Clinton: Impeachable, Popular, Democrat

[Samson]

Now that Slick Willie is transversing the country substituting for the much less popular (outside of inner city blacks) Barak Hussein, perhaps it's a good time to recall his infamy

On September 9, 1998, Ken Starr delivered his 453-page report and 36 boxes of evidence to the House of Representatives, citing 11 impeachable offenses allegedly committed by the President

There is substantial and credible information supporting the following eleven possible grounds for impeachment:

1. President Clinton lied under oath in his civil case when he denied a sexual affair, a sexual relationship, or sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky.

2. President Clinton lied under oath to the grand jury about his sexual relationship with Ms. Lewinsky.

3. In his civil deposition, to support his false statement about the sexual relationship, President Clinton also lied under oath about being alone with Ms. Lewinsky and about the many gifts exchanged between Ms. Lewinsky and him.

4. President Clinton lied under oath in his civil deposition about his discussions with Ms. Lewinsky concerning her involvement in the Jones case.

5. During the Jones case, the President obstructed justice and had an understanding with Ms. Lewinsky to jointly conceal the truth about their relationship by concealing gifts subpoenaed by Ms. Jones's attorneys.

6. During the Jones case, the President obstructed justice and had an understanding with Ms. Lewinsky to jointly conceal the truth of their relationship from the judicial process by a scheme that included the following means: (i) Both the President and Ms. Lewinsky understood that they would lie under oath in the Jones case about their sexual relationship; (ii) the President suggested to Ms. Lewinsky that she prepare an affidavit that, for the President's purposes, would memorialize her testimony under oath and could be used to prevent questioning of both of them about their relationship; (iii) Ms. Lewinsky signed and filed the false affidavit; (iv) the President used Ms. Lewinsky's false affidavit at his deposition in an attempt to head off questions about Ms. Lewinsky; and (v) when that failed, the President lied under oath at his civil deposition about the relationship with Ms. Lewinsky.

7. President Clinton endeavored to obstruct justice by helping Ms. Lewinsky obtain a job in New York at a time when she would have been a witness harmful to him were she to tell the truth in the Jones case.

8. President Clinton lied under oath in his civil deposition about his discussions with Vernon Jordan concerning Ms. Lewinsky's involvement in the Jones case.

9. The President improperly tampered with a potential witness by attempting to corruptly influence the testimony of his personal secretary, Betty Currie, in the days after his civil deposition.

10. President Clinton endeavored to obstruct justice during the grand jury investigation by refusing to testify for seven months and lying to senior White House aides with knowledge that they would relay the President's false statements to the grand jury -- and did thereby deceive, obstruct, and impede the grand jury.

11. President Clinton abused his constitutional authority by (i) lying to the public and the Congress in January 1998 about his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky; (ii) promising at that time to cooperate fully with the grand jury investigation; (iii) later refusing six invitations to testify voluntarily to the grand jury; (iv) invoking Executive Privilege; (v) lying to the grand jury in August 1998; and (vi) lying again to the public and Congress on August 17, 1998 -- all as part of an effort to hinder, impede, and deflect possible inquiry by the Congress of the United States

The History Place - Clinton Impeachment

 

[NYcarbineer]

Not guilty on all charges.

 

[Samson]

Not guilty on all charges.

No, he admitted guilt.

But he was aquitted anyway:

On Friday, February 12, television cameras were once again turned on inside the chamber and senators gathered in open session for the final roll call. With the whole world watching, senators stood up one by one to vote "guilty" or "not guilty." On Article 1, the charge of perjury, 55 senators, including 10 Republicans and all 45 Democrats voted not guilty. On Article 3, obstruction of justice, the Senate split evenly, 50 for and 50 against the President.

With the necessary two-thirds majority not having been achieved, the President was thus acquitted on both charges and would serve out the remainder of his term of office lasting through January 20, 2001

 

[Political Junky]

Not guilty on all charges.

Yes, and left office with a huge popularity ranking.

 

[Samson]

Not guilty on all charges.

Yes, and left office with a huge popularity ranking.

Bombing Saddam increased his popularity.....regardless

.... it won't hurt to reveiw his record as he attempts to pull the dems collective asses out of the fire a decade after being one of the only presidents to be aquitted on impeachment charges.

 

[Claudette]

Well. They didn't call him the Teflon Kid for nothin.

 

[Samson]

Well. They didn't call him the Teflon Kid for nothin.

"Slick Willie".....seems to be accurate on so many levels

 

[Nosmo King]

Budget surplus, eight years of peace and prosperity. And the Conservatives hate him for it.

Is it because their boys screw things up so badly that, by comparison, a perjury charge looms larger than a needless invasion of Iraq or throwing billions at Wall Street after letting them run wild?

I can't see it.

 

[Samson]

Budget surplus, eight years of peace and prosperity. And the Conservatives hate him for it.

Is it because their boys screw things up so badly that, by comparison, a perjury charge looms larger than a needless invasion of Iraq or throwing billions at Wall Street after letting them run wild?

I can't see it.

Can't see what?

 

[Nosmo King]

Budget surplus, eight years of peace and prosperity. And the Conservatives hate him for it.

Is it because their boys screw things up so badly that, by comparison, a perjury charge looms larger than a needless invasion of Iraq or throwing billions at Wall Street after letting them run wild?

I can't see it.

Can't see what?

I can't see the reason for the disdain all these years later. Show me how the Right governs by comparison and check the result! Clinton's administration gave us a booming stock market, growth in the economy, employment statistics to be envied by any administration and peace.

Bush took a budget surplus and turned it into a record deficit so fast economists reached for the Dramamine. He gave us two wars that have devolved into the longest wars in our history and left with the financial system in meltdown.

The Clinton era begs nostalgia. The last administration will be regarded by history as one of our worst ever.

 

[Samson]

Budget surplus, eight years of peace and prosperity. And the Conservatives hate him for it.

Is it because their boys screw things up so badly that, by comparison, a perjury charge looms larger than a needless invasion of Iraq or throwing billions at Wall Street after letting them run wild?

I can't see it.

Can't see what?

I can't see the reason for the disdain all these years later. Show me how the Right governs by comparison and check the result! Clinton's administration gave us a booming stock market, growth in the economy, employment statistics to be envied by any administration and peace.

Bush took a budget surplus and turned it into a record deficit so fast economists reached for the Dramamine. He gave us two wars that have devolved into the longest wars in our history and left with the financial system in meltdown.

The Clinton era begs nostalgia. The last administration will be regarded by history as one of our worst ever.

You are confused over cause and effect: No doubt, that you also credit Clinton for unseasonably cool summers in DC during his administration.

However, that's not the point.

The point is that he is now campaigning for democrats where Barack Hussein, being unacceptably unpopular, cannot.

During Clinton's new dialog with the public, it should always be remembered that he was a monumental liar.

 

[Sallow]

It might be a bit difficult to see how "lying" about a blow job is comparable to lying about reasons to start a completely illegal and immoral war.

And how conservatives think that violating the United States Constitution during the Bush Administration in some very tangible ways didn't rise to the level of impeachment, but somehow a dalliance with a starry eyed "groupie" did.

 

[Sallow]

Obama is "unacceptably unpopular"?

According to the Gallup polls he has almost the same favorably ratings as Ronald Reagan.

 

[Samson]

Obama is "unacceptably unpopular"?

According to the Gallup polls he has almost the same favorably ratings as Ronald Reagan.

He's not popular in EVERY state and district in which dems are campaigning to retain their congressional seats.

Therefore, Slick Willie, is standing in for Barak Hussein, as the next best option.

 

[Samson]

It might be a bit difficult to see how "lying" about a blow job is comparable to lying about reasons to start a completely illegal and immoral war.

And how conservatives think that violating the United States Constitution during the Bush Administration in some very tangible ways didn't rise to the level of impeachment, but somehow a dalliance with a starry eyed "groupie" did.

Then it shouldn't be a big deal to remind voters of Slick Willie's Past.

Should it?

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Now that Slick Willie is transversing the country substituting for the much less popular (outside of inner city blacks) Barak Hussein, perhaps it's a good time to recall his infamy

On September 9, 1998, Ken Starr delivered his 453-page report and 36 boxes of evidence to the House of Representatives, citing 11 impeachable offenses allegedly committed by the President.

How odd you forgot to post the "preamble" to this farce (...no doubt a result o' your YOUTH & INEXPERIENCE):

​

"By the summer of 1994, the House and Senate Banking committees both began hearings concerning Whitewater and eventually called 29 Clinton administration officials to testify.

In August, Robert Fiske's tenure as special Whitewater counsel came to an abrupt end amid charges from conservatives that he simply was not aggressive enough in investigating Bill and Hillary Clinton. On August 5, 1994, following the renewal of the independent counsel law, the three-judge panel responsible for appointing independent counsels replaced Fiske with staunch Republican Kenneth W. Starr, a former Justice Department official in the Reagan administration, and federal appeals court judge and solicitor general in the Bush administration.

Thus began the four-year-long Starr investigation of the Clintons. Through an extraordinary set of circumstances, Starr's investigation would eventually veer away from Whitewater and delve deeply into the personal conduct of President Clinton, ultimately leading to his impeachment for events totally unrelated to Whitewater."

Yeah....."an extraordinary set of circumstances"....like....there was NOTHING, THERE!!!!!!!​

1998​

"To date, Whitewater independent counsels have spent $40 million of taxpayers' money. The Republican House and Senate have each held two lengthy and expensive sets of Whitewater hearings, one deliberately extended into June 1996. Throughout that campaign year, news media in Washington and New York were abuzz with rumors that at the very least, Hillary Clinton was going to be indicted. For what? For something, was the vague answer. And still, Starr made no charges of wrongdoing by the president or first lady. Indeed, once Clinton was re-elected, Starr waited three months, announced his resignation and tried to slip quietly out of town, heading for an academic post at Pepperdine University in Malibu, Calif. "Hey, it was only politics," was the message. But he reversed himself days later when a media firestorm erupted.

Today we know that Starr became even more determined to dig something up on Clinton to justify hi$ co$tly inve$tigation. Now, as the possibility of a constitutional crisis looms, an examination of just how and where the charges against the Clintons began is imperative.

The evidence shows that Whitewater began with the Bush White House's attempt to use the federal bureaucracy against Clinton in the 1992 election, and included collusion with a Republican banking investigator at the Resolution Trust Corporation, the agency created to oversee the liquidation of failed S&Ls, with a deep enmity toward Clinton.

The evidence shows further that, since his first days as Whitewater independent counsel in 1994, Starr has been using his position to cover up the improper and possibly illegal actions of high Bush White House officials and Bush's attorney general against then-Gov. Clinton in the final weeks of the 1992 presidential campaign. By virtue of his office, Starr has been able to continue that coverup while relentlessly pursuing President Clinton ever since."

Nice TRY......SAMMY!!!!!!!!!

 

[Sallow]

It might be a bit difficult to see how "lying" about a blow job is comparable to lying about reasons to start a completely illegal and immoral war.

And how conservatives think that violating the United States Constitution during the Bush Administration in some very tangible ways didn't rise to the level of impeachment, but somehow a dalliance with a starry eyed "groupie" did.

Then it shouldn't be a big deal to remind voters of Slick Willie's Past.

Should it?

Nope.

Not at all.

And I am sure that every blow job hating man will express his anger at the ballot booth.

 

[Samson]

It might be a bit difficult to see how "lying" about a blow job is comparable to lying about reasons to start a completely illegal and immoral war.

And how conservatives think that violating the United States Constitution during the Bush Administration in some very tangible ways didn't rise to the level of impeachment, but somehow a dalliance with a starry eyed "groupie" did.

Then it shouldn't be a big deal to remind voters of Slick Willie's Past.

Should it?

Nope.

Not at all.

And I am sure that every blow job hating man will express his anger at the ballot booth.

That must be why Clinton doesn't mind his legacy

 

[NYcarbineer]

Not guilty on all charges.

Yes, and left office with a huge popularity ranking.

Bombing Saddam increased his popularity.....regardless

.... it won't hurt to reveiw his record as he attempts to pull the dems collective asses out of the fire a decade after being one of the only presidents to be aquitted on impeachment charges.

The Democrats picked up House seats in the 1998 election.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Not guilty on all charges.

No, he admitted guilt.

But he was aquitted anyway:

On Friday, February 12, television cameras were once again turned on inside the chamber and senators gathered in open session for the final roll call. With the whole world watching, senators stood up one by one to vote "guilty" or "not guilty." On Article 1, the charge of perjury, 55 senators, including 10 Republicans and all 45 Democrats voted not guilty. On Article 3, obstruction of justice, the Senate split evenly, 50 for and 50 against the President.

With the necessary two-thirds majority not having been achieved, the President was thus acquitted on both charges and would serve out the remainder of his term of office lasting through January 20, 2001

Maybe in your country he admitted guilt. But in the real world he didn't.