Clinton: Impeachable, Popular, Democrat

[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

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

Really?

It was my imagination that he appeared on National Television to APOLOGISE FOR "MISLEADING???"

As you know, in a deposition in January, I was asked questions about my relationship with Monica Lewinsky. While my answers were legally accurate, I did not volunteer information.

Indeed, I did have a relationship with Miss Lewinsky that was not appropriate. In fact, it was wrong. It constituted a critical lapse in judgment and a personal failure on my part for which I am solely and completely responsible.

But I told the grand jury today and I say to you now that at no time did I ask anyone to lie, to hide or destroy evidence or to take any other unlawful action.

I know that my public comments and my silence about this matter gave a false impression. I misled people, including even my wife. I deeply regret that.

What a lot of crap: Misleading; Critical Lapse of Judgement.

Slick Willie

 

[Cal]

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

 

[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

Indeed: Desperation aptly describes Using Slick Willie as a Campaigner

Entire freakin' BOOKS have been written on the subject

 

[jillian]

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?

no one who supports him cared about that then and no one who supports him cares about that now.

he's still 10 times the president that baby bush or his daddy were.

 

[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?

no one who supports him cared about that then and no one who supports him cares about that now.

he's still 10 times the president that baby bush or his daddy were.

Why don't you care that he "mislead" people (euphamism for Lie)?

Additionally, I'm surprised to hear you defend a mature President that clearly took advantage of an employee? Why? Do you approve?

 

[jillian]

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

Should it?

no one who supports him cared about that then and no one who supports him cares about that now.

he's still 10 times the president that baby bush or his daddy were.

Why don't you care that he "mislead" people (euphamism for Lie)?

Additionally, I'm surprised to hear you defend a mature President that clearly took advantage of an employee? Why? Do you approve?

the question shouldn't have been asked in the first place.

i don't care who our presidents screw as long as it isn't us.

she was an adult... she went to work at the whitehouse telling her friends she was going to get her 'presidential kneepads'.

like i said... silliness...

and it really bothers me when smart people post stuff like this

next thing we know, you'll do a thread about how hillary killed vince foster.

 

[Charles_Main]

Not guilty on all charges.

Yes, and left office with a huge popularity ranking.

And then later Admitted he lied to us all.

 

[Charles_Main]

no one who supports him cared about that then and no one who supports him cares about that now.

he's still 10 times the president that baby bush or his daddy were.

Why don't you care that he "mislead" people (euphamism for Lie)?

Additionally, I'm surprised to hear you defend a mature President that clearly took advantage of an employee? Why? Do you approve?

the question shouldn't have been asked in the first place.

I tend to agree, but then why is it Libs have no problem questioning and attacking Republicans for affairs.

Should only Dems get a pass?

 

[Dr Grump]

I tend to agree, but then why is it Libs have no problem questioning and attacking Republicans for affairs. Should only Dems get a pass?

At the risk of sounding like I'm in the school yard, "You guys started it."

People tend to forget that Clinton appointed the prosecutor for a specific purpose. Starr went outside that sphere (as far as I'm concerned and this IS an opinion), and they went down avenues that were unrelated to the initial terms of reference.

At least Clinton had the balls to appear transparent, and of all the things to come out of the investigation - when you consider what was being alleged in the first place - a lie about a blow job is all that righties have to whinge about, then I don't think that Clinton's legacy will aversly be affected.

Wonder why Bush didn't have the guts to appoint a special prosecutor to delve in to the intel on invading Iraq....hhhmmmmm...

 

[Samson]

no one who supports him cared about that then and no one who supports him cares about that now.

he's still 10 times the president that baby bush or his daddy were.

Why don't you care that he "mislead" people (euphamism for Lie)?

Additionally, I'm surprised to hear you defend a mature President that clearly took advantage of an employee? Why? Do you approve?

the question shouldn't have been asked in the first place.

Why not?

Should Presidents be able to fuck anyone they want?

 

[Samson]

Why don't you care that he "mislead" people (euphamism for Lie)?

Additionally, I'm surprised to hear you defend a mature President that clearly took advantage of an employee? Why? Do you approve?

the question shouldn't have been asked in the first place.

I tend to agree, but then why is it Libs have no problem questioning and attacking Republicans for affairs.

Should only Dems get a pass?

Palin Threads are the only logically funny threads:

Mothers of disabled children are so fuckin' hilarious!!!

 

[Dr Grump]

Why don't you care that he "mislead" people (euphamism for Lie)?

Additionally, I'm surprised to hear you defend a mature President that clearly took advantage of an employee? Why? Do you approve?

the question shouldn't have been asked in the first place.

Why not?

Should Presidents be able to fuck anyone they want?

Yes, as long as it is consenual..

And I just know - being the king of porn/pervert that you are - the question was rhetorical...

 

[Samson]

the question shouldn't have been asked in the first place.

Why not?

Should Presidents be able to fuck anyone they want?

Yes, as long as it is consenual..

And I just know - being the king of porn/pervert that you are - the question was rhetorical...

Consentual?

You mean between the President of the USA and a 20 something female employee.

You are more naive than I imagined.

 

[Old Rocks]

A very experianced 20 something employee who was an eager and willing participant.

Yes, Clinton truly acted like a fool in that affair. He should have picked an older more mature mistress like most of the rest of the Presidents have. Including Bush Sr.

Still and all, remind us of Clinton whenever you want, in what ever way you want. It is nice to think about a time when 2.9 million jobs a month were being added in this nation. When wages were going up. When a home foreclosure was a rare event. When we were not embroiled in two useless wars, and let the cause of the first war get away unmolested. Yessirreee, Ol' Slick may have acted like a redneck hick with his womanizing, but he did one hell of a job as President compared both to the President that preceded him, and to the one that followed him.

 

[Samson]