You said BC was impeached for a blowjob, he wasn't. He was impeached for perjury and suborning perjury, facts are facts. Adjudication does necessarily need a trial, a judgment was rendered.
Adjudication is a word that you need to understand the meaning of.
Yup, the Jones case of sexual harassment was dismissed, then oops, new evidence came to light. Whether or not perjury and suborning of perjury by a sitting President is an impeachable offense is a matter of opinion.
Apparently Team Mueller was incompetent.
BTW, "First they replaced Fisk with Starr because Fiske wasn't aggressive enough", that's not what the official statement said;
I never said BC was impeached for a BJ, that's a lie. You said it's as simple as the word perjury. You denied there was anything more complicated to the story than that one word. He was not convicted of perjury and you dodged the question why he wasn't charged and convicted of it if he was guilty as you said.
Regardless of what you believe complicated means in regard to BC's malfeasance, his perjury and suborning perjury before the Grand Jury was a simple matter totally substantiated by irrefutable evidence.
Team Mueller could have requested a broadening of the mandate if the evidence warranted. They didn't, that means only means two things, incompetence or no evidence.
History tells us something different. Go back to the Nixon administration and see how many republicans have been indicted, found guilty and gone to jail until present day. Now compare how many dems have been indicted and gone to jail in the same time span and you get? You get something very different from what you say.
You said "Ya, Clinton behaved badly. It wasn't impeachable"
No matter how many times this info is posted the right will keep telling us both sides are the same.
^And it doesn't even include the Trump Administration...
We're repeating. I said it's more complicated. You can't understand that. So we left it that he was not guilty of perjury, and then you lied that I said he was impeached for a sex act.
It's not that they're saying they're the same, it's that they're saying they prefer the Republican crimes.
No, he could not. He was executing orders, and that was that. If he had asked, the answer was no and he knew that. What it means is trump corruption and coverup.
Then help me "understand" ?? I don't lie, if you're not concise in conveying your thoughts on a forum that's not my problem.
Actually he could;
Oops... stop with the lying. No new evidence came to light whatsoever. She decided to agree to a settlement while her case was under appeal. Better to get something rather than possibly nothing, I guess.
Of course you do. The judge in the Paula Jones case had ruled that the Lewinsky matter was immaterial to her case. So the appeal was most likely going to fail.
Starr is only one who concluded that Clinton had committed perjury
I lived through both. However why are you limiting your angst to republican scandals? Democrats have theirs as well. The Clintons have been embroiled in non-stop scandals going all the way back to the 1980s. Hillary is embroiled in one as we speak. And there was the Keating 5 scandal which involved 4 democrats and one republican.
The Mueller investigation was conducted through lens of criminal investigation. When an investigator/prosecutor says that he or she could not establish that a crime had been committed. They aren't saying that there wasn't any evidence that a crime had been committed. They're saying that they don't have enough evidence to clear the high hurdle of proving it beyond a shadow of a doubt. And even if Mueller did have enough evidence to prove Trump had committed a crime, such as obstruction of justice, the OLC memorandum stating that a sitting President cannot be charged with crime would have precluded him from leveling that charge against the President. But it would NOT have precluded him from exonerating the President of of any wrongdoing. Which Mueller made clear was something his investigation could not do.
Of which not one of them has ever been proven to be true.
Of course, my bad, must be why BC settled out of court for 850KOf course you do. The judge in the Paula Jones case had ruled that the Lewinsky matter was immaterial to her case. So the appeal was most likely going to fail.
Impeachment of Bill Clinton - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Starr is only one who concluded that Clinton had committed perjury
Yup, that's what prosecutors do. Your point ??
