The hard facts driving impeachment fall apart

[Toddsterpatriot]

Actually, Starr never should have been investigating that to start with. He was appointed to investigate the Whitewater Land deal. Period. Full ******* stop.

Independent Counsels are cool, eh?

Actually, no.

The problem with IC"s in general is that they are going to damn well find someone guilty of something.

We saw that with Lawrence Walsh, who couldn't get Reagan or Bush on anything related to Iran-Contra (because they hadn't actually broken any laws), but he went after Cap Weinberger for perjury because he said he hadn't kept a diary, but he did submit meeting notes to the national archive. And Cap was the guy in the room who had the good sense to say selling weapons to the Iranians was probably a terrible idea.

We saw that with Patrick Fitzgerald, who didn't go after the anti-war Circle Jerk of Armitage-Novak-Wilson for outing Wilson's wife... But he went after Scooter Libby for not remembering a conversation with Tim Russert the same way Tim remembered it.

And yes, we saw that with Ken Starr, who was supposed to be investigating a land deal and ended up investigating Clinton's sex life.

Now that said, I do think we need a reformed IC statue, but one where they are ONLY focused on the thing they are supposed to be investigating... not process crimes or side issues.

We saw that with Lawrence Walsh,

Yeah, he was a ****.

 

[JoeB131]

The judge, Susan Webber Wright dismissed, Jones appealed. It went to the Supreme Court and they ruled 9-0 to allow the suit to continue.

you are getting a bit confused here, buddy.

The first issue was that Judge Wright ruled that a sitting president couldn't be held to a civil suit, which is what SCOTUS ruled 9-0 on.

She eventually dismissed the case as having no merit because Jones couldn't show any damages to her career as Assistant Possum Catcher, or whatever it was she did down there.

Now, she was ready to appeal this, based on the Ellerth Decision, but both sides realized that another five years of appeals wasn't worth it. Clinton agreed to pay a lot less than what she was asking for, and Jones dropped her insistance on an apology for something that probably never happened.

The ironic tragedy is that in the real world, this kind of case never would have gotten that far. They are almost always settled early on.

Yes, lying under oath and obstruction of justice when you're being sued for sexual harrassent is impeachable.

Except the lies had no material effect on a case that was dismissed without merit.

To paraphrase Sol Wachtler, you can impeach a ham sandwich.

You probably can. The thing was, 67% of Americans at the time thought that Clinton shouldn't be impeached.

As opposed to Trump, where clear majorities favored BOTH of his impeachments.

 

[JoeB131]

We saw that with Lawrence Walsh,

Yeah, he was a ****.

yes, he was. He also showed the problem with the process.

The guys he should have gone after were Poindexter and NOrth, who had illegally stolen funds from the sale of weapons to Iran (which was perfectly legal) and diverted them to the Contras. The problem is, Congress had given them immunity hoping they'd break bad on Reagan, and they didn't. So their convictions didn't hold up. At that point, they should have folded up their tents and went home.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The judge, Susan Webber Wright dismissed, Jones appealed. It went to the Supreme Court and they ruled 9-0 to allow the suit to continue.

you are getting a bit confused here, buddy.

The first issue was that Judge Wright ruled that a sitting president couldn't be held to a civil suit, which is what SCOTUS ruled 9-0 on.

She eventually dismissed the case as having no merit because Jones couldn't show any damages to her career as Assistant Possum Catcher, or whatever it was she did down there.

Now, she was ready to appeal this, based on the Ellerth Decision, but both sides realized that another five years of appeals wasn't worth it. Clinton agreed to pay a lot less than what she was asking for, and Jones dropped her insistance on an apology for something that probably never happened.

The ironic tragedy is that in the real world, this kind of case never would have gotten that far. They are almost always settled early on.

Yes, lying under oath and obstruction of justice when you're being sued for sexual harrassent is impeachable.

Except the lies had no material effect on a case that was dismissed without merit.

To paraphrase Sol Wachtler, you can impeach a ham sandwich.

You probably can. The thing was, 67% of Americans at the time thought that Clinton shouldn't be impeached.

As opposed to Trump, where clear majorities favored BOTH of his impeachments.

you are getting a bit confused here, buddy.

Not really, pal.

Except the lies had no material effect on a case that was dismissed without merit.

Oh, some perjury is allowed....that's nice. Do they hand you a list before your testify?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

We saw that with Lawrence Walsh,

Yeah, he was a ****.

yes, he was. He also showed the problem with the process.

The guys he should have gone after were Poindexter and NOrth, who had illegally stolen funds from the sale of weapons to Iran (which was perfectly legal) and diverted them to the Contras. The problem is, Congress had given them immunity hoping they'd break bad on Reagan, and they didn't. So their convictions didn't hold up. At that point, they should have folded up their tents and went home.

yes, he was. He also showed the problem with the process.

Yeah, the Dems didn't see the problem.....until Starr.

who had illegally stolen funds from the sale of weapons to Iran (which was perfectly legal) and diverted them to the Contras.

The diversion was theft, or they skimmed from the sales?

The problem is, Congress had given them immunity hoping they'd break bad on Reagan,

Yeah, I laughed at their stupidity (the Dems).

 

[JoeB131]

you are getting a bit confused here, buddy.

Not really, pal.

Um, yeah, really. You are conflating Judge Wright's dismissal of the case in

On December 28, 1994, Judge Susan Webber Wright ruled that a sitting President could not be sued and deferred the case until the conclusion of his term, essentially granting him temporary immunity (although she allowed the pre-trial discovery phase of the case to proceed without delay in order to start the trial as soon as Clinton left office).[3]

This is different from the ruling she made on APril 1, 1998 that Jones had no standing to sue because she had suffered no damages under the law.

These were two different rulings on two separate legal issues.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

you are getting a bit confused here, buddy.

Not really, pal.

Um, yeah, really. You are conflating Judge Wright's dismissal of the case in

On December 28, 1994, Judge Susan Webber Wright ruled that a sitting President could not be sued and deferred the case until the conclusion of his term, essentially granting him temporary immunity (although she allowed the pre-trial discovery phase of the case to proceed without delay in order to start the trial as soon as Clinton left office).[3]

This is different from the ruling she made on APril 1, 1998 that Jones had no standing to sue because she had suffered no damages under the law.

These were two different rulings on two separate legal issues.

Um, yeah, really. You are conflating Judge Wright's dismissal of the case in

No, I'm really not. She dismissed, Jones appealed. The Supreme Court ruled 9-0.
The case continued. She dismissed again. Jones appealed again.
Clinton settled for $850,000.

No confusion here.

 

[JoeB131]

No, I'm really not. She dismissed, Jones appealed. The Supreme Court ruled 9-0.
The case continued. She dismissed again. Jones appealed again.
Clinton settled for $850,000.

No confusion here.

Well, yeah, there's a lot of confusion.... You claimed SCOTUS overturned Wright's second ruling, the one that dismissed the case as having no merit.

Her first ruling only would have delayed the trial until after Clinton was out of office, which in retrospect, was probably a good idea. I mean, it would have been nice of Clinton had been paying attention to Bin Laden rather than fighting a nuisance lawsuit.

 

[Grumblenuts]

begin presenting to the Senate their case that the president obstructed justice in the Jones lawsuit and lied about it before a federal grand jury.

Clinton reached a settlement with Mrs. Jones on November 13 after four years of litigation.

Under that settlement, Clinton didn't admit any wrongdoing or apologize and simply agreed to make a cash settlement to Mrs. Jones, a former Arkansas state worker.

Mrs. Jones alleged that Clinton, when he was governor of Arkansas, made a crude advance in a room at a Little Rock hotel in 1991. Clinton has steadfastly denied her accusation.

Clinton testified in that lawsuit on January 17, 1998, and during questioning about his relationships with other women, denied he had "sexual relations" with Ms. Lewinsky. Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr got permission to investigate whether Clinton was trying to obstruct the lawsuit.

Clinton was forced to acknowledge a relationship with Ms. Lewinsky in testimony before a federal grand jury last August.

Good times. Starr was a political hack and out of his mind, but I think the outcome had an immediate chilling effect on sexist pigs like Slick and renewed women's confidence in the court system, so it's all good. Like the OJ decision, only an idiot could believe Slick didn't often use his political power to coerce women into having sexual relations with him under threat of losing their jobs. He's a sick **** who got caught lying under oath so deserved impeachment, lying under oath being against the oath of office he swore to uphold coming straight from the Constitution. **** both Clintons. **** Democrats. **** Republicans.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You claimed SCOTUS overturned Wright's second ruling,

Link?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

No, I'm really not. She dismissed, Jones appealed. The Supreme Court ruled 9-0.
The case continued. She dismissed again. Jones appealed again.
Clinton settled for $850,000.

No confusion here.

Well, yeah, there's a lot of confusion.... You claimed SCOTUS overturned Wright's second ruling, the one that dismissed the case as having no merit.

Her first ruling only would have delayed the trial until after Clinton was out of office, which in retrospect, was probably a good idea. I mean, it would have been nice of Clinton had been paying attention to Bin Laden rather than fighting a nuisance lawsuit.

I mean, it would have been nice of Clinton had been paying attention to Bin Laden rather than fighting a nuisance lawsuit.

I mean, it would have been nice of Clinton had been paying attention to Bin Laden rather than getting blowjobs in the Oval Office. And trying to cover them up. By obstructing justice. And committing perjury.

 

[San Souci]

American Thinker

January 30, 2021
The hard facts driving impeachment fall apart
By Monica Showalter

Excerpt:

President Trump, who was impeached, no less, in the waning days of his presidency for supposedly starting a riot at the Capitol, is starting to look less and less culpable for what his enemies claimed.

A pipe bomb planted by rioters intended to distract police forces ahead of the Jan. 6 rally Trump spoke at turns out to have been planted on Jan. 5, according to the FBI.

According to The Hill:

The FBI released a new wanted poster on Friday revealing that two pipe bombs that were placed near the Democratic and Republican party headquarters and discovered during the Capitol riots on Jan. 6 were planted there the night before.

According to the newly released information, the bombs were placed between 7:30 p.m. and 8:30 p.m. on Jan. 5.


LINK

=======

Whooops, there goes the silly incitement argument.

Rushing to judgement was a bad idea from the start.....

This is really lame. Trump had been inciting them for 7 or 8 weeks.

No .The MEDIA has been inciting riots for FOUR years.

 

[Sunsettommy]

His lying was due to the bogus investigation over his sexual dalliance,

His lying was because he sexually harassed Paula Jones, she sued him and he lied under oath.
Nothing bogus about it.

it was a gross mistake on his part

Lying under oath usually is a mistake.

because Starr had nothing else to impeach him on.

Yeah, his delaying tactics were almost 100% successful.

In 1994, Paula Jones filed a lawsuit accusing Clinton of sexual harassment when he was governor of Arkansas, that isn't an impeachable offense since it didn't occur during his time as President and her lawsuit was later thrown out in 1998, and the dumb Lewinsky affair was never a impeachable offense from the start.

Yes he lied (inside of the bogus Starr investigation frame), yes he slept around, but the unfair Starr investigation made a mockery of justice since the sexual misbehavior with Lewinsky was never impeachable offense, and the Jones lawsuit was about his Governors days was never settled to prove Clintons guilt, it was thrown out in 1998

Clinton was clearly a victim of Partisan Politics, a victim of a fishing Starr investigation, the bullshit he had to endure for several years.

In 1994, Paula Jones filed a lawsuit accusing Clinton of sexual harassment when he was governor of Arkansas, that isn't an impeachable offense since it didn't occur during his time as President

Yup. And his perjury and obstruction of justice occurred during his time as President.

and her lawsuit was later thrown out in 1998, and the dumb Lewinsky affair was never a impeachable offense from the start.

Who said his affair was an impeachable offense? Link?

the Jones lawsuit was about his Governors days was never settled to prove Clintons guilt

He paid $850,000 to settle it.

Clinton was clearly a victim of Partisan Politics, a victim of a fishing Starr investigation

Awwwww.....poor guy. Never did nuffin'.

In all the mess you have ZERO guilty verdicts against Clinton to write about, that is why your arguments ultimately fails.

The lawsuit was thrown out (Ooops Clinton was still innocent) but she had made clear she was going to continue her legal pursuits against him, thus the 850,000 settlement to stop her from future legal harassments.

The Starr report you never read included the Jones allegations as part of the investigation, the Lewinsky affair was never an impeachable offense (notice you don't dispute it) at any time. Clintons mistake was to lie and obstruct during the investigation over sexual events that were never impeachable from day one. It boggles my mind why he felt the need to lie when Starr had no case against him on sexual dalliance with Monica at all.

It was a Politically driven investigation from the start, which is why it ultimately failed.

Will end this with an admission from Starr himself:

LINK

"Partial retraction
In January 2020, while testifying as a defense lawyer for U.S. President Donald Trump during his Senate impeachment trial, Starr himself would retract some of the allegations he made in the report.[1] Slate journalist Jeremy Stahl pointed out that as he was urging the Senate not to remove Trump as president, Starr contradicted various arguments he used in 1998 to justify Clinton's impeachment.[1] In defending Trump, Starr also claimed he was wrong to have called for impeachment against Clinton for abuse of executive privilege and efforts to obstruct Congress and also stated that the House Judiciary Committee was right in 1998 to have rejected one of the planks for impeachment he had advocated for.[1] He also invoked a 1999 Hofstra Law Review article by Yale law professor Akhil Amar, who argued that the Clinton impeachment proved just how impeachment and removal causes "grave disruption" to a national election."

bolding mine

STARR Was wrong, alright.

But, not at the point he later claimed.

The impeachment was legit. Starr's spineless lack of confidence and second guessing, not withstanding.

Klinton was himself a lawyer.

As a lawyer, he fully understood the seriousness of perjury.

You should read what the worlds earliest lawmakers had to say about perjury, sometime.

It seems you don't read my comments very well since several times I have stated that Clinton lied during the Starr investigation, already accepted that fact from the start.

He was impeached for the lying, but the investigation was started over some sexual activities, which are NOT high crimes and misdemeanors.

 

[Chuz Life]

His lying was due to the bogus investigation over his sexual dalliance,

His lying was because he sexually harassed Paula Jones, she sued him and he lied under oath.
Nothing bogus about it.

it was a gross mistake on his part

Lying under oath usually is a mistake.

because Starr had nothing else to impeach him on.

Yeah, his delaying tactics were almost 100% successful.

In 1994, Paula Jones filed a lawsuit accusing Clinton of sexual harassment when he was governor of Arkansas, that isn't an impeachable offense since it didn't occur during his time as President and her lawsuit was later thrown out in 1998, and the dumb Lewinsky affair was never a impeachable offense from the start.

Yes he lied (inside of the bogus Starr investigation frame), yes he slept around, but the unfair Starr investigation made a mockery of justice since the sexual misbehavior with Lewinsky was never impeachable offense, and the Jones lawsuit was about his Governors days was never settled to prove Clintons guilt, it was thrown out in 1998

Clinton was clearly a victim of Partisan Politics, a victim of a fishing Starr investigation, the bullshit he had to endure for several years.

In 1994, Paula Jones filed a lawsuit accusing Clinton of sexual harassment when he was governor of Arkansas, that isn't an impeachable offense since it didn't occur during his time as President

Yup. And his perjury and obstruction of justice occurred during his time as President.

and her lawsuit was later thrown out in 1998, and the dumb Lewinsky affair was never a impeachable offense from the start.

Who said his affair was an impeachable offense? Link?

the Jones lawsuit was about his Governors days was never settled to prove Clintons guilt

He paid $850,000 to settle it.

Clinton was clearly a victim of Partisan Politics, a victim of a fishing Starr investigation

Awwwww.....poor guy. Never did nuffin'.

In all the mess you have ZERO guilty verdicts against Clinton to write about, that is why your arguments ultimately fails.

The lawsuit was thrown out (Ooops Clinton was still innocent) but she had made clear she was going to continue her legal pursuits against him, thus the 850,000 settlement to stop her from future legal harassments.

The Starr report you never read included the Jones allegations as part of the investigation, the Lewinsky affair was never an impeachable offense (notice you don't dispute it) at any time. Clintons mistake was to lie and obstruct during the investigation over sexual events that were never impeachable from day one. It boggles my mind why he felt the need to lie when Starr had no case against him on sexual dalliance with Monica at all.

It was a Politically driven investigation from the start, which is why it ultimately failed.

Will end this with an admission from Starr himself:

LINK

"Partial retraction
In January 2020, while testifying as a defense lawyer for U.S. President Donald Trump during his Senate impeachment trial, Starr himself would retract some of the allegations he made in the report.[1] Slate journalist Jeremy Stahl pointed out that as he was urging the Senate not to remove Trump as president, Starr contradicted various arguments he used in 1998 to justify Clinton's impeachment.[1] In defending Trump, Starr also claimed he was wrong to have called for impeachment against Clinton for abuse of executive privilege and efforts to obstruct Congress and also stated that the House Judiciary Committee was right in 1998 to have rejected one of the planks for impeachment he had advocated for.[1] He also invoked a 1999 Hofstra Law Review article by Yale law professor Akhil Amar, who argued that the Clinton impeachment proved just how impeachment and removal causes "grave disruption" to a national election."

bolding mine

STARR Was wrong, alright.

But, not at the point he later claimed.

The impeachment was legit. Starr's spineless lack of confidence and second guessing, not withstanding.

Klinton was himself a lawyer.

As a lawyer, he fully understood the seriousness of perjury.

You should read what the worlds earliest lawmakers had to say about perjury, sometime.

It seems you don't read my comments very well since several times I have stated that Clinton lied during the Starr investigation, already accepted that fact from the start.

He was impeached for the lying, but the investigation was started over some sexual activities, which are NOT high crimes and misdemeanors.

You are simply WRONG.

The investigation was NOT started over a sexual affair.

More to the point, Klinton (as a lawyer) knew better thsn to lie under oath, no matter WHAT the investigation was about.

Period.

 

[Turtlesoup]

American Thinker

January 30, 2021
The hard facts driving impeachment fall apart
By Monica Showalter

Excerpt:

President Trump, who was impeached, no less, in the waning days of his presidency for supposedly starting a riot at the Capitol, is starting to look less and less culpable for what his enemies claimed.

A pipe bomb planted by rioters intended to distract police forces ahead of the Jan. 6 rally Trump spoke at turns out to have been planted on Jan. 5, according to the FBI.

According to The Hill:

The FBI released a new wanted poster on Friday revealing that two pipe bombs that were placed near the Democratic and Republican party headquarters and discovered during the Capitol riots on Jan. 6 were planted there the night before.

According to the newly released information, the bombs were placed between 7:30 p.m. and 8:30 p.m. on Jan. 5.


LINK

=======

Whooops, there goes the silly incitement argument.

Rushing to judgement was a bad idea from the start.....

This is really lame. Trump had been inciting them for 7 or 8 weeks.

There is no hope for you....none..

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

The Democrats are making fools of themselves with their bogus impeachments.
They have lost all credibility with any reasonable person.
It will affect them badly in future elections.

 

[Grumblenuts]

The thing was, 67% of Americans at the time thought that Clinton shouldn't be impeached.

In that sense we've evolved somewhat, thank goodness. Jeffrey Epstein was still thought of fondly back then as well.

 

[Mac1958]

This is really lame. Trump had been inciting them for 7 or 8 weeks.

This has building for far, far longer than that. Seems to me that's been the Democrats' big mistake here. They should be looking at the bigger picture.

Trump has been feeding this anger and paranoia since Escalator Day. And talk radio and the internet since long before that. This has been building for many years.

Trump was more than willing to be the match that finally lit the fire, because he has his damaged ego to protect. He needs to be held accountable for that.

 

[Flash]

This impeachment bullshit is just like the silly insurrection bullshit. Nothing more than a diversion for the Useful Idiots to take the spotlight away from the fact the Democrats stole the election with the scam of unverified mail in ballots in the Democrat controlled swing districts.

The Useful Idiots are falling for it hook, line and sinker.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

American Thinker

January 30, 2021
The hard facts driving impeachment fall apart
By Monica Showalter

Excerpt:

President Trump, who was impeached, no less, in the waning days of his presidency for supposedly starting a riot at the Capitol, is starting to look less and less culpable for what his enemies claimed.

A pipe bomb planted by rioters intended to distract police forces ahead of the Jan. 6 rally Trump spoke at turns out to have been planted on Jan. 5, according to the FBI.

According to The Hill:

The FBI released a new wanted poster on Friday revealing that two pipe bombs that were placed near the Democratic and Republican party headquarters and discovered during the Capitol riots on Jan. 6 were planted there the night before.

According to the newly released information, the bombs were placed between 7:30 p.m. and 8:30 p.m. on Jan. 5.


LINK

=======

Whooops, there goes the silly incitement argument.

Rushing to judgement was a bad idea from the start.....

"American Thinker"

lol

Unreliable source, subjective, wrongheaded rightwing opinion completely devoid of merit.

Impeachment has already happened, it's over and done with.