An Impeachment Analysis

[KCConservative]

Is he impeached yet?

 

[danarhea]

This isn't news, it's editorial opinion. If you click on the authors name, it leads to a list of articles many of which first appeared under the banner of "Clinton Watch." Hardly fair and impartial.

As far as Bush, eventhough he should be impeached 10 X's over, it will never happen with a republican controlled congress, so the topic is not really worth discussing.

Kind of funny that many on your side rail about the Clinton Watch website, but use the Bush Watch website to find articles critical of Bush. Now here is the irony......... When Bush first took office, Clinton Watch was CHANGED to Bush Watch. Kind of funny you guys calling the very site you use for info biased.

Is Bush a poor president who would sell his mother out for a buck? You betcha. So was Clinton. Its kind of dishonest of you to pour it on Bush while, at the same time, giving Clinton a free pass on his own misdeeds. I might not be liked by many who support Bush, but at least I saw through the BS of Clinton too. Some of you guys like me now, but I can tell you, when Clinton was in office, your kind hated my guts. LOL.

 

[Stinger]

Well the thing is Clinton was impeached for total BS reasons.

Oh that's an intelligent arguement. Clinton was impeached because he broke the law and engage in misdeamenor behavior as President. Everything Bush has done he has done under color of law, with the approval of the legal authories in place to make such judgements and with the express votes of the congress.

W will be impeached for doing things that have actually harmed the country and our government.

While in the first place I disagree with your premise, that's not ground for impeachment.

That's the BIG difference between the two.

Yes Clinton broke the law, repeatedly and disrepected a federal court and a federal grand jury. Bush has not broken the law.

If the Democrats don't impeach him because they are afraid of their image perhaps we should hold them accountable for that after we get W and his cronies out of office.

They won't impeach him because they know they don't have grounds to nor the votes to.

 

[easyt65]

Oh that's an intelligent arguement. Clinton was impeached because he broke the law and engage in misdeamenor behavior as President.

Wrong - FELONY! Lying - giving false testimony before a Federal Grand jury is a Felony!

 

[Stinger]

Wrong - FELONY! Lying - giving false testimony before a Federal Grand jury is a Felony!

And the lying before a federal court and the subornation of perjury and the witness tampering, all felonies.

His behavior in the Oval Office with an employee was misdemeanor behavior as that term is used in the Constitution, misbehavior a misdeed (not a legal misdemeanor offense) and impeachable.

 

[Stinger]

It's all stil pay back for the Clinton impeachment because most liberals including most on this board have no idea why he was impeached. Ask them, they haven't a clue to the actual facts.

 

[Stinger]

In the context in which he broke the law, yes. Who wouldn't lie so their wife wouldn't find out that they had been boning their secretary?

You aren't serious are you. First it wasn't news to Hillary that Bill screwed around on her. Secound since when did the law excuse you from telling the truth in court because it might be embarassing? He was an employer being sued for sexual harassment and under the law which HE signed into effect was compelled to give truthful testimony as to any sexual relationships he had with any subordinate employee and testify as to any gifts or rewards he may have given that employee which other employees did not recieve. EVERY employer in the country is subject to those laws. He lied, he urged others to ly and denied a citizen thier rightful day in court. And let's not forget urged a very young impressionable woman to commit a felony and then allowed her to commit that felony for which she was in danger of having to go to federal prison, quite a guy isn't he. And he remains the darling of the Democrats even though he has no respect for women whatsoever and will use them as he sees fit.

So if we now accept your standard who on earth has to tell the truth in court anymore?

 

[Stinger]

Cassapolis,



I suppose breaking the law is a BS reason.

Heck why should Democrats be concerned with men employers sexually harassing their female employees? When did they ever care about sexual assualts on women under emotional distress?

 

[Ivan The Terrible]

Stinger,

Heck why should Democrats be concerned with men employers sexually harassing their female employees? When did they ever care about sexual assualts on women under emotional distress?

The Democrats have the real "culture of corruption".

 

[Navy Pride]

Well the thing is Clinton was impeached for total BS reasons. W will be impeached for doing things that have actually harmed the country and our government. That's the BIG difference between the two. If the Democrats don't impeach him because they are afraid of their image perhaps we should hold them accountable for that after we get W and his cronies out of office.

"Slick Willie" was impeached for commiting a felony, Lying to a federal judge under oath.That is called perjurty.....

 

[Navy Pride]

A president can only be impeached if he has committed a crime........******* off democrats and beating them every time is not a crime..............

 

[easyt65]

******* off democrats and beating them every time is not a crime..............

But it sure is FUN! :smile:

 

[Ivan The Terrible]

Navy Pride,

Slick Willie

Makes me :rofl every time!

 

[Navy Pride]

Yes, I saw those too use some credible sources please, I'm not denying anything I just want good sources to base my beliefs on.

P.S. I didn't bother reading your rant because I don't generally consider opinions to be facts. So please respond with some decent links to back up your allegations

So if a Liberal cites CNN that is a fair and unbiased source huh?:rofl

 

[Navy Pride]

Navy Pride,



Makes me :rofl every time!

You gotta give him credit Ivan, he was a slick one............Draft Dodger, womanizer, doper, and unconvicted rapist but he came out smelling like a rose..................

 

[Hoot]

I'm sounding like a broken record, but I'd like to remind all of you that this was the first time in history that a civil court case was allowed to proceed against a sitting president. ( Paula Jones v Clinton)

Had the USSC not made such a stupid decision...a decision that they had previously never allowed to happen, then Clinton never would've been placed in this position, and we never would've learned about Monica.

You see, Clinton, and most reasonable Americans, want their elected president to be able to concentrate on their duties, and NOT be tied up in a court of law giving depositions, having meetings with lawyers, and taking time out for appearences in court, when the single most important job in the world is at stake.

All Clinton asked for was a "stay." A delay in the proceedings until after his term of service. Then Paula could've had her day in court. Never once did Clinton claim to be "above the law," as the right wing nut jobs screamed.

Each of you has to weigh what is the greater good for our nation...allowing one individual to sue any president in a court of law, or allowing NO CIVIL court cases to be brought against our president until after his duly elected duty.

It's just simple, basic commen sense people, and more so then that, it's what's best for our nation. But hey, they had to get Clinton on something, didn't they?

As much as I dislike Bush, I would never want to see him tied up in court because of a civil proceeding. ( He has a hard enough time concentrating as it is)

You people that are so gleeful should realize that allowing this civil case to proceed placed a far bigger stain on the White House then was ever found on that blue dress.

But go ahead...have your laughs...it's America who suffered, and now all future presidents can be subjected to the single most idiotic ruling the USSC ever brought down.

Congratulations. You just screwed America, and some of you are happy about it.

 

[Navy Pride]

I'm sounding like a broken record, but I'd like to remind all of you that this was the first time in history that a civil court case was allowed to proceed against a sitting president. ( Paula Jones v Clinton)

Had the USSC not made such a stupid decision...a decision that they had previously never allowed to happen, then Clinton never would've been placed in this position, and we never would've learned about Monica.

You see, Clinton, and most reasonable Americans, want their elected president to be able to concentrate on their duties, and NOT be tied up in a court of law giving depositions, having meetings with lawyers, and taking time out for appearences in court, when the single most important job in the world is at stake.

All Clinton asked for was a "stay." A delay in the proceedings until after his term of service. Then Paula could've had her day in court. Never once did Clinton claim to be "above the law," as the right wing nut jobs screamed.

Each of you has to weigh what is the greater good for our nation...allowing one individual to sue any president in a court of law, or allowing NO CIVIL court cases to be brought against our president until after his duly elected duty.

It's just simple, basic commen sense people, and more so then that, it's what's best for our nation. But hey, they had to get Clinton on something, didn't they?

As much as I dislike Bush, I would never want to see him tied up in court because of a civil proceeding. ( He has a hard enough time concentrating as it is)

You people that are so gleeful should realize that allowing this civil case to proceed placed a far bigger stain on the White House then was ever found on that blue dress.

But go ahead...have your laughs...it's America who suffered, and now all future presidents can be subjected to the single most idiotic ruling the USSC ever brought down.

Congratulations. You just screwed America, and some of you are happy about it.

If you and I were convicted for the same crime "Slick Willie" was we would have got 6 months in a federal penitentary............"The Slickster" skated...........

 

[KCConservative]

It's just simple, basic commen sense people, and more so then that, it's what's best for our nation. But hey, they had to get Clinton on something, didn't they?

He chose to lie under oath all by himself, hoot. Sorry, I know it stings that your man got caught.

 

[Hoot]

So, if I'm understanding all of you correctly, you're saying you agree that civil court cases should be allowed to proceed against sitting presidents?!

 

[Navy Pride]

So, if I'm understanding all of you correctly, you're saying you agree that civil court cases should be allowed to proceed against sitting presidents?!

Sure if they commit a felony like "The Slickster" did........

 

[cnredd]

Had the USSC not made such a stupid decision...a decision that they had previously never allowed to happen, then Clinton never would've been placed in this position, and we never would've learned about Monica.

Wrong...From Rutgers University...

On January 15, Starr obtained approval from Attorney General Janet Reno, who in turn sought and received an order from the United States Court of Appeals, to expand the scope of the Whitewater probe into the new allegations. On the following day, a meeting between Ms. Lewinsky and Ms. Tripp at a hotel was secretly recorded pursuant to a court order, with federal agents then confronting Ms. Lewinsky at the end of the meeting with charges of her perjury and demanding that she cooperate in providing evidence against the President. Ms. Lewinsky initially declined to cooperate, and told the FBI and other investigators that much of what she had told Ms. Tripp was not true.

Catch that?...RENO gave the greenlight...NOT Starr...She even went to the Court of Appeals to make sure everything was legit...

And I got news for ya...The reason why we've "heard of Monica" is because of Bill Clinton...period...

If he didn't try to circumvent the law and committed two felonies, Monica would still be a stranger to the public...

You remind of the guy who gets arrested in Scooby Doo..."If it weren't for those meddlin' kids, he would've gotten away with it."...:roll:

You see, Clinton, and most reasonable Americans, want their elected president to be able to concentrate on their duties, and NOT be tied up in a court of law giving depositions, having meetings with lawyers, and taking time out for appearences in court, when the single most important job in the world is at stake.

It doesn't matter what you perceive most reasonable Americans WANT....Through the Constition, the American people DEMAND that the President upholds his oath...That trumps whatever any individual would like to believe...

All Clinton asked for was a "stay." A delay in the proceedings until after his term of service. Then Paula could've had her day in court. Never once did Clinton claim to be "above the law," as the right wing nut jobs screamed.

Wrong again...From the same source as above...

The President's attorneys failed in efforts to block Starr's expansion of his investigation, which also included whether the President himself had lied under oath in his own deposition taken in the Paula Jones litigation. In July 1998, after being granted sweeping immunity from prosecution by Special Prosecutor Starr, Ms. Lewinsky admitted that she in fact had had a sexual relationship with the President that did not include intercourse, but denied that she had ever been asked to lie about the relationship by the President or by those close to him.

As we can see...Clinton didn't want it delayed...He wanted the whole shebang stopped!...He only went the delay route AFTER he tried to have the whole invesigation nixed...

Each of you has to weigh what is the greater good for our nation...allowing one individual to sue any president in a court of law, or allowing NO CIVIL court cases to be brought against our president until after his duly elected duty.

What you're suggesting insinuates the President should be treated as someone other than a regular US citizen...

That's "above the law" nomatter how you spin it...

I got a better idea...How about electing a President that doesn't get himself wrapped up in civil court cases?

It's just simple, basic commen sense people, and more so then that, it's what's best for our nation. But hey, they had to get Clinton on something, didn't they?

Clinton got himself...If Clinton didn't do anything wrong, there'd be nothing wrong to "get him on"...

As much as I dislike Bush, I would never want to see him tied up in court because of a civil proceeding. ( He has a hard enough time concentrating as it is)

Cheap shot notwithstanding, if he did something that deserves a civil investigation, what shakes out will be his own doing...I wouldn't wait on anything...

You people that are so gleeful should realize that allowing this civil case to proceed placed a far bigger stain on the White House then was ever found on that blue dress.

There is no glee...I am saddened that any impeachment process would have to be done...I hold too much respect for the office more than any one person that holds it....

But go ahead...have your laughs...it's America who suffered, and now all future presidents can be subjected to the single most idiotic ruling the USSC ever brought down.

Once again, the USSC is irrelevant...

Congratulations. You just screwed America, and some of you are happy about it.

Clinton screwed himself...

But certain people want to blame Monica, Tripp, Starr, USSC, Republican leaders....anybody but the guilty one...

You know...The guy who admitted it?...

 

[Rachel]

This is an extremely good article on issues of impeachment. Seems that most Democratic leaders have read this article, or one like it, because they are distancing themselves from this movement, preferring to concentrate their resources on 2008, although a few are still making it an issue.

Why not impeach? Because it is not a good political issue. The Republicans did not gain much politically by impeaching Clinton, and the result for the Democrats would be pretty much the same if they tried to impeach Bush.

My prediction is that, if Democrats really try to impeach Bush, provided they win the House in 2006, the results will hurt them, rather than help them.

What does everyone else think?

Article is here.

I'm glad to see some democrats have finally come to their senses.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Hmmm...Clinton was impeached for committing felonies. That doesn't sound like a "BS" impeachment to me.

What, the Rapist is only important because the soft-heads will be pushing his co-conspirator at the presidency in 2008.

Bush? How can the Democrats impeach him when the process of discovery will reveal how much guilt they shared in anything they'd care to claim is a Bush "crime"? That's why the Senate declined to convict The Rapist. The corrupt Repbulicans were well aware that pay back's a bitch, and they didn't want the public learning what Larry Flynt had on them. They weren't ready to play the game the way it has to be played.

Bush won't be impeached. Republican control of the House is one good reason why, too.

 

[Hoot]

Sure if they commit a felony like "The Slickster" did........

A civil court case does not involve felonies, it's simply an attempt for the plaintiff to make some money. A person found guilty in a civil trial is not guilty of any felony.

 

[Hoot]

What you're suggesting insinuates the President should be treated as someone other than a regular US citizen...

Gee...what a novel concept? But you're exactly right. The President SHOULD be treated as someone other than a regular US citizen.

All of the Supreme Courts previous decisions had ruled that a sitting president could not be subject to a CIVIL (not criminal) suit arising out of his official actions while president, because the defense would be too time consuming and place too many restraints on the office.

Again, all Clinton asked for was a continuance. He never once claimed to be "above the law." But while we're on the subject, it might interest you to know that we have thousands of people, right here in the United States, that are above the law everyday.

Foreign diplomats are immune from any civil or criminal proceedings, legislators, senators, judges, ( including members of the USSC) enjoy absolute immunity from ALL civil lawsuits arising out of their official duties, even when it is clear they have acted corruptly.

In an opinion written by Justice Stephens, he stated that presidents have immunity from civil lawsuits, but the USSC reasoned that because the president was being sued for his 'unoffical' conduct that took place before he was president, as governor of Arkansas, the case should proceed.

This was the single most idiotic ruling the USSC ever handed down, except for maybe sticking their nose into the Bush v Gore case.

The one issue that should have been raised by the presidents' lawyers is whether the American publics interest in the effective functioning of the office of the presidency outweighs the private interest of allowing Paula Jone's trial to proceed without delay? ( It should be remembered that Paula waited until the last possible day to sue the president before the statute of limitations passed...so what was her big rush to go to trial?)

This "balance of interests" is a legal doctrine that the USSC ignored because of political pressure placed on them to not allow Clinton to delay this trial.

Just use basic common sense, people. What if this were WWII? Do you believe Paula should take the president away from his official duties to appear in a CIVIL ( Not criminal ) trial?!

If you have a president involved in a civil trial they can't help but have their mind and attention and time diverted away from their officially elected duties. Duties that could directly affect every single individual in the known world!

Yes...the president is much more then an ordinary citizen, and should be treated as such.

Let me repeat an old story of mine, and I'll stop rambling...

Pretend I live next to Bush in Crawford, Texas, and I believe Bush has mistakenly placed a fence on my property. The president refuses to move his fence, so I sue him in civil court. Let's further pretend the day Bush is to appear in court is 9/11/01...the same day as the twin towers collapsed.

Hey! I demand that my right to a speedy trial supercedes the rights of the president to postpone this trial until after his term of service!!! My one individual right supercedes all the rights of all the peoples of the world to have a president able to concentrate on his duties!!!

See how absolutley stupid and juvenile that sounds?

Bottom line...no paula jones civil trial...no Monica...no impeachment.

But go ahead people...throw your spin out there and disagree with me.

Those of you who can still look honestly within yourselves know I'm right.