What We Now Know About The Men Who Led The Impeachment Of Clinton

[Katzndogz]

Do dimwitocrsts really believe that they will make Hillary's numbers better if they resurrect the ghost of Bill Clinton's transgressions? Or is this supposed to deflect from Bill Clinton's current orgy island hijinks.

 

[Misty]

Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-GA) led the push for Bill Clinton’s impeachment. Following a disappointing election in November 1998, he announced he was stepping down as Speaker and resigning from Congress.


Gingrich later admitted that, while he was pushing for Clinton’s impeachment, he wasengaged in an affair with a Congressional aide. “There were times when I was praying and when I felt I was doing things that were wrong. But I was still doing them,” Gingrich said in 2007. He later said the situation was “complex and, obviously, I wasn’t doing things to be proud of.”

After Gingrich announced his resignation, Republicans unanimously selected Rep. Bob Livingston (R-LA) to succeed him. Livingston represented the party as Speaker-elect in the led up to the impeachment vote.

On the day of the impeachment vote, Livingston announced he was resigning following revelations that he had engaged in an extramarital affair. According to Hustler Magazine Publisher Larry Flint, who offered a reward for information about the sex lives of members of Congress, he “found four women who said they had been involved with Mr. Livingston over the last 10 years.”

Following Livingston’s resignation, which occurred on the same day the House voted on impeachment, Rep. Dennis Hastert (R-IL) quickly gained support of the Republican leadership to succeed him as Speaker-designate. He began formally serving as speaker in January 1999, and held that role while the Senate conducted their trial on the articles of impeachment.

On Thursday, Hastert was indicted on charges that he illegally structured $1.7 million in payments to an individual in an attempt to cover up prior misconduct. According to reports, the payments were allegedly intended to “conceal sexual abuse against a former male student he knew during his days as a teacher in Yorkville, Ill.” The LA Times also reported that “investigators also spoke with a second man who raised similar allegations that corroborated what the former student said.”


What do they say about glass houses?

Who cares.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Wow, this is timely...

Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-GA) led the push for Bill Clinton’s impeachment. Following a disappointing election in November 1998, he announced he was stepping down as Speaker and resigning from Congress.


Gingrich later admitted that, while he was pushing for Clinton’s impeachment, he wasengaged in an affair with a Congressional aide. “There were times when I was praying and when I felt I was doing things that were wrong. But I was still doing them,” Gingrich said in 2007. He later said the situation was “complex and, obviously, I wasn’t doing things to be proud of.”

After Gingrich announced his resignation, Republicans unanimously selected Rep. Bob Livingston (R-LA) to succeed him. Livingston represented the party as Speaker-elect in the led up to the impeachment vote.

On the day of the impeachment vote, Livingston announced he was resigning following revelations that he had engaged in an extramarital affair. According to Hustler Magazine Publisher Larry Flint, who offered a reward for information about the sex lives of members of Congress, he “found four women who said they had been involved with Mr. Livingston over the last 10 years.”

Following Livingston’s resignation, which occurred on the same day the House voted on impeachment, Rep. Dennis Hastert (R-IL) quickly gained support of the Republican leadership to succeed him as Speaker-designate. He began formally serving as speaker in January 1999, and held that role while the Senate conducted their trial on the articles of impeachment.

On Thursday, Hastert was indicted on charges that he illegally structured $1.7 million in payments to an individual in an attempt to cover up prior misconduct. According to reports, the payments were allegedly intended to “conceal sexual abuse against a former male student he knew during his days as a teacher in Yorkville, Ill.” The LA Times also reported that “investigators also spoke with a second man who raised similar allegations that corroborated what the former student said.”


What do they say about glass houses?

What on Earth does this have to does with Clinton committing perjury?

Why was Clinton dogged under oath about his sex life and Newt wasn't? Why was Clinton dogged under oath about his sex life and Livingston wasn't? Why was Clinton dogged under oath about his sex life and Hastert wasn't?

Do you think Gingrich or Livingston of Hastert would have told the truth under oath?

Because they did not sexually harass their subordinates.

They didn't? How odd, do you find a teacher's student or an aide to be something more than a subordinate?

INteresting. YOu seem to see no difference between sexual relationship and sexual harassment.

Oh I do, and those lines are not a dichotomy.

 

[Correll]

Why was Clinton dogged under oath about his sex life and Newt wasn't? Why was Clinton dogged under oath about his sex life and Livingston wasn't? Why was Clinton dogged under oath about his sex life and Hastert wasn't?

Do you think Gingrich or Livingston of Hastert would have told the truth under oath?

Because they did not sexually harass their subordinates.

They didn't? How odd, do you find a teacher's student or an aide to be something more than a subordinate?

INteresting. YOu seem to see no difference between sexual relationship and sexual harassment.

They're libs.. they hate women and minorities... that is well documented.

Cool, real evidence. Posted the documented evidence! NOT!

Documented evidence? YOu are not aware of the sexual harassment charges brought against Bill Clinton. Or do you want me to prove the negative that Newt wasn't sexually harassing his mistress?

 

[Correll]

Wow, this is timely...
What on Earth does this have to does with Clinton committing perjury?

Why was Clinton dogged under oath about his sex life and Newt wasn't? Why was Clinton dogged under oath about his sex life and Livingston wasn't? Why was Clinton dogged under oath about his sex life and Hastert wasn't?

Do you think Gingrich or Livingston of Hastert would have told the truth under oath?

Because they did not sexually harass their subordinates.

They didn't? How odd, do you find a teacher's student or an aide to be something more than a subordinate?

INteresting. YOu seem to see no difference between sexual relationship and sexual harassment.

Oh I do, and those lines are not a dichotomy.

Oh, so are you claiming that Newt harassed his mistress, or that Bill did not harass Paul JOnes?

 

[Wry Catcher]

Because they did not sexually harass their subordinates.

They didn't? How odd, do you find a teacher's student or an aide to be something more than a subordinate?

INteresting. YOu seem to see no difference between sexual relationship and sexual harassment.

They're libs.. they hate women and minorities... that is well documented.

Cool, real evidence. Posted the documented evidence! NOT!

Documented evidence? YOu are not aware of the sexual harassment charges brought against Bill Clinton. Or do you want me to prove the negative that Newt wasn't sexually harassing his mistress?

Yep, probative evidence if you please. Not allegations, evidence. Also define, if you can, sexual harassment (legal definition) and the power and control which a Speaker of the House (or anyone in power) might have over his aide.

 

[Darkwind]

Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-GA) led the push for Bill Clinton’s impeachment. Following a disappointing election in November 1998, he announced he was stepping down as Speaker and resigning from Congress.


Gingrich later admitted that, while he was pushing for Clinton’s impeachment, he wasengaged in an affair with a Congressional aide. “There were times when I was praying and when I felt I was doing things that were wrong. But I was still doing them,” Gingrich said in 2007. He later said the situation was “complex and, obviously, I wasn’t doing things to be proud of.”

After Gingrich announced his resignation, Republicans unanimously selected Rep. Bob Livingston (R-LA) to succeed him. Livingston represented the party as Speaker-elect in the led up to the impeachment vote.

On the day of the impeachment vote, Livingston announced he was resigning following revelations that he had engaged in an extramarital affair. According to Hustler Magazine Publisher Larry Flint, who offered a reward for information about the sex lives of members of Congress, he “found four women who said they had been involved with Mr. Livingston over the last 10 years.”

Following Livingston’s resignation, which occurred on the same day the House voted on impeachment, Rep. Dennis Hastert (R-IL) quickly gained support of the Republican leadership to succeed him as Speaker-designate. He began formally serving as speaker in January 1999, and held that role while the Senate conducted their trial on the articles of impeachment.

On Thursday, Hastert was indicted on charges that he illegally structured $1.7 million in payments to an individual in an attempt to cover up prior misconduct. According to reports, the payments were allegedly intended to “conceal sexual abuse against a former male student he knew during his days as a teacher in Yorkville, Ill.” The LA Times also reported that “investigators also spoke with a second man who raised similar allegations that corroborated what the former student said.”


What do they say about glass houses?

Here is an idea.

Why not put that kind of diligence to work vetting your candidates (may have saved us the last 7 year disaster that is currently in the white house) as you do you for people you hate.? Impress someone with you honesty, provided you can muster some.

 

[Correll]

They didn't? How odd, do you find a teacher's student or an aide to be something more than a subordinate?

INteresting. YOu seem to see no difference between sexual relationship and sexual harassment.

They're libs.. they hate women and minorities... that is well documented.

Cool, real evidence. Posted the documented evidence! NOT!

Documented evidence? YOu are not aware of the sexual harassment charges brought against Bill Clinton. Or do you want me to prove the negative that Newt wasn't sexually harassing his mistress?

Yep, probative evidence if you please. Not allegations, evidence. Also define, if you can, sexual harassment (legal definition) and the power and control which a Speaker of the House (or anyone in power) might have over his aide.

Sorry, I'm not proving a negative. That you even ask shows you're not serious.

Bill's impeachment was about sexual harassment and the cover up that followed.

Newt had an affair.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-GA) led the push for Bill Clinton’s impeachment. Following a disappointing election in November 1998, he announced he was stepping down as Speaker and resigning from Congress.


Gingrich later admitted that, while he was pushing for Clinton’s impeachment, he wasengaged in an affair with a Congressional aide. “There were times when I was praying and when I felt I was doing things that were wrong. But I was still doing them,” Gingrich said in 2007. He later said the situation was “complex and, obviously, I wasn’t doing things to be proud of.”

After Gingrich announced his resignation, Republicans unanimously selected Rep. Bob Livingston (R-LA) to succeed him. Livingston represented the party as Speaker-elect in the led up to the impeachment vote.

On the day of the impeachment vote, Livingston announced he was resigning following revelations that he had engaged in an extramarital affair. According to Hustler Magazine Publisher Larry Flint, who offered a reward for information about the sex lives of members of Congress, he “found four women who said they had been involved with Mr. Livingston over the last 10 years.”

Following Livingston’s resignation, which occurred on the same day the House voted on impeachment, Rep. Dennis Hastert (R-IL) quickly gained support of the Republican leadership to succeed him as Speaker-designate. He began formally serving as speaker in January 1999, and held that role while the Senate conducted their trial on the articles of impeachment.

On Thursday, Hastert was indicted on charges that he illegally structured $1.7 million in payments to an individual in an attempt to cover up prior misconduct. According to reports, the payments were allegedly intended to “conceal sexual abuse against a former male student he knew during his days as a teacher in Yorkville, Ill.” The LA Times also reported that “investigators also spoke with a second man who raised similar allegations that corroborated what the former student said.”


What do they say about glass houses?

Here is an idea.

Why not put that kind of diligence to work vetting your candidates (may have saved us the last 7 year disaster that is currently in the white house) as you do you for people you hate.? Impress someone with you honesty, provided you can muster some.

in a thread showing 3 cons going down you say the dems need to do better vetting? Thats amazing

 

[Darkwind]

Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-GA) led the push for Bill Clinton’s impeachment. Following a disappointing election in November 1998, he announced he was stepping down as Speaker and resigning from Congress.


Gingrich later admitted that, while he was pushing for Clinton’s impeachment, he wasengaged in an affair with a Congressional aide. “There were times when I was praying and when I felt I was doing things that were wrong. But I was still doing them,” Gingrich said in 2007. He later said the situation was “complex and, obviously, I wasn’t doing things to be proud of.”

After Gingrich announced his resignation, Republicans unanimously selected Rep. Bob Livingston (R-LA) to succeed him. Livingston represented the party as Speaker-elect in the led up to the impeachment vote.

On the day of the impeachment vote, Livingston announced he was resigning following revelations that he had engaged in an extramarital affair. According to Hustler Magazine Publisher Larry Flint, who offered a reward for information about the sex lives of members of Congress, he “found four women who said they had been involved with Mr. Livingston over the last 10 years.”

Following Livingston’s resignation, which occurred on the same day the House voted on impeachment, Rep. Dennis Hastert (R-IL) quickly gained support of the Republican leadership to succeed him as Speaker-designate. He began formally serving as speaker in January 1999, and held that role while the Senate conducted their trial on the articles of impeachment.

On Thursday, Hastert was indicted on charges that he illegally structured $1.7 million in payments to an individual in an attempt to cover up prior misconduct. According to reports, the payments were allegedly intended to “conceal sexual abuse against a former male student he knew during his days as a teacher in Yorkville, Ill.” The LA Times also reported that “investigators also spoke with a second man who raised similar allegations that corroborated what the former student said.”


What do they say about glass houses?

Here is an idea.

Why not put that kind of diligence to work vetting your candidates (may have saved us the last 7 year disaster that is currently in the white house) as you do you for people you hate.? Impress someone with you honesty, provided you can muster some.

in a thread showing 3 cons going down you say the dems need to do better vetting? Thats amazing

So, that would be a no on your part. I didn't really expect any other answer.

 

[chikenwing]

They didn't? How odd, do you find a teacher's student or an aide to be something more than a subordinate?

INteresting. YOu seem to see no difference between sexual relationship and sexual harassment.

They're libs.. they hate women and minorities... that is well documented.

Cool, real evidence. Posted the documented evidence! NOT!

Documented evidence? YOu are not aware of the sexual harassment charges brought against Bill Clinton. Or do you want me to prove the negative that Newt wasn't sexually harassing his mistress?

Yep, probative evidence if you please. Not allegations, evidence. Also define, if you can, sexual harassment (legal definition) and the power and control which a Speaker of the House (or anyone in power) might have over his aide.

Define the word is.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Why was Clinton dogged under oath about his sex life and Newt wasn't? Why was Clinton dogged under oath about his sex life and Livingston wasn't? Why was Clinton dogged under oath about his sex life and Hastert wasn't?

Do you think Gingrich or Livingston of Hastert would have told the truth under oath?

Because they did not sexually harass their subordinates.

They didn't? How odd, do you find a teacher's student or an aide to be something more than a subordinate?

INteresting. YOu seem to see no difference between sexual relationship and sexual harassment.

Oh I do, and those lines are not a dichotomy.

Oh, so are you claiming that Newt harassed his mistress, or that Bill did not harass Paul JOnes?

Not necessarily, I'd need to interview the mistress. But anyone in a position of power who engages in sexual activities with another, not of equal power, may violate the law which defines sexual harassment.

Clinton's behavior with Paul Jones and Monica Lewinsky was clearly an example of sexual harassment. That said the only harm (tort) was when both of these women were used by the media and pols for their benefit.

It's not as if this type of behavior is not ubiqutous, men cheat and some women find men in power to be an object of attention. That does not excuse the men who chase skirts, but let's not pretend Bill Clinton is the exception.

Keep in mind, Quid pro Quo can be a two way street.

 

[chikenwing]

Because they did not sexually harass their subordinates.

They didn't? How odd, do you find a teacher's student or an aide to be something more than a subordinate?

INteresting. YOu seem to see no difference between sexual relationship and sexual harassment.

Oh I do, and those lines are not a dichotomy.

Oh, so are you claiming that Newt harassed his mistress, or that Bill did not harass Paul JOnes?

Not necessarily, I'd need to interview the mistress. But anyone in a position of power who engages in sexual activities with another, not of equal power, may violate the law which defines sexual harassment.

Clinton's behavior with Paul Jones and Monica Lewinsky was clearly an example of sexual harassment. That said the only harm (tort) was when both of these women were used by the media and pols for their benefit.

It's not as if this type of behavior is not ubiqutous, men cheat and some women find men in power to be an object of attention. That does not excuse the men who chase skirts, but let's not pretend Bill Clinton is the exception.

Keep in mind, Quid pro Quo can be a two way street.

WTF you admit that he harassed them,yet claim no harm,bwhahahahahaha

 

[chikenwing]

Because they did not sexually harass their subordinates.

They didn't? How odd, do you find a teacher's student or an aide to be something more than a subordinate?

INteresting. YOu seem to see no difference between sexual relationship and sexual harassment.

Oh I do, and those lines are not a dichotomy.

Oh, so are you claiming that Newt harassed his mistress, or that Bill did not harass Paul JOnes?

Not necessarily, I'd need to interview the mistress. But anyone in a position of power who engages in sexual activities with another, not of equal power, may violate the law which defines sexual harassment.

Clinton's behavior with Paul Jones and Monica Lewinsky was clearly an example of sexual harassment. That said the only harm (tort) was when both of these women were used by the media and pols for their benefit.

It's not as if this type of behavior is not ubiqutous, men cheat and some women find men in power to be an object of attention. That does not excuse the men who chase skirts, but let's not pretend Bill Clinton is the exception.

Keep in mind, Quid pro Quo can be a two way street.

You would do better to just stop now.

 

[Redfish]

Newt did not LIE about it (while under oath) to Congress. THAT was a felony and Clinton should have gone to prison for it.

Clinton misrepresented the facts, an occurrence in nearly 100% of every trial - civil and criminal - in America. In retrospect he should have followed the lead of former President Ronald Reagan, "I just don't recall", "I don't remember". Of course the issue with Clinton was sexual activities, Reagans faulty memory had to do with nation building by violence.

Reagan did not lie under oath, neither did NIxon. But Clinton did, do you understand the difference?

 

[Londoner]

They spent 70+ million investigating White Water, but found nothing. So they went phishing for a perjury trap.

Meanwhile we heard nothing from Gingrich or the Republican senate on Bin Laden. Can you imagine if they took all the energy, resources, money and time invested into Lewinsky and shifted it to things like Al Qaeda and subprimes?

Their only concern was injuring Clinton politically. They showed no interest in confronting larger problems.

 

[Wry Catcher]

They didn't? How odd, do you find a teacher's student or an aide to be something more than a subordinate?

INteresting. YOu seem to see no difference between sexual relationship and sexual harassment.

Oh I do, and those lines are not a dichotomy.

Oh, so are you claiming that Newt harassed his mistress, or that Bill did not harass Paul JOnes?

Not necessarily, I'd need to interview the mistress. But anyone in a position of power who engages in sexual activities with another, not of equal power, may violate the law which defines sexual harassment.

Clinton's behavior with Paul Jones and Monica Lewinsky was clearly an example of sexual harassment. That said the only harm (tort) was when both of these women were used by the media and pols for their benefit.

It's not as if this type of behavior is not ubiqutous, men cheat and some women find men in power to be an object of attention. That does not excuse the men who chase skirts, but let's not pretend Bill Clinton is the exception.

Keep in mind, Quid pro Quo can be a two way street.

WTF you admit that he harassed them,yet claim no harm,bwhahahahahaha

I didn't make that claim, "Judge Susan Webber Wright granted President Clinton's motion for summary judgment, ruling that Jones could not show that she had suffered any damages" [ see: Paula Jones - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia ]

Now that you've embarrassed yourself by exposing your ignorance, maybe you can defend youself by responding to the rest of my post as a reasoned adult and not a foolish hack (I doubt you can, but give it a try).

 

[ClosedCaption]

Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-GA) led the push for Bill Clinton’s impeachment. Following a disappointing election in November 1998, he announced he was stepping down as Speaker and resigning from Congress.


Gingrich later admitted that, while he was pushing for Clinton’s impeachment, he wasengaged in an affair with a Congressional aide. “There were times when I was praying and when I felt I was doing things that were wrong. But I was still doing them,” Gingrich said in 2007. He later said the situation was “complex and, obviously, I wasn’t doing things to be proud of.”

After Gingrich announced his resignation, Republicans unanimously selected Rep. Bob Livingston (R-LA) to succeed him. Livingston represented the party as Speaker-elect in the led up to the impeachment vote.

On the day of the impeachment vote, Livingston announced he was resigning following revelations that he had engaged in an extramarital affair. According to Hustler Magazine Publisher Larry Flint, who offered a reward for information about the sex lives of members of Congress, he “found four women who said they had been involved with Mr. Livingston over the last 10 years.”

Following Livingston’s resignation, which occurred on the same day the House voted on impeachment, Rep. Dennis Hastert (R-IL) quickly gained support of the Republican leadership to succeed him as Speaker-designate. He began formally serving as speaker in January 1999, and held that role while the Senate conducted their trial on the articles of impeachment.

On Thursday, Hastert was indicted on charges that he illegally structured $1.7 million in payments to an individual in an attempt to cover up prior misconduct. According to reports, the payments were allegedly intended to “conceal sexual abuse against a former male student he knew during his days as a teacher in Yorkville, Ill.” The LA Times also reported that “investigators also spoke with a second man who raised similar allegations that corroborated what the former student said.”


What do they say about glass houses?

Here is an idea.

Why not put that kind of diligence to work vetting your candidates (may have saved us the last 7 year disaster that is currently in the white house) as you do you for people you hate.? Impress someone with you honesty, provided you can muster some.

in a thread showing 3 cons going down you say the dems need to do better vetting? Thats amazing

So, that would be a no on your part. I didn't really expect any other answer.

Looks like we have something in common then eh?

 

[Wry Catcher]

Newt did not LIE about it (while under oath) to Congress. THAT was a felony and Clinton should have gone to prison for it.

Clinton misrepresented the facts, an occurrence in nearly 100% of every trial - civil and criminal - in America. In retrospect he should have followed the lead of former President Ronald Reagan, "I just don't recall", "I don't remember". Of course the issue with Clinton was sexual activities, Reagans faulty memory had to do with nation building by violence.

Reagan did not lie under oath, neither did NIxon. But Clinton did, do you understand the difference?

Nixon resigned and was not under oath at any time. One might suggest he lied when he said, "I'm not a crook".

Reagan may or may not have obsuscated the truth with his responses, clearly Clinton ofuscated the truth if he and Lewinsky only engaged in foreplay (oral sex and the use of a cigar) and he chose to understand the question as relating only to intercourse.

Under oath one is presumed to tell the truth, the whole truth and noting but the truth. We don't know what Reagan knew or remembered when he testified under oath, given his later diagnosis I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.

As for Clinton one must put their feet in his shoes, and wonder how they would respond to such an embarrassing inquisition. Of course to consider this one must have compasson and empathy, something mssing in the hearts and minds of callous conservatives.

 

[Wry Catcher]

They spent 70+ million investigating White Water, but found nothing. So they went phishing for a perjury trap.

Meanwhile we heard nothing from Gingrich or the Republican senate on Bin Laden. Can you imagine if they took all the energy, resources, money and time invested into Lewinsky and shifted it to things like Al Qaeda and subprimes?

Their only concern was injuring Clinton politically. They showed no interest in confronting larger problems.

I could not agree more. "Country First" is a slogan without substance, the only thing the Republicans want is power and control. The R's have no plans for the future, or if they do they don't want the voters to know them. They are all about assassinationg the character of Democratic candidates and using kackneyed wedge issues, false pathos and empty promises to win elections. Then, they do exactly what they claim the Democrats are doing, they lead from behind and engage in crony capitalism.

Consider one critical issue. A few months before Bush &Co. took office in Jan. 2001 Cole was attacked by Islamic Terrorists. One would think that would be Bush & Co. on their toes, and yet they were caught flat footed on Sept 11th.

Flat footed in all but one area, they had wanted a reason to engage Saddam in Iraq and then they had one. Not only could they dispose of Saddam, but they could enrich Haliburton for Cheney and have Iraqi oil for the American Oil Cartel.

The rest is history, history the current crop of R's seeking high office are working so very hard to rewrite.