These are the allegations in the Joe Biden impeachment inquiry

[Dante Reawakened]

President Clinton and Independent Counsel Robert Ray agreed Friday to settle the seven-year Whitewater probe. The president admitted that he gave misleading testimony in the 1998 Paula Jones case about his affair with Monica Lewinsky, accepted a five-year suspension of his Arkansas law license, and promised to cover $25,000 in legal fees related to disbarment proceedings against him in Arkansas. In exchange, Ray agreed not to indict Clinton on perjury charges. What kind of agreement is this?




It’s not your everyday legal agreement. It’s not a declination, in which a prosecutor drops a criminal investigation because the case isn’t solid enough to indict. Nor is it a plea bargain, in which a prosecutor accepts a guilty plea from the indicted in exchange for a lenient sentence (because, of course Clinton was never indicted). Nor is it a referral of a criminal case to civil authorities for resolution (such as when a criminal antitrust case is referred to civil prosecutors). The most unusual aspect of the deal is that Clinton reached a civil resolution with a criminal prosecutor.


The Clinton-Ray agreement occupies a legal space somewhere between a declination and a plea bargain. Ray declined to indict Clinton for criminal perjury (as in a declination), but he also struck a deal that requires Clinton to admit his evasions in the Jones proceedings and to pay a price (as in a plea bargain).


The deal brings in a third party, the Arkansas Supreme Court’s Committee on Professional Conduct, which was considering disbarment of Clinton–a civil action–over his alleged perjury. How exactly the deal was brokered is not clear. But here’s what it offers the three parties: Ray goes home knowing that Clinton received some punishment for his behavior. The Supreme Court’s committee gets the same satisfaction. And Clinton frees himself from the clutches of a criminal prosecutor and from a civil proceeding in which he could have been disbarred.

What Sort of Plea Did Clinton Cop?

President Clinton and Independent Counsel Robert Ray agreed Friday to settle the seven-year Whitewater probe. The president admitted that he gave...

slate.com

great. thank you.

So Bill Clinton was never even indicted for perjury, let alone prosecuted for perjury.

Clinton struck a deal partly to get away from a 7 year witch hunt. thank you

 

[Dante Reawakened]

Go back to my original statement that he is a liar. You are thinking solely in the legal sense. I am talking all around liar. Here’s the latest from one of your own

https://www.cnn.com/2023/09/11/politics/fact-check-biden-ground-zero-next-day/index.html

Hunter Biden. Not Joe Biden.

Only thing people have as links are? Shit.

 

[Dante Reawakened]

To keep from being prosecuted for perjury.

The bar association pulled his license.

Your narrative is partisan bs. It's far more complicated and proving perjury was not going to be easy or a slam dunk. And you are also conflating the bar association thing with the agreement with Independent Counsel Robert Ray

Clinton Admits He 'Misled,' Avoids Indictment

President Clinton Friday admitted for the first time that he intentionally misled the government and the public about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky.

www.pbs.org

and you ignore:

claim: "A New York Judge, SCOTUS, and the Arkansas Bar all disagree with you."

All regarding me stating Bill Clinton was never prosecuted for perjury.

 

[Dante Reawakened]

Yes, Mr. Trump has been proven to lie, in multiple court jurisdictions

 

[WTH_Progs?]

Only question is, kind they find that piece of evidence money was paid to the big guy. You know there was, it's only a question is did the fuck up one time. The other question is, does the communist left's deep state and "justice" departments interfere with the investigation, which WE know they already have.

 

[Foxfyre]

Foxfyre
claimed
"A New York Judge, SCOTUS, and the Arkansas Bar all disagree with you." regarding me stating Bill Clinton was never prosecuted for perjury.

you/Mud said "He took a plea deal to avoid being found guilty of perjury."

It was to avoid any future prosecutions, where in a court of law a defendant has the presumption of innocence. If it were about being guilty the court should've taken the case.

perjury as a legal term. not lying as the public sees it.

you are misrepresenting facts:

On his last day in office, Clinton agreed to accept a five-year suspension of his Arkansas law license.

In exchange, Clinton will receive immunity from further prosecution and avoids a possible indictment on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice after he leaves office.

Clinton acknowledged he knowingly gave false answers to questions about Lewinsky when he was deposed in the Paula Jones sexual harassment case. Clinton said today’s agreement brings “complete closure” to the matter.

“I tried to walk a fine line between acting lawfully and testifying falsely, but I now recognize that I did not fully accomplish that goal and that certain of my responses to questions about Ms. Lewinsky were false,” Clinton said in a written statement read by Press Secretary Jake Siewert.

You don't make a plea deal if you aren't being prosecuted.
You said he was never prosecuted for perjury.
You are wrong.

In fact the NY Judge assessed him with a heavy fine for lying under oath. That's what perjury is if you don't know.

Clinton Fined $90,686 for Lying in Paula Jones Case

The federal judge who found President Clinton in contempt of court last April levied a penalty of $90,686 against him Thursday, making him the first chief executive ever assessed such a payment.

www.latimes.com

 

[JoeB131]

You don't make a plea deal if you aren't being prosecuted.

You do if you've already spent 10 million dollars in legal fees and just want it to go away.

I'm pretty sure that if Clinton fought it in court, in front of a jury drawn from an electorate where he still had 60% approval, he'd have had no problem beating the rap... but it would have cost him hundreds of thousands of dollars to do it, and would impede on his ability to earn money in the private sector.

So say, "I done bad, have my law license I haven't used in 20 years in a state I have no intention of moving back to!"

The more worrisome thing. Ken Starr and Robert Ray spent 70 million dollars, and all they came up with was a minor charge that merited a $10,000 fine.

 

[mudwhistle]

Your narrative is partisan bs. It's far more complicated and proving perjury was not going to be easy or a slam dunk. And you are also conflating the bar association thing with the agreement with Independent Counsel Robert Ray

Clinton Admits He 'Misled,' Avoids Indictment

President Clinton Friday admitted for the first time that he intentionally misled the government and the public about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky.

www.pbs.org

and you ignore:

claim: "A New York Judge, SCOTUS, and the Arkansas Bar all disagree with you."

All regarding me stating Bill Clinton was never prosecuted for perjury.

This issue has been settled long ago, bubba.

Bill paid a fine and lost his license.

The prosecutor dropped the case because of the agreement, but Bill Clinton admitted that he lied in front of a Grand Jury....and that's why they impeached him.

 

[StoneCold]

Not a single person on this message board has either the knowledge or resources to prove anything about anything.

Even the House judiciary committee will have an uphill battle in building a concrete case because Biden's DOJ will hide, withhold, slow walk, etc. evidence as they have continuously done and whatever evidence is presented will either not be reported at all or will be distorted by a MSM that is nothing more than a Democrat propaganda machine.

At least in the Clinton impeachment, real crimes were shown to have been committed as confirmed by the NY Superior Court who held him in contempt for perjury, by SCOTUS who revoked his privileges to plead before the high court and the Arkansas Bar who revoked his license and disbarred him.

The House Judiciary Committee serves as the investigator in an impeachment inquiry. If they have concrete evidence of crimes it then goes to the House that acts as a large grand jury. If the House votes Biden committed high crimes and misdemeanors it then goes to the Senate for trial.

As I responded to Mr Know-it-all Marvin, prove the money was received by President Biden as a bribe.
You think he can't. As do I. So Let's see what happens.
And I really don't need your uppity explanations about how impeachment works. You need to educate the idiots on the trump train!
Thank you and Good Nite!

 

[mudwhistle]

 

[mudwhistle]

 

[Leo123]

Gym and ol Comer have been looking for the smoking gun for quite some time now and found nothing concrete. What's different now?

Here's the 'smoking gun.'

 

[Arlette]

Here's the 'smoking gun.'

View attachment 828637

Don't be a Leo. That's Hunter

 

[toobfreak]

Your case is as believable as your photoshop...

Haha! Jokes on you. I don't even have Photoshop or any of its Adobe variants on my computer, ass.

What you MEANT to say was that my case is as believable as Joe Biden getting honestly elected by an aboveboard election system.

 

[mudwhistle]

 

[dudmuck]

none of that has wrong doing from Joe Biden.

 

[MarathonMike]

The "nO eViDEnCe!" crowd can ignore this.

Abuse of power, obstruction and corruption.

House Speaker Kevin McCarthy announced the House is launching an impeachment inquiry of President Joe Biden, citing at least six separate allegations that led to the decision.

First, he cited the House Oversight Committee’s findings that Biden “did lie to the American people about his own knowledge of his family’s foreign business dealings.”

Second, McCarthy also cited bank records that show “nearly $20 million in payments were directed to the Biden family members and associates through various shell companies.”

Third, McCarthy also said the Treasury Department has “more than 150 transactions involving the Biden family and other business associates that were flagged as suspicious activity by U.S. banks.”

Fourth, McCarthy cited an FBI informant who alleged that the president and his son both received bribes of $5 million each.

Fifth, McCarthy cited Biden using “his official office to coordinate with Hunter Biden’s business partners about Hunter’s role in Burisma Ukrainian energy company,” referring to recent revelations from Hunter Biden’s laptop that then-Vice President Biden used private or alias accounts to send government information to Hunter.

Finally, McCarthy said — likely in reference to the Justice Department’s handling of its investigation of Hunter Biden, “Despite the serious allegations, it appears that the president’s family has been offered special treatment by Biden’s own administration — treatment that [they] not otherwise would have received if they were not related to the President.”

McCarthy Lays Out Evidence in Decision to Launch Biden Impeachment Inquiry

House Speaker Kevin McCarthy announced the House is launching an impeachment inquiry of President Joe Biden, citing at least six allegations.

www.breitbart.com

YABUT..........TRUUUUUUUUUUUMMMMMPPPPP!!!!!

 

[j-mac]

none of that has wrong doing from Joe Biden.

Is there any evidence that would be acceptable to you?

 

[Votar Roja]

Your case is as believable as your photoshop...

What a childish post

 

[JoeB131]

Is there any evidence that would be acceptable to you?

Tax returns with money Joe can't account for would be nice.
An actual witness who can testify under oath that Joe did anything other than say "Hi" to his son during a business meeting.
An actual benefit that ANY of Hunter's customers got from the Vice President (who actually has no official power other than presiding over the senate and waiting for the president to die.)

Any of those would be nice.