AHC: Bill Clinton Impeached
- Thread starter Nofix
- Start date
So... Bill sleeps with Anna Chapman, then?
Considering she'd be about 13 or 14 at the time, yeah, that would do it!
Vitter & Spitzer with w/ prostitutes, ironic that Vitter is still pretty popular in LA
Ensign tried to cover it up and gave the woman's husband a job once he found out his wife had an affair with Ensign and that's where he got fucked (no pun intended)
usertron2020
Donor
I had been referring to simple ordinary mistresses, not hookers. And not multiple partners. So if a Dem politician has ONE girlfriend while in an unhappy marriage, he has as much of a chance of surviving the scandal as the GOPer who violates the LETTER of campaign finance laws, but only to a small degree.
Dem: Well, of course these liberals are going to chase the skirts!
Rep: Well, of course these conservatives are in it for the money!
Last edited:
Orville_third
Banned
So everyone's ignoring the fact that, around the time the impeachment vote was to occur in the House, Clinton ordered an attack on another nation? An attack, which was found later to be based on the lie that said nation was in possession of weapons of mass destruction?
usertron2020
Donor
And of course, Clinton knew that such an action would produce a mass "rally-'round-the-flag" by House Republicans
, and Fox New would NEVER scream "Wag The Dog!" 24/7 until after the vote was completed. No wonder the House voted against Impeachment. Uh, waitaminute...And AIUI, said lie was never 100% proven to be so until the tanks rolled into downtown Baghdad. Mind, I have no more love for the Iraq War than you do. But I get the impression that you believe it was all about "blood for oil", while I am metaphysically certain it was all about W doing as his mommy told him to do and kill the man who tried to kill her husband/his daddy.
Orville_third
Banned
Well, there was ample evidence, from Kamil's interview to the testimony of the UN inspectors to prove that Clinton wasn't telling the whole truth. I also disagree with both assumptions. I think it's more about power. Saddam was a convenient scapegoat.
usertron2020
Donor
1) Isn't that simply testimonial evidence?
2) Didn't Saddam kick out the inspectors before the missile strikes?
3) Regarding Clinton or W?
Cook
Banned
...inaccurate intelligence information. Information that the United States, lacking assets on the ground in Iraq, did not have a means of confirming in greater detail during Clinton's presidency. Since there is no means of determining otherwise during his presidency this is irrelevent as far as impeachment is concerned.
Orville_third
Banned
1- The US and UNSCOM were more than happy to cite Kamil's testimony to prove that Iraq HAD WMDs.
2- According to Richard Butler, they were withdrawn on the statement that the US's ambassador couldn't guarantee their safety.
3- Both.
Except of course for the fact that UNSCOM did in fact contain spies from the CIA.
...
1) You don't bite the hand that feeds you. They wanted those Clinton SCOTUS appointments.
2) Not quite. Democrats don't pretend to be moral champions, and Republicans (whatever they may claim) are not perceived to have the interests of the little guy in their hearts. So if a Democrat is caught cheating on his wife, he may survive it. If a Republican is caught with his hand in the cookie jar, if it isn't strictly illegal, he can survive it.
The GOP didn't know, at that time, of the double standard you mention. Or at least didn't realize how much of a double standard there was.
By the standards of the time, they thought they had uncovered a serious pattern of sexual harassment.
usertron2020
Donor
By the standards of the time, they thought they had uncovered the perjury trap they had been seeking since early 1992. Considering all the sexual harassment committed (and exposed, thank you Larry Flynt) by Clinton's most powerful (and harshest) critics in the House, it's no wonder that Democrats rallied to the polls in such record numbers for a sixth year incumbent off-year election.
To qualify for the term sexual harassment said activity MUST BE UNWELCOME. Considering the actions pre- and post- said "harassments" by the likes of Juanita Broaderrick, Kathleen Wiley, and Paula Jones; plus the behind the scenes activities of semi-amateur/professional Republican political operatives like Linda Tripp and Lucianne Goldberg, it's no surprise that the American people (outside of the majority of registered Republicans, who at the time either didn't care or had been too inculcated/indoctrinated by the propaganda of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy[SIZE=-4](tm)[/SIZE]) didn't believe them or the "purity"
of their motives, or the motives of people like the House Impeachment Managers.Though I don't deny that Clinton was guilty of sexual harassment (1); based on the existence and testimony of the Jane Doe's, who clearly did NOT seek fame and fortune, vengeance, or political hatchet work in favor of the Republicans. And kudos to then Congressman Lindsey Graham, who showed that while he was a True Believer, his votes (two for, two against the four introduced articles of impeachment) showed he was no political hack. And the only one I could say that of among the 13 House Impeachment Managers. Probably explains why he got elected to a Senatorship in South Carolina, AND why the Tea Party seems to think he's a borderline RINO.
1) It just simply wasn't something worthy of turning the course of the history of Western Civilization. High Crimes and Misdemeanors had always been thought to mean actions committed in the performance of one's office as President, not in one's private life, or before entering office. If the Supreme Court had not fallen flat on their collective faces by making their ridiculous 9-0 ivory tower thinking decision declaring that the President "would suffer no undo distractions by being forced to face civil suits while in office" none of this would ever have happened.
Does anybody think that the Susan Carpenter-McMillan branch of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy[SIZE=-4](tm)[/SIZE] would have continued Paula Jones' suit if it couldn't be enacted until AFTER Clinton left office? It's no coincidence that Judicial Watch and the American Spectator had their funding yanked by their uber-right wing billionaire backers shortly after W was sworn in.
Last edited:
As I understand it there was a rather clear case of a young woman willingly having a sexual relationship with a powerful married man
It was imoral but NOT harrassment.
And Republicans knew it becasue they knew about Monica care of her 'friend' Linda Tripp
You're not getting that there was a witch hunt mentality at the time, not limited to Clinton or politics.
And sure Monica was consensual. But the complaint was from Paula Jones. Bill Clinton's behavior with Monica was just supporting evidence.
usertron2020
Donor
1) NOT trying to engage in ridicule, but your grammar makes it hard to understand your exact point being made. And I really DO want to understand you.
2) After everything that bubblehead Paula Jones has done since raising her suit, surely you DON'T think that whatever may have happened, or not happened, between Clinton and Jones; constituted lack of consent, and therefore harassment!?
3) NOT of harassment, only immorality, which I freely acknowledge in this case.
1) NOT trying to engage in ridicule, but your grammar makes it hard to understand your exact point being made. And I really DO want to understand you.
2) After everything that bubblehead Paula Jones has done since raising her suit, surely you DON'T think that whatever may have happened, or not happened, between Clinton and Jones; constituted lack of consent, and therefore harassment!?
3) NOT of harassment, only immorality, which I freely acknowledge in this case.
My point here is to simply to provide a MUCH NEEDED perspective on what was going on in the minds of Republicans who supported impeaching Clinton.
I have not trying to engage in political chat.
usertron2020
Donor
You are right, I forgot this was in post-1900, not CHAT.
And still don't know exactly what you meant. Other than that "witch hunts don't work"? They DO work, when used against the hypocrisy of the witch hunters themselves.Orville_third
Banned
I happen to like Bob Inglis myself.
As for Judicial Watch, they lost a lot of pull when they began trying to look into the Cheney Energy Task Force.
As for Judicial Watch, they lost a lot of pull when they began trying to look into the Cheney Energy Task Force.
Cook
Banned
UNSCOM’s movements were being obstructed, which is why Iraq was being threatened with air strikes; they weren’t giving UNSCOM the free access that the armistice terms demanded. Which was profoundly ridiculous when it was in Iraqi interests to allow UNSCOM unfettered access to anywhere they wanted to go so that they could verify that there really were no more remaining chemical weapons. That the C.I.A. may have been receiving intel direct from UNSCOM members didn’t give them any information they wouldn’t have received anyway from the report made by those same members to the UN and then passed on to UN member nations. The only way the US could have known that there were not chemical weapons still being hidden in Iraq was if the Iraqis had allowed UNSCOM unobstructed access to where-ever they’d wanted to go; which would have negated any reason for the bombing.
Saying that Clinton should have been impeached ‘because he bombed a foreign country based on a lie’ is invalid; Iraq was bombed because of inaccurate intel and because they were obstructing the UN inspectors whose job it was to verify that they had actually destroyed the chemical weapons. The terms of the armistice required that inspectors be on hand for all chemical weapons destruction, so that all weapons could be accounted for, that the Iraqi’s had destroying stockpiles without UN inspection was, quite simply, a counter-productive move on their part.
But the fact remains, Clinton ordered airstrikes based on the best intelligence assessment of the time, it was not a lie, and there was no means at the time of determining otherwise, so for the purposes of impeachment it is irrelevant.