• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Who remembers the watergate scandal? Who remembers the Iran/contra scandal?

Are today's republicans really just as corrupt as republicans from years gone by? I've been watching a few documentaries about both of them recently and the one thing that stands out, the lying. Before trump came along Reagan was the fire breathing mad cowboy out to destroy communism, that was his public face. Nixon too was going to put communism in its place until he went off the deep end seeing enemies everywhere, which oddly enough seems to have turned into a gop tradition. Anyway to keep the string intact W lied us into a war with Iraq over WMD's that didn't exist and yet republican voters over the years just keep voting republican even after finding out their leadership lies to them on huge scales. Why? How do you make these things ok in your minds?


Or the ....

Gun running scandal

Illegal war in Libya

Illegal bombings in Pakistan
 
Of course, my bad, must be why BC settled out of court for 850K
Jones, against the advice of attorneys, rejected Clinton's initial settlement offer for the full amount she had filed for - $700,000 - because it did not come with an apology. Clinton made a counter offer of $850,000. Which she took. Even though there was still no apology from Clinton and no admission of any wrongdoing.. So maybe it was the money after all. Clinton just wanted the matter taken care of before opening his campaign for a second term. Clinton and his lawyer had steadily maintained her claims were baseless and Clinton has always denied the allegations made by Jones.
 
Jones, against the advice of attorneys, rejected Clinton's initial settlement offer for the full amount she had filed for - $700,000 - because it did not come with an apology. Clinton made a counter offer of $850,000. Which she took. Even though there was still no apology from Clinton and no admission of any wrongdoing.. So maybe it was the money after all. Clinton just wanted the matter taken care of before opening his campaign for a second term. Clinton and his lawyer had steadily maintained her claims were baseless and Clinton has always denied the allegations made by Jones.
Clinton always denied the allegations and lied to a grand jury. Gotta love it, hey, Paula Jones is lying so ima lie to the Grand Jury.
 
Actually that's not quite true, Comey said HRC violated the law.
As Ronny would say - "there you go again". Comey said that that there was evidence of "carelessness" in her handling of sensitive classified information.
Should be interesting to see if Trump is going to held to the same standard as Clinton in his mishandling of classified information
 
The point is you don't know what you're talking about.
Sure I do, you just don't like the truth. Even now you're attempting to make the convo about me.
 
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.
How many convictions? Scandals are bullshit, time in prison is the real thing. She said, he said, that's a scandal. Guilty, do not pass go, do not collect two hundred dollars is what counts. Over the years the gop has a horrible record of criminal activity compared to the democrats.
 
"any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation," according to the letter appointing him.

An investigation strictly limited. Surprise: the strictly limited investigation didn't find evidence about things it didn't look at. It's like the "investigation" the FBI did of Kavanaugh where huge numbers of reports were sent to the FBI, who did not look at any and just gave them to trump's lawyers, who trashed them.
 
Yup, that's what prosecutors do. Your point ??
No, that's not what prosecutors do. Prosecutors don't normally have what they can look at determined by the person they're investigating. They don't normally follow a rule saying they're not allowed to say that evidence indicates a crime or to charge a crime.
 
Of course, my bad, must be why BC settled out of court for 850K
Which of these is true: 1. "The settlement said Clinton had committed perjury." 2. "In the settlement, Clinton agreed he had committed perjury." 3. "The settlement both parties agreed to said Clinton admitted no wrongdoing."
 
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.
Yet you lied. You said that I said Clinton was impeached for a sex act. I did not say that. Then when you were confronted with your lie, you did not take responsibility or correct it, you tried to claim it was one of two possibilities. Now you again lie that you didn't lie, and try to make a false attack to justify lying. Why would I "help you understand" when you deny there's any explanation? I said it's more complicated. You refused to accept that.
 
An investigation strictly limited. Surprise: the strictly limited investigation didn't find evidence about things it didn't look at. It's like the "investigation" the FBI did of Kavanaugh where huge numbers of reports were sent to the FBI, who did not look at any and just gave them to trump's lawyers, who trashed them.
So, no evidence arose, we got that.
No, that's not what prosecutors do. Prosecutors don't normally have what they can look at determined by the person they're investigating. They don't normally follow a rule saying they're not allowed to say that evidence indicates a crime or to charge a crime.
Prosecutors view through the "lens of criminal investigation" is exactly what prosecutors do.
 
Which of these is true: 1. "The settlement said Clinton had committed perjury." 2. "In the settlement, Clinton agreed he had committed perjury." 3. "The settlement both parties agreed to said Clinton admitted no wrongdoing."
Irrelevant, the irrefutable fact remains, BC lied before the Grand Jury and suborned perjury.
 
Yet you lied. You said that I said Clinton was impeached for a sex act. I did not say that. Then when you were confronted with your lie, you did not take responsibility or correct it, you tried to claim it was one of two possibilities. Now you again lie that you didn't lie, and try to make a false attack to justify lying. Why would I "help you understand" when you deny there's any explanation? I said it's more complicated. You refused to accept that.
That's what I thought, when confronted with the truth, make about the poster.l
 
Irrelevant, the irrefutable fact remains, BC lied before the Grand Jury and suborned perjury.
Answer the question. It's not irrelevant.
 
That's what I thought, when confronted with the truth, make about the poster.l
I made it about what the poster said, and understand why you don't want that.
 
Are today's republicans really just as corrupt as republicans from years gone by? I've been watching a few documentaries about both of them recently and the one thing that stands out, the lying. Before trump came along Reagan was the fire breathing mad cowboy out to destroy communism, that was his public face. Nixon too was going to put communism in its place until he went off the deep end seeing enemies everywhere, which oddly enough seems to have turned into a gop tradition. Anyway to keep the string intact W lied us into a war with Iraq over WMD's that didn't exist and yet republican voters over the years just keep voting republican even after finding out their leadership lies to them on huge scales. Why? How do you make these things ok in your minds?
Watergate was a small blunder blown up into a large scandal. The same thing happened on a much larger scale in 2015 and it passed almost unnoticed. In contrast, Iran/Contra was very serious, more serious than even the Whitewater coverup.

Of the four, Watergate is the most famous and the least worrisome. Its much more recent counterpart, the FBI spying on the Trump campaign in 2015, is the most troubling because it involves the use of law enforcement for illegal activities. yet, it is by far the least well-known or understood. Iran/Contra is next down because it also used official government apparatus, but it was in a foreign environment and not against US citizens. Whitewater, or more properly, the coverup is a masterclass in how to admit to felonies and get away with it.
 
So, no evidence arose, we got that.

It's not about evidence "arising". Evidence doesn't have legs and walk onto the investigator's desk. It's about the scope of the investigation. For example, they DID NOT LOOK AT FINANCIAL INFORMATION. That doesn't prove there were no crimes based on that information because the financial information didn't 'arise' that they never obtained.
 
Answer the question. It's not irrelevant.
It is absolutely irrelevant, BC was fined and his law license revoked for attempting to deny a US citizen their right to a fair trial.
 
It's not about evidence "arising". Evidence doesn't have legs and walk onto the investigator's desk. It's about the scope of the investigation. For example, they DID NOT LOOK AT FINANCIAL INFORMATION. That doesn't prove there were no crimes based on that information because the financial information didn't 'arise' that they never obtained.
So Team Mueller didn't look to see if any money changed hands between Trump campaign and those ebil Ruskies. Sounds incompetent to me.

What was Paul Manafort charged with again ??
 
Who remembers the Nixon/Chennault scandal?
 
It is absolutely irrelevant, BC was fined and his law license revoked for attempting to deny a US citizen their right to a fair trial.
You refuse to answer a question or have an honest discussion. Done.
 
You refuse to answer a question or have an honest discussion. Done.
I refused to answer or play your irrelevant game.

As you leave remember this, Democrats refused to believe perjury and suborning perjury in an attempt to deny a US citizen their right to a fair trial were grounds to remove a sitting President.
 
Irrelevant, the irrefutable fact remains, BC lied before the Grand Jury and suborned perjury.
That's not a fact. That's a lie. Lying to a Grand Jury would be a criminal offense. But Bill Clinton was never charged with a committing a criminal offense or perjury in any court of law. The judge in his case handed down a civil penalty, not a criminal penalty.
 
Back
Top Bottom