AHC: Bill Clinton Impeached

[usertron2020]

I happen to like Bob Inglis myself.(1)

As for Judicial Watch, they lost a lot of pull (2) when they began trying to look into the Cheney Energy Task Force.

1) So do I. Especially considering the demonic nature of the people who have beaten him electorally. Which only goes to show you can be a hardcore right wing Republican politician and still be one of the good guys. Following his defeat for re-election in 2010 against an opponent who makes Pat Buchanan look like Rachel Maddow, Bob Inglis manned up and went to Bill Clinton to personally apologize for hating him so deeply when he had no right and no reason to do so.

That takes real character.

2) You mean right wing $$$ from the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy[SIZE=-4](tm)[/SIZE]. You don't bite the right wing fanatical hand that feeds you. That's why they are little more than a shell of what they once were. Having a legal maniac like Larry Klayman, who makes Disney look like-similes fail me- running things for you didn't help. That guy was a tailor made cartoon villain for the Clintons. He made Ken Starr look non-partisan.

 

[usertron2020]

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.

Unless YOU WANT TO SAY IT IS RELEVANT. That stupid "Wag the Dog" film coming out in 1997 didn't help. The movie was all bullshit, but it didn't stop people from being able to make the accusations they did against Clinton without having to worry about being labelled conspiracy theorists.

 

[Corbell Mark IV]

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.

Depends what you mean by work. They rarely get real "witches", but they are great for empowering various types of demagogues.

The sexual harassment witch hunt of the 90s was great at empowering feminists.

The Bill Clinton scandal, when the feminists revealed just how hypocritical they were, put an end to it, though they still keep trying to bring it back.



Oddly enough I was working alongside a number of working class, democratic women at the time. And I recall the mental gymnastics they used to defend Bill Clinton.

And then I recalled the flak I had personally taken the previous year from these women for dating a much younger woman. And I wasn't not even married.

The rationalizations for their double standard became literally insane.

A witch hunt is an irrational mob action, even if the mob leaders start out with a rational goal.

THe mistake the GOP made in this time period was to buy into the then standards of conduct and try to apply them to a political ally of the feminists. IMO

 

[AltHistoryNerd]

Here's mine:

Bill Clinton is reported to have had an affair with a 17 year old girl while helping out Joe Biden at a fundraiser. The age of consent in Delaware is 18 years old. Clinton, being vaguely familiar with Delaware consent laws, mistook the age of sexual consent for people under 30 years old (16) with the age of consent for people over the age of 30 and people in authority (18). What's worse, there was a video of the incident, which means he technically engaged in child pornography. The reports gain legs as the young woman is forced to come forward to police.

Clinton is then charged with sexual misconduct with a minor and child endangerment.

Later on, it was discovered that the encounter happened in Maryland, where the AoC is 16. The video isn't admissible in court because of Maryland's wiretapping laws. Clinton is in the clear, although Clinton's reputation is severely damaged. All of a sudden, the Paula Jones lawsuit gains legs. Another affair is brought up to light to the public by the Paula Jones lawsuit. Monica Lewinsky was discovered to have an affair with Bill Clinton, which further adds to Clinton's reputation as a sugar daddy. It doesn't look good for Bill Clinton. His approval ratings, although not stellar at the time, suddenly plummets into the high 30s. But it gets worse.

Paula Jones goes into great detail on how Bill Clinton propositioned her with money for sex, which in itself is a felony in Arkansas. That was the breaking point for Bill Clinton. Congress and the nation has officially turned on him. Clinton's approval ratings further sink into the low 20s. In short, he's a man with a mortally wounded administration. It's well known in ATL Washington circles that Newt Gingrich is secretly running the country, since Bill Clinton no longer garners the confidence he once did. Congress looks for any excuse to impeach, convict and remove Bill Clinton. At first, congress seeks to charge Clinton with prostitution. However, evidence was only sufficient enough for culpability in a civil trial, not guilt in a criminal trial. However, there was a huge cache of Cuban Cigars in Clinton's presidential humidor. To add fuel to the fire, Monica Lewinski released a book that described the sex act Clinton performed on her with a cigar tube.

This has taken a toll on the DNC. The Democratic Party gets destroyed the midterms, losing 20 seats in the House and 6 seats in the senate. Clinton knows it's over.

On January 10, 1999, the new congress impeaches Clinton on a seeming technicality; violation of the Trading With The Enemy act. 3 days later, he gets a knock on the door from Barney Frank. Barney Frank then informs Clinton that congress probably has around 60 votes for impeachment and he should probably resign.


Bill Clinton then comes on television on January 20th, and utters the following words.

"My fellow Americans, it is with great regret that I inform you that I, William Jefferson Clinton, will no longer hold the office of the presidency of the United States of America, effective January 31, 1999. My vice president, Albert Arnold Gore Jr, will serve the remainder of my term. I will not seek another office. If drafted for any other office, I will not run, if nominated, I will not accept, if elected, I will not serve. Thank you, and may God bless America."

 

[Orville_third]

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.

First, you know the sites which UNSCOM demanded to see included Saddam's Presidential Palaces. You don't honestly think he was crazy enough to store WMD in his own home, do you?
Second, the majority of targets had nothing to do with WMD (See the Arkin article cited below).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombin...998)#Facilities_not_known_to_be_producing_WMD

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.

Except, of course for the fact that as said above, most of the targets had nothing to do with WMD, Intelligence sources could not confirm many of the targets contained or had anything to do with WMD, and finally, a source who the US considered credible enough to quote as a major influence on its policy totally contradicted his claims.
Read this letter from Clinton:
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=50693&st=Kamil&st1=Kamel
Then tell me how his statements are affected bv Kamil's remark that all Iraq's WMD were destroyed.

 

[Cook]

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=50693&st=Kamil&st1=Kamel

Then tell me how his statements are affected bv Kamil's remark that all Iraq's WMD were destroyed.

The only mention of Hussein Kamil in that entire letter was that he had defected to Jordan, prompting Saddam to provide further documentation to United Nations inspectors, documentation that showed that Saddam’s weapons programs had continued even when he’d been cooperating with UNSCOM and destroying chemical weapons in the desert.

Hussein Kamil returned to Iraq in 1995, confident of the reception that he would receive from his Father-in-Law, that alone cast doubt on the reliability of any information he’d provided.

Except, of course for the fact that as said above, most of the targets had nothing to do with WMD...

You are mixing up to separate subjects; Clinton ordered air strikes on Iraq because of Saddam’s non-compliance with the UN, the selection of targets was conducted by the military.

Not surprisingly, selected targets included those that would degrade Iraq’s air-defenses and the Iraqi army’s Command, Control and Communications capability. Destroying air defenses and C-Cube isn’t the least bit surprising: it would make it safer for the aircrews carrying out those missions and any follow-on missions. Given that there was a strong expectation at the time that we would have to invade Iraq, such targets made perfect sense. This involved an international coalition providing forces and were called Operations Desert Thunder and Desert Viper.

First, you know the sites which UNSCOM demanded to see included Saddam's Presidential Palaces. You don't honestly think he was crazy enough to store WMD in his own home, do you?

Under the terms of the ceasefire agreement, anywhere in Iraq was open for inspection without obstruction. Since Saddam had more than a dozen presidential compounds, which combined covered an area measured in square kilometres, he could have hidden a great deal in them and it was suspected at the time that he was. Should we have just taken Saddam’s good word on it instead? It’s not like a man who fed people he didn’t like into mincing machines and bombed villages with mustard gas would ever consider stooping to lying is it?

You seem intent on derailing the thread with this; you haven’t provided any way whereby this could have lead to Clinton’s impeachment, instead you just keep repeating that ‘he lied!’

How about either posting a plausible scenario using this or else going to Chat?

 

[usertron2020]

Depends what you mean by work. They rarely get real "witches", but they are great for empowering various types of demagogues.

The sexual harassment witch hunt of the 90s was great at empowering feminists.

The Bill Clinton scandal, when the feminists revealed just how hypocritical they were, put an end to it, though they still keep trying to bring it back.



Oddly enough I was working alongside a number of working class, democratic women at the time. And I recall the mental gymnastics they used to defend Bill Clinton.

And then I recalled the flak I had personally taken the previous year from these women for dating a much younger woman. And I wasn't not even married.

The rationalizations for their double standard became literally insane.

A witch hunt is an irrational mob action, even if the mob leaders start out with a rational goal.

THE mistake the GOP made in this time period was to buy into the then standards of conduct and try to apply them to a political ally of the feminists. IMO

Well, considering the hypocrisy of the witch hunting members of the GOP, it made it easy for the feminists to defend Clinton. As did I. When the lab tests came back on the dress, however... OTOH, I think you'll agree that it did not meet the standards for Impeachment & Removal. (1) Moreover, the sexual peccadilloes of the people going after Clinton only made them look ridiculous. It was actually amusing for me to watch the Republicans and Fox News (but I repeat myself) do their own gymnastics defending these guys while at the same time lambasting "Slick Willie" and parroting the phrase "Higher Standards!".

Double Standards. They cut both ways. Democrats, as liberals, ARE NOT expected to be defenders of Family Values. If the Republicans are going to preach such an issue, they have to be expected to have their feet put to the fire far more harshly than the Dems. Conversely, in the political bases of the two parties, I have noticed that Democrats will turn on "their guy" for financial corruption much more ferociously than Republicans will. After all, Republicans are all about getting "Big Government" off our backs. Including the IRS, FEC, and SEC.

1) I was around for Watergate. I was a true believer in Nixon till the bitter end (hey, I was 12-14). It was his resignation that finally told me he was Guilty. The Impeachment process was mostly a bipartisan affair covering very serious crimes, from illegal wire-tapping, break-ins, conducting an illegal war in Cambodia, and the coverup of all the previous crimes.

Monicagate was a coverup of 1 (Clinton). TWO, if you want to count Monica. And it was perjury in a pre-set perjury trap that was $70,000,000 and 6 long years of work by the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy[SIZE=-4](tm)[/SIZE] in the making. And by the time of Election Day, 1998, John & Jane Q. Public were well aware of this. The Republican Base was delighted (the worst elements would have been happy to FAKE the lab results), but the Independents were disgusted (far more at the GOP by this time than Clinton), and the Democrats were white hot with fury.(2)

2) Mostly over the fact that the severely gerrymandered House Republicans flat out refused to engage in any meaningful compromise with Congressional Democrats. The Impeachment was an act of political sexual self-gratification presented to their base, which was howling for Clinton blood, come what may.

 

[Paul V McNutt]

President Al Gore 1999 -2009 is remembered for the health care plan passed in 2001. After the economic crisis of 2008 Republican Mitt Romney won the White House.

 

[Corbell Mark IV]

Well, considering the hypocrisy of the witch hunting members of the GOP, it made it easy for the feminists to defend Clinton. As did I. When the lab tests came back on the dress, however... OTOH, I think you'll agree that it did not meet the standards for Impeachment & Removal. (1) Moreover, the sexual peccadilloes of the people going after Clinton only made them look ridiculous. It was actually amusing for me to watch the Republicans and Fox News (but I repeat myself) do their own gymnastics defending these guys while at the same time lambasting "Slick Willie" and parroting the phrase "Higher Standards!".
....

I don't see it. It was shocking to me, in the mindset of the time, that the feminists would defend the Big Guy on Campus and supported the "sluts and nuts" attacks on the various victims.

And sex with Monica did not meet the standards for impeachment. But the sexual harassment of others and the coverup might have.

Bill Clinton didn't just have "sexual peccadilloes", he was revealed as a crude and cruel man.

 

[Cook]

And sex with Monica did not meet the standards for impeachment.

Good thing for him she never filed a sexual harassment lawsuit.

 

[usertron2020]

Good thing for him she never filed a sexual harassment lawsuit.

Which of course brings up the word "consensual". Ironically, the Linda Tripp tapes exonerates Clinton of sexual harassment of Monica, while Paula Jones' behavior post-Impeachment does the same regarding her claims against Clinton.

 

[usertron2020]

I don't see it. It was shocking to me, in the mindset of the time, that the feminists would defend the Big Guy on Campus and supported the "sluts and nuts" attacks on the various victims.

And sex with Monica did not meet the standards for impeachment. But the sexual harassment of others and the coverup might have.

Bill Clinton didn't just have "sexual peccadilloes", he was revealed as a crude and cruel man.

Which brings up the POV of who ever the person is looking at this.

Liberal: Two consenting adults. Gross, but nobody's business but the Clinton Family's, and God's.

Independent: Gross, shameful, disgusting, disgracing of his office, humiliating his family, embarrassing his country, but not something to turn the country upside-down over. And what's the deal with all those people behind Linda Tripp & Paula Jones? Why did she fire her first set of lawyers (Davis & Cammaratta?) after they'd already gotten her the best deal she was going to get?

Conservative: WE GOT HIM! *Renfield voice* "Hehheh-hehheh-hehheh-hehheh!"

 

[Corbell Mark IV]

...while Paula Jones' behavior post-Impeachment does the same regarding her claims against Clinton.

In what way? Because she posed nude?

 

[Cook]

Which of course brings up the word "consensual".

You may have different legislation, but here if she'd filed a sexual harasment lawsuit against him at a later date and his defence was 'it was consensual', his arse would be grass and she'd be a combine harvester; she was a junior government employee, he was her superior and it was a sexual relationship that took place in his office.

I'm talking civil lawsuit, not impeachment. I'm honestly suprised that she never filed one after he'd left the White House even.

 

[usertron2020]

In what way? Because she posed nude?

Uh, it was a LOT more than that. She was clearly cashing in after Impeachment, when her "handlers" like Susan Carpenter-McMillan had filled her empty little head with the idea that she was Saint Paula of Arc. To this day, Sean Hannity STILL calls Linda Tripp, a pariah to all but the most extreme surviving Clinton-haters, a "saint". But even Hannity threw up his hands and pulled his head under his jacket following both Paula Jones' photos and her celebrity boxing match with Tonya Harding.(1)

1) I wonder if the Clintons had ringside seats? It was deliciously lampooned on SNL, with Amy Poehler as a jubilantly victorious Tonya Harding and Rachel Dratch as a badly beaten up Paula Jones. Whatever entered that moron's microscopic little mind to enter a boxing ring with an Olympian!?

This is why no one believes her anymore. How can anyone believe that this woman would have ever said "no" to her governor when she was willing to do all this?

You may have different legislation, but here if she'd filed a sexual harasment lawsuit against him at a later date and his defence was 'it was consensual', his arse would be grass and she'd be a combine harvester; she was a junior government employee, he was her superior and it was a sexual relationship that took place in his office.

I'm talking civil lawsuit, not impeachment. I'm honestly suprised that she never filed one after he'd left the White House even.

If you read the transcripts of the Tripp tapes, you will see clearly that if she was not the aggressor, it had all the elements of a porn movie. I.E., two people find themselves in one room, one person makes the first move, and suddenly it's (from the viewer's POV): "Huh? Where did all this come from?" Lewinsky herself openly declared that getting into a relationship with Clinton was considered by her to be quite desirable. Classic case of the secretary having a hopeless crush on the Boss, only to find that in fact the Boss IS interested in her. She doesn't make the first move, but she is more than ready, willing, and able to make the second move.

It sounds to me like the harassment laws in your country are designed for Deterrence, not so much punishment. After all, what happens in your country if the woman responds to the superior's advancements? And doesn't wish to press charges? Does the company/government press charges on their own anyway? OTL the Paula Jones suit was basically a trojan horse that the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy[SIZE=-4](tm)[/SIZE] had been building for years.

 

[Corbell Mark IV]

Uh, it was a LOT more than that. She was clearly cashing in after Impeachment, when her "handlers" like Susan Carpenter-McMillan had filled her empty little head with the idea that she was Saint Paula of Arc. To this day, Sean Hannity STILL calls Linda Tripp, a pariah to all but the most extreme surviving Clinton-haters, a "saint". But even Hannity threw up his hands and pulled his head under his jacket following both Paula Jones' photos and her celebrity boxing match with Tonya Harding.(1)

1) I wonder if the Clintons had ringside seats? It was deliciously lampooned on SNL, with Amy Poehler as a jubilantly victorious Tonya Harding and Rachel Dratch as a badly beaten up Paula Jones. Whatever entered that moron's microscopic little mind to enter a boxing ring with an Olympian!?

This is why no one believes her anymore. How can anyone believe that this woman would have ever said "no" to her governor when she was willing to do all this?
....

And this IMO undermines the left's narrative of the GOP as the hypocritical bad guys here.

In your opinion since she revealed herself to be a "bad girl" then she couldn't have been sexually harassed.

THis is classic old school blaming the victim right up there with "she asked for it cause she dressed slutty", straight from the 1950s.

This is hypocrisy coming from the Party/liberals that claim to be the party/ideology of feminism and female empowerment far worse than people pursuing sexual harassment charges having affairs (harassment =/=affairs).

First of all, even if she was a "bad girl" who was open to the idea of being seduced by Bill Clinton, that doesn't change the fact that he used State Police to bring her to his room and abused his position of power to protect himself afterwards. And the girl, no matter how "bad" or "moronic" always has the right of saying no. And any girl no matter how "bad" or "moronic" will say no sometimes.

Second of all, after being demonized by the President of the United States and all his powerful allies, her life was in ruins. There is nothing wrong with her trying to use her "fame" to salvage something from her life, even posing nude or God Forbid something as morally questionable as boxing...

Third of all, the feminists and democrats and media who rallied around Bill Clinton did not have all this "evidence" that Paula Jones was a "bad girl" at the time in question. (not that if they did it would justify their behavior, IMO)



PS I apologize for going into chat area, but this is very relevant to the thinking of the people of the time especially regarding their motivations.

 

[BlairWitch749]

Well, considering the hypocrisy of the witch hunting members of the GOP, it made it easy for the feminists to defend Clinton. As did I. When the lab tests came back on the dress, however... OTOH, I think you'll agree that it did not meet the standards for Impeachment & Removal. (1) Moreover, the sexual peccadilloes of the people going after Clinton only made them look ridiculous. It was actually amusing for me to watch the Republicans and Fox News (but I repeat myself) do their own gymnastics defending these guys while at the same time lambasting "Slick Willie" and parroting the phrase "Higher Standards!".


Monicagate was a coverup of 1 (Clinton). TWO, if you want to count Monica. And it was perjury in a pre-set perjury trap that was $70,000,000 and 6 long years of work by the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy[SIZE=-4](tm)[/SIZE] in the making. And by the time of Election Day, 1998, John & Jane Q. Public were well aware of this. The Republican Base was delighted (the worst elements would have been happy to FAKE the lab results), but the Independents were disgusted (far more at the GOP by this time than Clinton), and the Democrats were white hot with fury.(2)

UT,

lying under oath, conspiracy to withhold and destroy evidence, witness tampering and obstruction of justice are worthy of removal from office... Martha Stewart did shit less than that and got 12 months in prison

forget how hypocritical the accusers were... Bill Clinton engaged in the following scenario

Boss A (bill) sexually solicited employee B (Jones)
employee B sued Boss A for sexual harassment
employee B's legal team discovers Boss A has a sexual relationship with employee C (monica)
employee B's legal team brings up relationship with employee C as material evidence of Boss A's habit of soliciting women in the work place to enhance their case
Boss A instructs employee C to destroy gifts/photographs (physical evidence of their affair) and to deny the affair to the grand jury and himself denies the affair (witness tampering, conspiracy and perjury)


in any real world case like this Boss A would be referred by employee B's team for criminal prosecution

and it wasn't a perjury trap... it was material evidence to be disclosed to a grand jury;

 

[Derek Jackson]

The existence of a wholly consensual relatinship initiated by employee b with alleged harrasser A is NOT relevant to the claim that C was harrassed

 

[Cook]

If you read the transcripts of the Tripp tapes, you will see clearly that if she was not the aggressor, it had all the elements of a porn movie...Classic case of the secretary having a hopeless crush on the Boss, only to find that in fact the Boss IS interested in her. She doesn't make the first move, but she is more than ready, willing, and able to make the second move...After all, what happens in your country if the woman responds to the superior's advancements? And doesn't wish to press charges?

It is possible that it is different there, but here, had she chosen to come forward, even after he’d left office, she would have easily won a civil suit against him:

‘She was in a junior position your honour, and he was is a position of great authority, a position which he could easily have used to damage her career and reputation; she felt pressured and obliged by the situation to show enthusiasm for his sexual advances and continue the relationship despite her awareness of its inappropriateness and her disgust with his perversions. Perversions which, your honour, we shall, regrettably, lay before the court in detail…’

The existence of a wholly consensual relatinship initiated by...

Well see there’s the thing; because of the situation, one is in a position of authority over the other, it cannot be considered a consensual relationship and who initiated it would be under suspicion. A person in a government position of authority is obliged not to accept the advances of a person whom they have a position of authority over, particularly on the work premises.

…is NOT relevant to the claim that C was harrassed

That an individual has a history of inappropriate relationships with other staff would be considered very relevant.

 

[BlairWitch749]

The existence of a wholly consensual relatinship initiated by employee c with alleged harrasser A is NOT relevant to the claim that b was harrassed

it establishes a pattern of soliciting subordinates in the work place and goes to credibility