Nonprofit, nonpartisan journalism. Supported by readers.

Donate

Gerald Ford on impeachment: In a practical sense, he nailed it

Gerald Ford swearing in
Robert L. Knudsen, White House Press Office
Gerald Ford is sworn in as the 38th President of the United States by Chief Justice Warren Burger in the White House East Room, on Aug. 9, 1974, while Betty Ford looks on.

Gerald R. Ford, 38th president of the United States, was president by accident. Make that double accident. He became president without ever having been on a presidential ballot, not even as a candidate for vice president. He is sometimes referred to as our only “unelected” president, meaning he never won an election to either of the two offices.

According to most accounts (and my own recollections), he was a good guy, and he did what he could, which was quite a bit, to restore confidence in our system after both his predecessors — as vice president (Spiro Agnew) and then as president (Richard Nixon) — resigned rather than waiting to be impeached and removed.

Ford was not a creator of glittering phrases, nor known for his eloquence generally. But, over the impeachment-obsessed week just ended, I was thinking of the three most famous phrases associated with Ford, two of which relate to the history of impeachment.

Quote One was “Whip Inflation Now,” abbreviated WIN on buttons that Americans were encouraged to wear during a period of runaway inflation during his brief presidency. The idea was, instead of odious government action, to encourage us all to do what we could in our personal economic activity, rather than relying on the government or economists, to tame inflation. And, if we forget, we could look at our button, and remember. It didn’t work, but it’s kinda sweet in a Forest Gumpy way.


Quote Two was “Our long national nightmare is over.” Ford said it in a national address, designed to reassure America that things would be returning to normal now that the tainted (but elected by landslide) president and vice president were gone, and that a person (Ford did not immodestly point this out, but we all got it) who was “not a crook” had taken over the Oval Office.

But the third quote, which comes up a lot lately and which set off this post, is something he said when as a member of the U.S. House. In that capacity, Ford was himself attempting to launch impeachment proceedings against U.S. Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas. Justice Douglas’ liberal rulings, especially on issues of pornography, upset conservatives so much that Ford hoped to get him impeached, although Douglas’ only “high crimes and misdemeanors” were his opinions.

Ford, rather famously, argued on the floor of the House that “high crimes and misdemeanors” should be defined as “whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers them to be at a moment in history.”

Of course, Douglas didn’t get impeached or removed. He retired five years later, of his own accord, after having set a new record, still standing, for longevity on the Supreme Court (36 years, 7 months, and 8 days). In fact, Douglas retired during the brief presidency of Gerald Ford himself, who then nominated, as Douglas’ replacement, Justice John Paul Stevens, who was thought to be (and called himself) a moderate conservative, but turned out to be considered (with good reason) a liberal on the bench by the time he retired.

Ford has been stereotyped in popular memory as not the sharpest tool in the toolbox (Lyndon Johnson mocked Ford’s intelligence with the wisecrack referring to Ford, an outstanding college football player, as “a nice guy [who had] played too much football with his helmet off”).

Nowadays, a lot of very, very smart historians and law professors will gladly share interesting facts and ideas about how the phrase “treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors” got into the Constitution and what they meant to wig-wearers who proposed or ratified that language.

But, in a practical sense, Ford nailed it.

If anyone can get a majority of the U.S. House and two-thirds of the Senate to vote aye on articles of impeachment of any “civil officers of the United States,” up to and specifically including the president, that person is no longer president, even if said impeachee still wants to argue that he or she hasn’t committed any crimes or misdemeanors. But if no one can get those votes, no impeachment occurs, no matter how skillfully the crime/misdemeanor argument is pressed.

And it’s pretty clear by now that that the odds are way high in the 90s, percentile-wise, that the House is going to adopt such articles against President Donald John Trump and almost exactly as clear that the Senate will not, by the necessary two-thirds majority, vote to convict.


We heard impressive evidence during recent hearings from fact witnesses (about the alleged crimes and misdemeanors of the current incumbent), and from brilliant legal scholars and historians about the proper meaning of those High C and M words. I learned a lot.

But, as a practical matter, Gerry Ford’s long-ago assessment of the practical definition of an impeachable offense is looking, unexpectedly, smarter than it formerly did. So I looked to see what some of his other most famous sayings were and, although I don’t claim to know whether he originated this, one he did say:

“The three-martini lunch is the epitome of American efficiency. Where else can you get an earful, a bellyful and a snootful at the same time?”

Comments (43)

  1. Submitted by James Hamilton on 12/09/2019 - 09:59 am.

    Was it Stevens who changed or the Court on which he found himself?

    “In fact, Douglas retired during the brief presidency of Gerald Ford himself, who then nominated, as Douglas’ replacement, Justice John Paul Stevens, who was thought to be (and called himself) a moderate conservative, but turned out to be considered (with good reason) a liberal on the bench by the time he retired.”

  2. Submitted by Connor OKeefe on 12/09/2019 - 10:35 am.

    I agree. I’ve read many convincing pieces by legitimate Constitutional scholars that conclude the “high crimes and misdemeanors” measure was left intentionally vague in order to let future legislatures figure it out for themselves.

    That said, I wonder if the framers ever envisioned an America so divided that the House of Reps would act with such capriciousness and malice towards an elected President they just don’t like. (And yes, I include the impeachment of Bill Clinton in that condemnation, although at the very least, in his case, the facts were not in dispute by anyone.)

    Indeed, the last time the country was this divided, the disgruntled Congressmen had the decency to leave the opposing side an uncontested echo chamber in favor of starting over again among themselves.

    I have absolutely no doubt that impeachment will be an increasingly regular feature from here on, and that very soon, Presidents and citizens will consider it no more odious than a parking ticket. And that is the best case scenario.

    • Submitted by Edward Blaise on 12/09/2019 - 11:46 am.

      I will agree with Republican witness Jonathan Turley:

      “The closest viable claims are his payments to alleged former mistresses that are in the criminal plea agreement of his former personal lawyer Michael Cohen.

      This is different. If a quid pro quo was proven, it would be self-dealing and an abuse of public office, and that can be a crime”

      And I will also agree that the House should slow down and not vote on Articles of Impeachment until they hear the testimony of Bolton, Pompeo, Mulvaney, McGahn and John Kelly.

      The Kangaroo Court of Nancy Pelosi will pale in comparison to the Kangaroo Court of Mitch McConnell. The Senate should not get anything until:

      1. The testimony of the first person witnesses listed above who, I believe, will offer conclusive proof to Turley’s criteria above.

      or

      2. The refusal of Trump to comply to a final, unappealable decision on House subpoenas. Which is undeniably a crime and cause for removal.

      And if Trump wins the legal battle, and no additional testimony is added, end it.

      • Submitted by Harris Goldstein on 12/09/2019 - 01:43 pm.

        Trump chose to prevent Bolton, Pompeo, Mulvaney, McGahn and John Kelly, thereby creating a Catch-22. You can’t impeach without their testimony and you can’t get their testimony. Of course, after a protracted legal battle to the SC, they can be forced to testify. But they can’t be forced to waive Executive Privilege without a second protracted legal battle.

        More than enough evidence of a “favor for a favor” has been presented to support articles of impeachment. So much so that his defenders had to resort to lying about Ukraine’s election involvement in order to obfuscate what really went on. So much so that they have to criticize based on the fact that no witness claimed “bribery” when witnesses are not supposed to make a legal judgement. So much so that they have to claim hearings and depositions as “secret” when almost as many Republican representatives are in the room as Democrat representatives. So much so that they have try to “out” a whistleblower who is protected by law from such action – then complain when they are prevented from doing that. I could probably go on, but you get the point.

        Much has been made by Trump as to his rights (generally incorrectly) as the accused. He will, in a trial in the Senate, have the opportunity to present witnesses – including Bolton, Pompeo, Mulvaney, McGahn and John Kelly – to testify under oath. Let’s see what he does. I’m betting those witnesses are willing to stay silent, or claim executive privilege, but not necessarily lie when the truth can be collaborated.

        • Submitted by Edward Blaise on 12/09/2019 - 06:21 pm.

          Will there even be witnesses?

          Kangaroo Mitch will primarily set the rules.

          If the Ds can’t get to 51 on real rules and a real trial it will be over in nothing flat and Trump will declare a slam dunk victory. 197 R House members and not a one seemingly will break from the party line.

          In the Senate, this just in from Lisa Murkowski, one of the hoped for independents:

          ““There has been little to no, I think, efforts to try to work with either the Republican House members on the committees, or to kind of come to some terms of rules of engagement,” she said in a telephone interview.

          “And so it has made this appear even more partisan than perhaps it might have otherwise,” she said”

          Any rational, honest jury of peers would convict Trump handily. Just as Republican Jeff Flake has said:

          “Make it an anonymous vote and it is 85 /15 for impeachment.”

          Of course we will not have a rational, honest jury of peers. We’ll have Lindsey Graham.

          Hold out for the witnesses or a clear obstruction of justice case.

          • Submitted by Connor OKeefe on 12/10/2019 - 10:43 am.

            With respect, sir, I find it highly likely that no sitting GOP Representative would take Republican Jeff Flake’s phone call on a bet. The idea he would know anything about the feelings of anyone in the US House is laughable.

            • Submitted by Edward Blaise on 12/10/2019 - 11:29 am.

              Well, I made no reference to Flake and the house.

              Flake, a former R Senator, who does have insight into the thoughts of his former Senate colleagues said it would be 85 / 15 to approve the articles of impeachment in the Senate and remove Trump from office if the vote was anonymous.

              Unlike the unswerving loyalty of Trump nation, the majority of R members of the House and Senate simply want all of this to go away. They know Trump is hardly a conservative, has a track record of lying and deceit, and never, NEVER has ever taken a bullet for a partner at any point in his career and never will.

              My father in law, a New Jersey resident, long follower of NJ politics and business, life long Republican, told me 20 years ago: Watch Trump: his partners never make out in any of his deals. The only fortunate thing about his 2014 passing is that he did not live to see the charlatan become the Republican President.

      • Submitted by Connor OKeefe on 12/09/2019 - 03:11 pm.

        “The Kangaroo Court of Nancy Pelosi will pale in comparison to the Kangaroo Court of Mitch McConnell.”

        It will certainly be a spectacle, but I differ with you in that the Democrat effort was serious, ergo a Kangaroo court; the GOP will be treating it as a joke; therefore a circus.

        In either case, this is without doubt a watershed moment in our politics, in my view. I don’t think many people really realize it, but hard lines are being drawn, and future candidates will have to declare their allegiance to the side they are aligning with.

        • Submitted by Edward Blaise on 12/10/2019 - 08:43 am.

          I am a little more optimistic. The majority of R House members just want this drama to go away: the Jim Jordans and Mark Meadows can bellow away; but, most just want to keep their heads down and survive Trumpism.

          As Republican Jeff Flake said: make it an anonymous vote and Trump is impeached 85 / 15.

          And maybe, just maybe, both parties will see this moment as about as close to the partisanship cliff as you can get and be more willing to move away from it when Trump is gone.

          Regardless, this is one more lesson that the vast majority of these guys: House and Senate, D and R have keeping their jobs as priority #1, #2, #3, #4 and 5. Loyalty to party comes next followed closely by loyalty to donors and influential lobbyists and some where at the bottom of the top ten is doing what is right for the country.

          And moving doing what is right for the country to the top of the list is impossible to achieve because all of the top reasons above it insure the status quo.

          Term limits and campaign finance reform are the starts.

          Never happen.

        • Submitted by Paul Brandon on 12/10/2019 - 08:54 am.

          But all nominees will still have to swear an oath to defend the Constitution.

          • Submitted by Connor OKeefe on 12/10/2019 - 09:54 am.

            That’s true, sir. And if taken seriously, that should be a problem for Democrats running on a policy platform that includes limiting the 1st and 2nd amendments, and destroying the electoral college.

            • Submitted by Edward Blaise on 12/10/2019 - 11:38 am.

              Amendment I

              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 assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

              When I think of a guardian of First Amendment freedoms, Donald Trump does not pop to the top of the list:

              “The U.S. Attorneys’ Manual is a guide to Justice Department policies written for U.S. attorneys and other department employees. It was edited late last year, for the first time in two decades, with significant changes to the “Media Relations” section—changes experts say reflect a larger Trump administration hostility towards members of the press.

              Gone from the handbook is a section specifically reminding attorneys of the public’s right to know. Gone is a section on the need for free press and public trial. Added to the manual is a section reminding employees to report any concerns to their superiors, and requiring them to disclose any contacts they have with the media.”

              • Submitted by Connor OKeefe on 12/10/2019 - 01:41 pm.

                I’m sorry, sir, but that is a classic red herring.

                Elisabeth Warren, the front runner for the Democrat endorsement has stated loudly and proudly that she intends to get rid of the electoral college. How she plans to accomplish that is no clearer than how we are going to pay for all the free stuff she’s promising, but I have no doubt of her sincerity.

                Beto O’Rourke has stated he intended to physically remove guns from law abiding citizens, by force if necessary. Mike Bloomberg hasn’t suggested he’d use force (yet), but he’s made no doubt he intends to disarm the country.

                51% of Democrats in California agree “hate speech” should be punishable.

                When it comes to a thirst for the Constitution’s lifeblood, there can be no dispute; it is the Democrats that have their teeth bared.

                • Submitted by Edward Blaise on 12/10/2019 - 02:40 pm.

                  That great scholar Donald J Trump does not know the US Constitution from his morning constitutional:

                  “Article II allows me to do whatever I want”

                  Do you agree?

                  If I recall, Beto O’Rourke is no longer a candidate.

                  Elizabeth Warren joins with a consistent majority of US citizens who believe the Electoral College should be replaced by a popular vote. I don’t believe this will be accomplished through an Executive Order.

                  Neither party has the market cornered on constitutional loyalty. All pick and choose the parts that tickle their fancy.

                  Some are tickled by Jr High math teachers with 9 Millimeter Sig Sauers tucked in their pants.

                  Me? I’m just happy we have the Third Amendment:

                  No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

                  Insures that my guest bedroom will not be confiscated as a potential Trump property…

                  • Submitted by Paul Brandon on 12/12/2019 - 03:03 pm.

                    Abolishing the Electoral College would require amending the Constitution — an extremely difficult process. FAR beyond the level of executive orders.

            • Submitted by Paul Brandon on 12/10/2019 - 03:25 pm.

              And once again, until the 1950’s the Second Amendment was not held to refer to the individual ownership of firearms. It was read as written — the right of states to form militias …..

              • Submitted by Connor OKeefe on 12/11/2019 - 07:22 am.

                You refer to the period before the Supreme Court took it up. Before that, no one had ever questioned the meaning to be other than what it has subsequently been clarified to be.

                Now that is has been made crystal clear the militia is we the people, and the clarification has not met with their approval, lefties are working tirelessly to subvert it.

                • Submitted by Paul Brandon on 12/11/2019 - 02:15 pm.

                  I’d suggest that you read some of your (unnamed) constitutional experts.
                  The reason why the Second Amendment didn’t come before the Supreme Court as that the wording is quite clear — no one gave it serious question until now.
                  And note that the current Supremes are tossing the hot potato around. I’d predict that they will ultimately pass one of their narrowly restricted judgements that has no value as a precedent.

                  • Submitted by Connor OKeefe on 12/14/2019 - 01:16 pm.

                    If it “was clear”, as you mistakenly suggest sir, there would have been no firearms in private possession prior to 1950.

                    We both can see the error in that argument, can’t We?

                    • Submitted by Dennis Wagner on 12/15/2019 - 09:33 am.

                      As someone that was around in the 50’s and an NRA member in the 60’s, the point is my father sent me to NRA training to learn how to shoot straight and not talk crooked. It was considered our civic duty to know how to shoot straight, not to be armed to kill our neighbors if they look at us crooked. .

    • Submitted by Mike Schumann on 12/09/2019 - 11:51 am.

      I don’t necessarily agree that impeachment will become much more common. If the Democrats move ahead, which is almost a given, and it backfires on them in the election, which is a real possibility, cooler heads might prevail the next time around.

    • Submitted by cory johnson on 12/09/2019 - 12:25 pm.

      Unfortunately the Dems also are laying the groundwork for declaring every election result they don’t like as illegitimate.

    • Submitted by Brian Simon on 12/09/2019 - 12:31 pm.

      “I wonder if the framers ever envisioned an America so divided that the House of Reps would act with such capriciousness and malice towards an elected President they just don’t like.”

      This phrase aptly summarizes the vast chasm between Trump supporters & critics. From my perspective, the supporters seem to be living in an alternate reality that starts with the presumption that any criticism of DJT is motivated primarily by partisanship. But there’s no explanation for why his personal attorney is involved in foreign policy. There’s no explanation for why he’s promoting a conspiracy theory about ukraine meddling in the 2016 election, when our own intelligence agencies say it was Russia. There’s no explanation for why his sole interest in investigating corruption involves Hunter Biden. But Trump supporters won’t ask themselves such questions, as though they’re irrelevant. I can’t, for the life of me, understand the motivation behing this unquestioning loyalty.

      • Submitted by Connor OKeefe on 12/09/2019 - 05:52 pm.

        Although I could explain them all sir, in the interest of brevity, I’ll answer thus one.

        “There’s no explanation for why his sole interest in investigating corruption involves Hunter Biden.”

        Hunter’s father, Joe, is running for the Democrat nomination for POTUS. By his own very public admission, Joe used US foreign aid to strong arm the Ukrainian government into not only quashing an investigation into the company that was paying his son millions for a no-show job, but to remove the man doing the investigation.

        When we talk about using an elected office for personal gain, I can’t think of a better example.

        Would finding proof of a conspiracy on Joe’s part help Trump’s re-election? Absolutely. But is this something the American people have a right to know? Without question.

        I hope this helps you understand the issue from our perspective.

        • Submitted by Brian Simon on 12/10/2019 - 09:39 am.

          Such allegations should be investigated. Typically this task is handled by the department of justice and/or state department. There is no reason a private attorney should be involved in persuading a foreign government to conduct such investigations. Why would the President send Rudy on this errand rather than putting DOJ on it? You’re alleging criminal behavior by US citizens and politicians, which makes it a matter for US law enforcement agencies. But Trump put Rudy on it to pressure pres zelensky to announce an investigation. That makes no sense.

        • Submitted by Edward Blaise on 12/10/2019 - 09:51 am.

          I also have a right to know if Aliens are living in cages in Area 51?, did Oswald kill Kennedy?, did we really land on the moon?, who really flew the airplanes into buildings on 911?

          Need another 100 “needs to knows”?. The Internet is fertile ground.

          What we do know is that Trump did not want an investigation into the Bidens he just wanted the announcement of an investigation into the Bidens:

          “SCHIFF: And in order to perform that official act [a meeting in the Oval Office], Donald Trump wanted these two investigations that would help his reelection campaign, correct?

          SONDLAND: I can’t characterize why he wanted them. All I can tell you is this is what we heard from Mr. Giuliani.

          SCHIFF: But he had to get those two investigations if that official act was going to take place, correct?

          SONDLAND: He had to announce the investigations. He didn’t actually have to do them, as I understood it.

          Daniel Goldman, the attorney who did a good chunk of the questioning for the Democratic side, came back to this issue later in the hearing. Here’s the key point:

          GOLDMAN: Giuliani and President Trump didn’t actually care if they did them, right?

          SONDLAND: I never heard, Mr. Goldman, anyone say that the investigations had to start or be completed. The only thing I heard from Mr. Giuliani or otherwise was that they had to be announced. … President Trump presumably, communicated through Mr. Giuliani, wanted the Ukrainians on-record publicly that they were going to do those investigations.

          GOLDMAN: You never heard anyone say that they really wanted them to do the investigations.

          SONDLAND: I didn’t hear either way.

          Why is the Trumpian right incapable of simply admitting his objective was 99.99% personal benefit and .01% fighting corruption?

          Three Amigo Gordon Sondland is a first person witness to this.

        • Submitted by Matt Haas on 12/10/2019 - 12:33 pm.

          Well one, that didn’t happen, but it is rather hilarious to watch conservatives attempt to decry the nepotistic aristocracy that is a defining feature of their ideal world. What, did you think that only wealthy conservatives might think to get plum positions for their offspring in your utopia?

          • Submitted by Connor OKeefe on 12/11/2019 - 07:25 am.

            There is nepotism, which is perfectly legal, and there is Tony Soprano style no-show jobs, which are not.

            The evidence we have before us at this time suggest Biden engaged in the latter.

            • Submitted by RB Holbrook on 12/11/2019 - 09:34 am.

              Can you provide a cite to the law that makes it illegal for a private enterprise to give someone a no-show job?

              • Submitted by Ed Day on 12/11/2019 - 09:50 pm.

                I think that’s technically perfectly legal. Pretty sure Tim Pawlenty had one, – consulting – during his first big campaign.

                • Submitted by RB Holbrook on 12/12/2019 - 09:19 am.

                  Not just technically: no-show jobs are legal in the private sector. They also exist in the public sector, but are supposed to come under greater scrutiny (see, Giuliani, Andrew, employment of).

                  Nepotism is illegal only in the public sector (in theory, anyway).

  3. Submitted by RB Holbrook on 12/09/2019 - 01:16 pm.

    Ford’s comment may have been prompted by the failure of investigators to find any criminal activity on the part of Justice Douglas. The House Judiciary Committee investigated Douglas and found no criminal wrongdoing, but Ford and the Nixon Administrator were determined to get rid of Douglas any way they could.

    This was the second attempt at impeaching Justice Douglas. The first was over his grant of a temporary stay of execution for Ethel and Julius Rosenberg.

  4. Submitted by Tim Smith on 12/09/2019 - 02:40 pm.

    Good comment at the time, but outdated in today’s hyper partisan, divided, my side is always right house (and media for that matter).
    Would be very dangerous as almost every President here on would be impeached if that were the bar. Back then the house was more moderate so it made sense, not now.

  5. Submitted by Edward Blaise on 12/09/2019 - 02:44 pm.

    Enjoyed the verbal gymnastics of Ted Cruz on impeachment issues while appearing on Meet The Press on Sunday: “Nothing to see here folks!”.

    Even after Chuck Todd showed Cruz takes from the 2016 campaign where Trump attacked Cruz, his father and his wife, and asked Cruz if is it not credible that Trump may again stretch the bounds of acceptable behavior to gain an edge?

    No Trump issues with one T Cruz.

    Also was doing a little reading about Earl Browder, the first President of the American Communist Party. History has an interesting way of repeating itself:

    “1936 Presidential Election
    In the 1936 Presidential Election Browder won only 79,315 votes (0.2%). Norman Thomas did better with 187,910, but the left overwhelmingly supported Franklin D. Roosevelt (27,752,648), as they approved of his New Deal policies. The leadership of the American Communist Party remained loyal to the foreign policy of the Soviet Union. It was argued that this was the best way to defeat fascism. However, this view took a terrible blow when on 28th August, 1939, Joseph Stalin signed a military alliance with Adolf Hitler. Browder and other leaders of the party decided to support the Nazi-Soviet Pact.

    John Gates pointed out that this created serious problems for the party. “We turned on everyone who refused to go along with our new policy and who still considered Hitler the main foe. People whom we had revered only the day before, like Mrs. Roosevelt, we now reviled. This was one of the characteristics of Communists which people always found most difficult to swallow – that we could call them heroes one day and villains the next. Yet in all of this lay our one consistency; we supported Soviet policies whatever they might be; and this in turn explained so many of our inconsistencies. Immediately following the upheaval over the Soviet-German non-aggression pact came the Finnish war, which compounded all our difficulties since, here also, our position was uncritically in support of the Soviet action.””

    Translated to today:

    “Yet in all of this lay our one consistency; we supported Trump policies whatever they might be; and this in turn explained so many of our inconsistencies.

  6. Submitted by Steve Timmer on 12/09/2019 - 05:26 pm.

    A pretty cynical take, Mr. Black. We live in a cynical age, but even so.

    There is plenty of evidence: administration personnel admissions, and direct and circumstantial evidence, from which we can, no should, infer that the president committed bribery, extortion, and obstruction of justice. The whistleblower has been amply corroborated; the party who won’t produce witnesses is the president. He squealed about due process and now won’t participate.

    I think it is libel of the Democrats in the House to say they are just being “political.” If we are really at the point where we have abandoned the Constitution and the rule of law, and Jerry Ford’s rule obtains, the Republic is lost. Then we are just another strong-arm state. I guess strong-arm states can be very practical.

    Ford’s remarks offended me at the time; they offend me now, and I don’t like your leaning on them much, either.

  7. Submitted by Dennis Wagner on 12/09/2019 - 07:00 pm.

    “If anyone can get a majority of the U.S. House and two-thirds of the Senate to vote aye on articles of impeachment” The same can be said for nay, Suspect every criminal in the world would love to have a jury that is already over 50% predisposed. Willing to ignore the facts and support impeachable behavior, to insure the the mob Boss stays in power.

  8. Submitted by Joe Musich on 12/11/2019 - 07:28 pm.

    Gearld Ford is the historical character that pre-pardon Nixon, thereby freeing the teller no lies from paying the consequences for “election manipulation” that brought us more war in Asia resulting in more death all around. Anything he says has the creditability of a roach. He was an accidental VP that brought nothing to the nation. Not a good source choice…how about someone who has the courage of their convictions ?

Leave a Reply