So help me God... does it still mean anything?

[Calliope]

How do you view people who blatantly violate their oath?

If a person lies in a situation where they are legally required to tell the truth, then I view them as having broken the law and they should be investigated and subjected to the punishment as required by said law.

Personally I don’t like liars. They make poor friends, companions or business associates and create chaos and mistrust. I avoid them when possible.

I understand that some people feel compelled to lie under certain circumstances and I am willing to give a person the benefit of the doubt if there is a reasonable explanation, such as their life or a loved one’s life being endangered by the truth.

While I understand that while campaigning politicians often make promises they cannot keep because there is a system through which such things must be processed, I will not support a candidate that outright lies, spreads misinformation and misrepresents themselves. I would not vote to put or keep them in office.

I am not in a position to determine the level of sinfulness that goes along with any particular lie, but I do believe lying to generally be immoral and self serving at the expense of others.

 

[Beryllos]

Abrosz:

it was not a “supposition” that some people blatantly violated their oath, it is a FACT. Observe McConnell and Graham, who BOTH explicitly declared that will not be impartial jurors, despite giving a solemn oath to the contrary?

Could you provide evidence for that?

I’m not sea-lioning or trying to be difficult. It’s just that I’ve seen it too many times here at CAF that Pope Francis said this, or Father James Martin said that, and when I’ve taken the time to look up their original statements, they said nothing of the kind. That’s why I tend to reserve judgment when I hear accusations concerning what someone said.

I honestly don’t know where one looks up the sayings of people like McConnell and Graham, uncut and in context. Anyway, it’s not my accusation, it’s yours, and so I’m not going to do the research for you.

 

[Abrosz]

I honestly don’t know where one looks up the sayings of people like McConnell and Graham, uncut and in context. Anyway, it’s not my accusation, it’s yours, and so I’m not going to do the research for you.

They both were on live TV, during the impeachment process. Here is one where McConnell denies to be an impartial juror. There are others.

 

[Beryllos]

Fascinating! The two clips in that video are a bit brief, but serve to outline a position that the impeachment is not a judicial process, but rather a political process.

Regarding Senator Mitch McConnell, let me first say that I do not approve of his particularly partisan politics, which I think are detrimental to the nation. Even so, I respect his understanding of the US Constitution and the way the US government actually works under the Constitution.

Notice how he is not speaking in a defiant tone. He speaks with a kind of authority, like a professor. He gently schools the journalist whose well-formulated question included an assumption – quite a reasonable assumption, in my opinion – that the senators are obligated to be impartial jurors. Senator McConnell challenges that assumption.

Wait a second… … …

Okay, I’ve just reviewed the US Constitution concerning impeachment. As usual, the Constitution is terse; it doesn’t do a lot of explaining. At the moment, I don’t know enough to render judgment, but in my opinion, Senator McConnell’s position is admissible, i.e., has enough merit that we can’t dismiss it without further examination.

You see, the Constitution is largely about checks and balances. The partisan impeachment process described by Senator McConnell meets the standard of checks and balances. Partisan politics makes it harder to remove the President, but does not make it impossible. The Constitutional principle of checks and balances is upheld.

Of course, there may still be a question of justice.

 

[Abrosz]

Fascinating! The two clips in that video are a bit brief, but serve to outline a position that the impeachment is not a judicial process, but rather a political process.

Actually, it is a mixture of both. But having a political aspect to it does not give a “green light” to give a false testimony. If the solemn oath can be violated with impunity, it loses its meaning, it becomes a cruel joke. My problem was not the partisan voting. It was and still is about making the OATH a farce. The whole impeachment process became a cheating and as such meaningless.

 

[Pattylt]

When only honorable people uphold an oath and dishonorable people will willingly lie, what do you do to fix it? You can’t tell if someone is honorable just by looking at them.

I think some politicians are still honorable but so many…both sides…are not. What’s the alternative? Lie detectors are not reliable. What else could we do?