "we can't fight city hall."
Felonies are "high Crimes" but as I have already said, We don't know we have the power to impeach and the governors protect each other because they all have "skeletons in their closets." And believe it or not, Congress has allowed the privately owned "Federal Reserve Bank" to print our money and pay them interest for the nation's using of its own money. Impeachable!
If Trump calling the place a bad name gets your feathers ruffled but Hillary robbing them blind is okay, you might be a liberal.
Guessing you weren't around for Bill Clinton.Onusonus: You don't know that Hillary robbed them blind. You have heard that on "Fake Fox News." What Bill Clinton did is bad, but it pales compared to Trump's behavior and escapades. Calling countries "shit holes" causes international repercussions. By the way, I'm 79 years old. So I've been around for more than Bill Clinton, but I have never seen anything like Trump in all my years, and I hope I never do again.
Really? Lying under oath to congress isn't as bad as telling the truth using language that isn't PC?
I would disagree on that one. Especially when those "repercussions" are nothing but more complaints that the US is mean, inhumane and cruel. We've had those for decades and nothing has changed because of Trump's words.We have about as much proof of Hillary as we do of Trump. Funny how personal opinion creates fact when opposed to an individual and fiction when not.
That you know of, L2L. Unless you have some inside info from the Mueller investigation that says otherwise. Do you have such?
You're right, Bill using Monica's lady parts as a humidor in the oval office is much worse than Trump saying mean things.
I'll also add that you are right too about all that missing money being connected to Hillary for lack of witnesses. They all tend to drop dead before they can testify.
Bill's using Monica while in office is NOT a crime if she consented, lying UNDER OATH is a higher than "Misdemeanors" crime of "perjury" Article 2:4 say is impeachable.
"The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."
As perjury is not listed and is not a misdemeanor, you must be using the "high crimes" portion to determine that it is impeachable. What are you using to determine the definition of that term? Do you have a legal dictionary from the 1700's, have you looked at SCOTUS cases resulting in such a determination or are you making up your own?What is a "high Crimes" higher than, isn't that a type of crime and not a specific crime? List some crimes higher than a Misdemeanor, Please!!!
What is a "Misdemeanor" and isn't it a type of crime rather than "the" crime? Name a few of them, Please!!!
Smashing evidence with a hammer and wiping her server during an investigation, I'm thinking that's illegal.
I concur, why would one do that if they were not kidding something illegal?
Although I would have the same question, an unanswered question regardless of the insinuation that obviously comes from it, is at best circumstantial evidence and could equally indicate that we simply don't have an answer. As a jury member I could not convict.
This is becoming a real problem with the net (IMO) - the public asks such questions, making just that kind of implied guilt, and we assume guilt because of the implication. Something we ALL need to be careful of.
On the other hand, if you could answer that question with proof that something illegal was being hidden rather than just asking it and never providing a substantiated answer...If you noticed, I only agreed with Onusonu's presentation and nothing more.
Yes, I know. I just see that kind of "accusation" so very often today - there is a whole thread along those lines right now. "If you can't answer my question to my satisfaction them guilt has to be there" just doesn't make it though. Especially when guilt is assumed before the question is ever asked!
This is from my research piecing together the story about Trump ordering the firing of Mueller. You may want to dispute it but I believe to be fact. You are welcome to prove me wrong if you can.
We now know — thanks to reporters Michael Schmidt and Maggie Haberman of The Times — that Trump did try to subvert the rule of law. In June, he issued an order to fire Mueller, with three justifications:
First, he thought Mueller had a conflict of interest because of an argument over fees at one of Trump’s golf clubs, which resulted in Mueller resigning his membership. Second, because Mueller worked for a law firm that once represented Jared Kushner, the president’s son-in-law. And third, because Mueller was being interviewed to return as the FBI director the day before he was named special counsel in May 2017. He spearheaded the organization between 2001 and 2013.
But the White House counsel, Donald McGahn (pronounced “McGann”), refused to send the order to the Justice Department, which would have had to carry out any firing. Removing Mueller, McGahn told other White House officials, “would have a catastrophic effect” on Trump’s presidency. As McGahn expected, Trump then backed down.
But McGahn acted honorably and bravely when it mattered most. He flat-out refused an order from his boss, which is never easy, let alone when your boss is the president and the order deals with the most explosive subject in politics.Much better. Don't forget that my post was in response to a post whose total content was "I concur, why would one do that if they were not kidding something illegal?" That kind of comment, intended to bring forth a conclusion of guilt without ever providing anything but an unanswered question, is a horse of a different color.
I may or may not agree with your conclusion (you DO list 3 potentially viable reasons for firing Mueller, though the discussion is about refusing to testify), at least there is something to discuss beyond a guessing game.
Nothing needs to be done now. We had our chance on election day. What is the surprise here? We knew what we were getting. He showed himself time and time again. And some of us voted for him anyway. The shame is on them. The rest of us tried to stop him. There is nothing to be done now but live with the bad choices of others - not even the majority.
What is disturbing to me is how few of them have admitted they made a horrible mistake. It means they will continue to think this type of person and behavior is acceptable for the highest office in the land. He wouldn't last a week in most jobs -- heck, a day -- with this type of behavior He'd be fired.
I don't think many people think this type of behavior is correct for President or any high office. But if you have two women applying to be chief of the city fire department and one is crass and offensive in her language and texts but will save lives. and the other one is going to embezzle money from the city and run the fire department so poorly that more building burn down and more people die in fires, are you every sorry for hiring the one who saves more lives?
You are so correct, Kathleen Cochran and PrettyPanther, except Article 6:3's calling all governing officials "public Trust" means We The People, per Amendment 10, has the authority to Impeach [Article 2:4] any and all "Misdemeanors" and above anyone does. And because Police are included under Article 3:1's court's behavior requirements because they are the law enforcers, they can be removed from office by We The People. Most of us have accepted the lie "you can't fight city hall."
Goodness, wouldn't it be nice to have had such an amendment. We'd have lost quite a few presidents, mid term, but that'd be ok.
Live to Learn: You wouldn't lose them. They would just be reprimanded by congress.
Well, certainly. Because Congress does represent a bastion of good manners, proper behavior and intelligent government.
Not.Learn to live: The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) is not just of group of high ranking military people. It is a body of laws that are followed by all people in the military and adjudicated by the legal arm of the military. It could be the same for the federal government. It could be a body of laws as to how all government employees are supposed to conduct themselves. Congress could create it and have it passed as an amendment to the Constitution. I know it isn't going to happen. It was just a thought.
LOL. I'm ex air force. The same holds true there,as anywhere. The lower ranksare held to a different standard than the higher ones. A general? Not held to much of that code.
Maybe in the Air Force. Not in the Navy.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/investig … 6b914873b4
Comparing this president to others is disturbing. This one doesn't compare to anybody. Those who don't see that worry me greatly.
Trump has sunk to a new low even for him. Trump has made America look bad in the eyes of the world. If one has voted for Trump & is intelligent & discerning, disassociate from Trump. Trump is a disaster & will continue to be a political disaster. Trump is hanging himself & the world sees it. Liberals & progressives were right about Trump all along.
It is sad that some Conservatives, reactionaries, & retrogressives are defending him & his statement. There are some who will stand behind Trump no matter what. That says a lot about the Trump constituency. Trump defends white supremacists, note Charlottesville, stating that BOTH sides were guilty when it was the white supremacists who started the Charlottesville fiasco & it was Antifa who defended themselves against the white supremacists. Trump has shown to be the racist, supremacist "president" no matter how vehemently he tries to deny such.
The problem with creating such a law to help us determine who is a reasonable candidate would be this: how political would that law become.
No. We could have had Hillary, like Pretty Panther correctly said, but we got Trump, there guys I covered it. What if's sinks ships. . . .
Remember these characters we thought so funny at one time: Archie Bunker, (yes, even) George Jefferson, and I could go on.
This element of hate has always existed in our society.
What we need to do is redouble our efforts to make sure the "center" holds in every party. The center dissolved in both parties that why we saw the likes of Trump, (and yes, I'll say it" Obama.
We need to hold news organizations accountable. (We knew we had a snake, but we picked it up.)
We created this mess, we are the captains.
Well, as anyone knows: Captains must clean their own mess.Wilderness: Just because other presidents were disgraceful and scandalous doesn't make it right. Just about all the presidents you mentioned lived in another time. You only know about them as a matter of history. We live in the 21st century where news travels at light speed globally. What the president says and does is open kimono time world wide. He owes it to himself and his people to represent the best qualities of the office of President of the United States of America.
Trump has no filters between his brain, his mouth, and his twitter feeds. He just created an international incident by stating that Africa, Haiti, and El Salvador are sh*t hole countries and he would rather have people come here from Norway. Of course he disputed it, but others heard him say it. This is right out of the Trump play book. He has pi**off the people from those countries and made himself look like a racist. Norway said they don't even want their white people to come here. As they say, "You reap what you sow."You missed the entire point. First, being a century ago does not change that it was just as unacceptable then as Trump's actions are now. Second, it doesn't matter a whit how fast news travels today - it has nothing to do with anything and doesn't make it either worse or better.
And most importantly, we survived those other examples, some of which are far worse than Trump's mouth (would you rather be talked nasty about or beat nearly to death with a hickory cane?). We'll survive Trump's mouth, too. Maybe even lose some of the ridiculous PC kick we've been on for a while now (that would be a really good thing). We'll survive it even with the gross exaggerations of the TDS crowd ("He just created an international incident by stating that Africa, Haiti, and El Salvador are sh*t hole countries").
Really? How a president should act and behave? That’s very controlling, and I suppose we should use your guidelines of how he should act. Presidents are people, not someone to put on a pedestal. Ted Bundy the serial killer was charming- don’t be fooled.
Presidents are not above us as humans. We learned the well loved Clinton was an ongoing liar and cheater. Nobody asked for constitution amendment to that. JFK was rumored to be a cheater but everyone acts like he was the greatest person.
Take it from someone who’s spent years in the field of psychology- you see what you want to see. You believe what you want to believe. Trump has done as many kind things as brash. You just see what you want to see. Please consider that- no need to respond to my comment. I know you have your mind made up and I am in no mood to argue."You just see what you want to see. "
An Excellent point indeed, for that is exactly what happens. Far too many people are searching and looking so hard for some perceived reason to demonize the president that that's all they see. It doesn't have to be real - a spun version or even a completely imaginary version of what was actually said or happened is fine as long as it satisfies what that person wants to see or hear.Really? In no mood to argue, but you want to get your two cents in with no feedback?
Sort of like Trump does with twitter, eh?And Clinton paid the price with impeachment -- one of only two Presidents in U.S. history to face that punishment.
Water off a duck's back for Clinton. The man never expressed an ounce of remorse or embarrassment.
1999
August 17: "I did have a relationship with Miss Lewinsky that was not appropriate. In fact, it was wrong.
"I misled people, including even my wife. I deeply regret that."
August 28: "I'm having to become quite an expert in this business of asking for forgiveness."
September 2: "You know, I have acknowledged that I made a mistake, said that I regretted it, asked to be forgiven, spent a lot of very valuable time with my family in the last couple of weeks, and said I was going back to work."
September 4: "I made a big mistake. It is indefensible and I am sorry.
"I can't disagree with anyone else who wants to be critical of what I have already acknowledged is indefensible. There's nothing that he (Sen. Joseph Lieberman) or anyone else could say in a personally critical way that I don't imagine I would disagree with since I have already said it myself, to myself, and I'm very sorry about it, but there's nothing else I can say."
Clinton, Sept. 9
September 9 (afternoon): "I also let you down and I let my family down and I let this country down. But I'm trying to make it right. And I'm determined never to let anything like that happen again. And I'm determined to redeem the trust.
"So I ask you for your understanding, for your forgiveness on this journey we're on. I hope this will be a time of reconciliation and healing."
September 9 (evening): "I've tried to do a good job taking care of this country, even when I haven't taken such good care of myself and my family and my obligations. I hope that you and others I have injured will forgive me for the mistakes I've made, but the most important thing is you must not let it deter you from meeting your responsibilities as citizens."
December 11: "What I want the American people to know, what I want the Congress to know, is that I am profoundly sorry for all I have done wrong in words and deeds," Clinton said. "I never should have misled the country, the Congress, my friends and my family. Quite simply, I gave in to my shame ..."
Clinton, Dec. 11
"Mere words cannot fully express the profound remorse I feel for what our country is going through, and for what members of both parties in Congress are now forced to deal with.
"These past months have been a tortuous process of coming to terms with what I did. I understand that accountability demands consequences, and I'm prepared to accept them. Painful though the condemnation of the Congress would be, it would pale in comparison to the consequences of the pain I have caused my family. There is no greater agony."
In a simple and solemn speech delivered after his acquittal, Clinton again addressed the nation and expressed remorse for his actions. Below is the text:
Now that the Senate has fulfilled its constitutional responsibility, bringing this process to a conclusion, I want to say again to the American people how profoundly sorry I am for what I said and did to trigger these events and the great burden they have imposed on the Congress and on the American people.
I also am humbled and very grateful for the support and the prayers I have received from millions of Americans over this past year.
Now I ask all Americans, and I hope all Americans, here in Washington and throughout our land, will rededicate ourselves to the work of serving our nation and building our future together.
This can be and this must be a time of reconciliation and renewal for America.I stand corrected, somewhat. A few of those I do remember and they appeared to lack sincerity, at the time. Maybe the ones I didn't hear were sincere. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt, although I suspect his main regret was getting caught.
Yes, perception is reality, a fundamental truth - unless, it's reality TV. Oh, yeah, then, the ratings matter.
Our presidents are first civilians serving in public office. The Constitution meant for the military to be under the control of civilians. (Wise move, based on what we know about banana republics.)
It doesn't matter which one of our presidents you think of, all are flawed. (JFK and his womanizing, Lincoln originally was not for ending slavery if it preserved the Union, R.R., (who I like alot as a president), didn't want to support South Africans in their struggle against apartheid, on and on.
But the majority of our Presidents did have some military background. However, that can't be a prerequisite for president.
Now, most of these men I mentioned changed their minds about things over time, and here is the important point: they did it with actions that showed they changed their perspectives.
Now, Trump, he changes with the wind. Don't be surprised if he sends a ship load of potatoes over to Africa and Haiti thinking its Ireland. He may announce annexation of Puerto Rico, too. (That's a territory, Mr. President.)
The answers are blowing in the wind, like Trump[, any given day of the week. The Constitution can't help that. No one in Congress certainly is.
God help us all.Tim Truzy info4u,
Your way of saying it had me laughing in the library but I agree. Thanks for the morning's laugh.Of course, as Americans we don't really want our president to fail, but we don't have to do anything in this case. He's helping himself. Great forum.
Well now, McGahn has left the FBI. And in typical Trump fashion, he claims he knew nothing abut it,even though he hounded McGahn for a year. Even members of the FBI were not informed about it. This is the same modius operandi that Trump used on Comey.
Trump is just like a Mafia Godfather, he was having lunch with a congressional panel, while McGahn was leaving the building for the last time and Trump claims he nothing about him resigning.That was just a small brain glitch right? You meant to say McCabe right. He's the one that left the FBI. Isn't McGahn the lawyer?
Don't get excited now, I am not criticizing or jabbing, it just looks like you mixed up names. That's all.
Peace.
GA
Thank you GA. I realized it after watching the news. They were both in the news at the same time.
Related Discussions
- 81
Why Did Trump Refuse to Condemn Nazis?
by Kate Swanson 6 years ago
How can any decent human being think that it's OK to defend white supremacists and Nazis? No one can deny that's what they were, they had banners advertising the fact. I find it shocking that a President could take the attitude Trump has. If it's possible, he has sunk even...
- 90
4 million belonged to KKK in 20s. How many secretly want to join today
by Scott Belford 5 years ago
The Klu Klux Klan (and now the White Supremacists) are, unfortunately, part of the American character. More specifically, they are the embodiment of everything bad about that character. The driving force behind these groups led to the huge wave of lynchings and the genocide and ethnic...
- 70
Can the President of the United States override the First Amendment?
by Mike Russo 7 years ago
Can the President of the United States override the First Amendment?Here is the first amendment:Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to...
- 74
What Did Joe Say? What Possessed Him To Say That?
by Sharlee 3 years ago
Yesterday I (Feb 2, 2021) watched Biden expressing his condolences to the families of two FBI agents that were killed while trying to serve a warrant in Florida. President Biden used some eyebrow-raising words, that shocked me almost out of my seat. “By in large the vast majority of...
- 20
Did you cry when saw the car plow into crowd at Charlotte VA?
by ptosis 6 years ago
Fck - I did. I knew it would upset me. And it did. But I think I forced myself to watch this stuff so it doesn't seem like a 'Games of Thrones' episode. I've seen the truck plowing in Europe and it got me upset . But not as much as this.
- 5
Why didn't President Trump openly reprimanded the White supremacists, Neo-Nazis,
by Grace Marguerite Williams 6 years ago
Why didn't President Trump openly reprimanded the White supremacists, Neo-Nazis,Alt-Right & other hate groups in the Charlottesville Riots?