Poll: Should Clinton have been impeached?

[Deudalus]

Bear in mind that the argument that "I shouldn't have been forced to answer that question thus its OK to lie" isn't a valid excuse.

He blatantly lied to a grand jury, should he have been impeached for it?

 

[Hyperblaze]

He was impeached.

That is what is so fustrating about Bush.

Bush has lied about a lot more things, has done worse things then Clinton, and yet, the head of the dem party says that impeachment is off the table.

Maybe someone should replace her....

 

[Deudalus]

Originally posted by: Hyperblaze
He was impeached.

That is what is so fustrating about Bush.

Bush has lied about a lot more things, has done worse things then Clinton, and yet, the head of the dem party says that impeachment is off the table.

Maybe someone should replace her....

I know he was impeached, I'm asking if he should have been.

Did you vote no? If so why?

Just because you feel Bush has done worse than Clinton and hasn't been impeached?

So does that mean if a murderer beats the rap then no rapist should ever go to prison? I mean, after all if we let a murderer go how can we in good mind keep a rapist behind bars right?

 

[Corbett]

Absoultely 100% it was the right thing to do to impeach Clinton.

Not only did he lie to all Americans and was proven to do so, he also perjured himself, as well as performed some of these acts in the OVAL OFFICE.

But feel free to queue the "but Bush" crap now.

 

[Pabster]

The appropriate question would be "Should William Jefferson Clinton have been CONVICTED in the Senate?" because he was impeached by the HOR, a dubious honor.

And the answer is yes.

 

[Dari]

Yes.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Corbett
Absoultely 100% it was the right thing to do to impeach Clinton.

Not only did he lie to all Americans and was proven to do so, he also perjured himself, as well as performed some of these acts in the OVAL OFFICE.

But feel free to queue the "but Bush" crap now.

So what? He lied to a question that should never have been asked in the first place, a question about a personal matter, perfectly legal, between two consentlung adults, and in no way relevant to the public or the performance of his job responsibilities. Absolutely, it was stupid to lie about it -- he should have just said, "It's none of your goddamn business!" -- yes, it was inappropriate to have sex with an intern, and yes, it was wrong to lie about it, especially under oath. But, the important question was is it impeachable? Did it rise to the level of a High Crime or Misdemeanor warranting impeachment? The answer is obviously NO, not in any sane world.

Clinton's impeachment was a witch hunt, an act of pure political spite by a bunch of unprincipled sore losers who put petty partisanship above the best interests of America. In my opinion, every one of them should be barred from ever holding public office again.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Corbett
Absoultely 100% it was the right thing to do to impeach Clinton.

Not only did he lie to all Americans and was proven to do so, he also perjured himself, as well as performed some of these acts in the OVAL OFFICE.

But feel free to queue the "but Bush" crap now.

So what? He lied to a question that should never have been asked in the first place, a question about a personal matter, perfectly legal, between two consentlung adults, and in no way relevant to the public or the performance of his job responsibilities. Absolutely, it was stupid to lie about it -- he should have just said, "It's none of your goddamn business!" -- yes, it was inappropriate to have sex with an intern, and yes, it was wrong to lie about it, especially under oath. But, the important question was is it impeachable? Did it rise to the level of a High Crime or Misdemeanor warranting impeachment? The answer is obviously NO, not in any sane world.

Clinton's impeachment was a witch hunt, an act of pure political spite by a bunch of unprincipled sore losers who put petty partisanship above the best interests of America. In my opinion, every one of them should be barred from ever holding public office again.

I agree with this. He should never even have had the chance to lie in front of the Grand Jury because he should never have even been there. The lie was small and inconsequential to this country, it wasn't a High Crime or Misdemeanor, it wasn't an act against the Constitution per se, although it was against the laws surrounding it.

 

[Lemon law]

Originally posted by: Corbett
Absoultely 100% it was the right thing to do to impeach Clinton.

Not only did he lie to all Americans and was proven to do so, he also perjured himself, as well as performed some of these acts in the OVAL OFFICE.

But feel free to queue the "but Bush" crap now.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Absolutely independent of any GWB questions, no I do not think Clinton should have been impeached.

Is it a crime to get a BJ from a consenting adult one is not married to? Did it effect the governance of the country in any way? When those answers are no and no, all we have is a bunch of offended moralists with minds that are badly over blown when it comes to sex.
And it was pure comedy gold to see the very people denouncing Clinton for sexual impropriety get a exposed for having mistress and illegitimate children themselves.

In terms of the perjury issue, that is far more serious IMHO. And I would have had more respect for Clinton if he simply said its none of your business and had been done with it.

But he decided to play little lawyer mind games on what the meaning of sex is. Because when truth be told, the dictionary definition of sex involves vaginal intercourse which did not happen here, so in that sense its not perjury. But if you ask nearly anyone, a blow job is a sexual act, so in that sense its perjury. And worse yet for Bill Clinton, this is not some he said she said conspiracy theory, there is the hard evidence of a stain on the little blue dress
that is DNA provable as coming from only Bill Clinton.

But we have to somehow accept the fact, that while Bill Clinton had some really great political qualities, even though some GOP types might not agree, when it came to the opposite sex, he had a great and sad weakness. And with human beings we get the good with the bad because no one is perfect. And often when we get great good, there is some counterbalancing great foible.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Corbett

Not only did he lie to all Americans about getting his dick sucked and was proven to do so, he also perjured himself, as well as performed some of these acts in the OVAL OFFICE while still performing a good job as president. Say what you will about him, the man was a genius when it came to multitasking

:thumbsup:

 

[frostedflakes]

I thought the whole Clinton witch hunt was ridiculous, I could care less about the guy's personal life as long as he's running the country fine. But lying under oath was an extremely stupid thing to do and justifies impeachment IMO. He should have just come clean immediately instead of trying to cover it up.

However, trying to compare Clinton's "atrocities" to those of the Bush administration is laughable. Hummer in the Oval Office vs. 4000+ dead soldiers in a pointless war and countless infringements of citizen's constitutional rights. Come on.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: frostedflakes
I thought the whole Clinton witch hunt was ridiculous, I could care less about the guy's personal life as long as he's running the country fine. But lying under oath was an extremely stupid thing to do and justifies impeachment IMO. He should have just come clean immediately instead of trying to cover it up.

However, trying to compare Clinton's "atrocities" to those of the Bush administration is laughable. Hummer in the Oval Office vs. 4000+ dead soldiers in a pointless war and countless infringements of citizen's constitutional rights. Come on.

Hey that's Republicans for you.

 

[Caminetto]

Originally posted by: frostedflakes
But lying under oath was an extremely stupid thing to do and justifies impeachment IMO.

Star couldn't find anything on Clinton so he pursued a technicality. Yes Clinton lied about a sexual matter under oath, but that is also discovered thousands of times each week in divorce courts across the country, and no one gives a crap.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Corbett
Absoultely 100% it was the right thing to do to impeach Clinton.

Not only did he lie to all Americans and was proven to do so, he also perjured himself, as well as performed some of these acts in the OVAL OFFICE.

But feel free to queue the "but Bush" crap now.

So what? He lied to a question that should never have been asked in the first place, a question about a personal matter, perfectly legal, between two consentlung adults, and in no way relevant to the public or the performance of his job responsibilities. Absolutely, it was stupid to lie about it -- he should have just said, "It's none of your goddamn business!" -- yes, it was inappropriate to have sex with an intern, and yes, it was wrong to lie about it, especially under oath. But, the important question was is it impeachable? Did it rise to the level of a High Crime or Misdemeanor warranting impeachment? The answer is obviously NO, not in any sane world.

Clinton's impeachment was a witch hunt, an act of pure political spite by a bunch of unprincipled sore losers who put petty partisanship above the best interests of America. In my opinion, every one of them should be barred from ever holding public office again.

Uhh, wasn't the question asked to him during a sexual harassment lawsuit filed against him by another woman?

IIRC, then yes, it was a very relevant and appropriate question to ask.

 

[HendrixFan]

With three partisan ICs focusing on Clinton, he was exonerated of wrongdoing on all but the sex scandal. That involved a conscious deception, but something less than a perjurous lie, in an answer to a convoluted question about an extraneous matter in a sexual harassment suit involving something that happened years before Clinton took office and which itself was finally dismissed since the plaintiff had no legal claim. Perjury involves a "material matter", and before this event nobody would have considered consensual sex as material in a sexual harassment case.

So, "no".

 

[BladeVenom]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
The lie was small and inconsequential to this country, it wasn't a High Crime or Misdemeanor, i

Perjury is a felony, which is worse than a misdemeanor.

 

[heyheybooboo]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
He should never even have had the chance to lie in front of the Grand Jury because he should never have even been there. The lie was small and inconsequential to this country, it wasn't a High Crime or Misdemeanor, it wasn't an act against the Constitution per se, although it was against the laws surrounding it.

Couldn't have put it any better.

It was an abuse of process by the Rethuglicans using the special prosecutor (persecutor? ) statutes - which they conviently abolished afterward.

 

[naddicott]

Lying about a sensitive, non-material fact in court is something prosecutors rarely if ever prosecute, regardless of whether it can technically be made into a perjury charge.

I think having congress at a bare minimum only investigating presidential crimes that a normal citizen would be indicted for is a decent minimum standard. If the executive branch is held to tighter restrictions than the general public, it puts the branch in too much risk of politically motivated witch hunts and impedes its ability to function normally. So I think the Senate did the right thing in not convicting Clinton.

On the, "would a regular citizen get in trouble if they did it" measure, I'm not sure Bush holds up as well. Lying to congress, that results in the unnecessary death of 4,000+ U.S. citizens is pretty bad. Given the fact that the NIA that was rushed out at Congress' request had enough condemnation of the credibility of sources that if Congress had done their job right by not taking the president at his word and reviewing the intelligence themselves on such a critical decision, they should never have given him authority in the first place.

Ordering torture of prisoners also doesn't generally get a pass for regular citizens, and the fact that the soldier that blew the whistle on Abu-Gharib was one of the few actually prosecuted for the crimes that were committed there, while brass and administration who authorized the facility and the tactics used there went without even a reprimand is a gross misconduct of justice. On the other hand, I somehow doubt there would be a solid enough evidence chain going all the way up to the President to get a fact-based indictment, although the cover-ups that would occur in such a prosecution scenario would suborn plenty of material perjury.

Finally, wiretapping U.S. citizens without court-issued warrants would certainly get a regular citizen prosecuted, and I don't see how Bush is getting away with that other than the spinelessness of Congress. At this point, the best that can be said for Congress is that they are choosing not to disrupt the regular function of government to achieve an ultimate result that will occur naturally in a few months. That and the practical consideration that putting Cheney fully in charge, despite appearances that he has frequently been the de-facto decisionmaker, would probably be more dangerous at this point.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: BladeVenom
Perjury is a felony, which is worse than a misdemeanor.

That only applies to folks like Scooter Libby.

 

[Deudalus]

Ok so 2 things:

1: The Nixon poll is at 41 for impeachment and 3 against which I think is the proper breakdown of liberal to conservative on this board I would guess. There are a few independents who said yes (like myself) but I think that does give the proper slant of liberal vs. conservative on this board.

2: The number of people who think Clinton should not have been impeached is pretty laughable too. The guy lied directly under oath. Sure you can argue that he shouldn't have been on trial, but if the wrongfully accused obstructs justice and then lies under oath then he still committed a crime. You can't even argue that Clinton was wrongfully accused, only that he shouldn't have been accused. He's guilty as guilty can be.

Now a few simple points:

A: The only reason that so many liberals on this board are agreeing that he should be impeached is because of Obama Mania. If Obama would have never come around and Clinton was the nominee then nowhere near this many libs would admit what they admitted in this thread.

B: The "But Bush" crowd is retarded. Arguing that one person is more guilty than another is stupid to begin with, Bush had nothing to do with this thread. Eventually some of you, including the Obama campaign, need to realize that Bush can't run again and everything in politics does not revolve around a Bush negative. Obama can't simply campaign on anti-Bush BS and expect to win. If I said I dislike Strawberry Pop Tarts, a Strawberry Pop Tart proponent shouldn't begin the counter argument with "But Bush".

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Caminetto

Originally posted by: frostedflakes
But lying under oath was an extremely stupid thing to do and justifies impeachment IMO.

Star couldn't find anything on Clinton so he pursued a technicality. Yes Clinton lied about a sexual matter under oath, but that is also discovered thousands of times each week in divorce courts across the country, and no one gives a crap.

I give a crap. Clinton should have refused to answer. He should have said that what I do sexually that is legal is none of your business, but Clinton was an arrogant asshole who wanted to cheat on his wife, risk embarrassing the nation, disgracing the Presidency, and (AND), walk away from it claiming he was innocent, but the big fat dick head hadn't counted on a certain blue dress. Because he was an arrogant butt-head who wanted more than just a silence hanging out there, and demanded total denial, he slimed the entire nation when he got caught in his stupid assed lie. And he lied right in our faces with total lying conviction and solemn proclamation of innocence.

 

[Deudalus]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Caminetto

Originally posted by: frostedflakes
But lying under oath was an extremely stupid thing to do and justifies impeachment IMO.

Star couldn't find anything on Clinton so he pursued a technicality. Yes Clinton lied about a sexual matter under oath, but that is also discovered thousands of times each week in divorce courts across the country, and no one gives a crap.

I give a crap. Clinton should have refused to answer. He should have said that what I do sexually that is legal is none of your business, but Clinton was an arrogant asshole who wanted to cheat on his wife, risk embarrassing the nation, disgracing the Presidency, and (AND), walk away from it claiming he was innocent, but the big fat dick head hadn't counted on a certain blue dress. Because he was an arrogant butt-head who wanted more than just a silence hanging out there, and demanded total denial, he slimed the entire nation when he got caught in his stupid assed lie. And he lied right in our faces with total lying conviction and solemn proclamation of innocence.

This is about the only time I will say QFT after a Moonbeam post but I don't think it can be stated better than this.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Pabster
The appropriate question would be "Should William Jefferson Clinton have been CONVICTED in the Senate?" because he was impeached by the HOR, a dubious honor.

And the answer is yes.

It always scares me when I agree with Pabster, but Clinton was guilty of lying to Congress about his affairs with Monica Lewinsky and Paula Jones. The actual charges of impeachment were for perjury and obstruction of justice, not for his involvement in those relationships, themselves.

I think it's possible that the majority of Republicans didn't want to see him impeached because they preferred to keep the issue in the headlines as a political weapon to use against all Democrats, and convicting him would have meant they would have had to deal with President Al Gore.

This raises three questions for you:

1. If Clinton had simply told the truth about it when he was questioned, would you still have supported impeaching him. If so, for what "high crime or misdemeanor?"
   
2. Since you supported Clinton's impeachement, and you would have supported convicting him, do you now support impeaching Bush and Cheney for their numerous and far more serious crimes?
   
3. If so, and the evidence presented under oath supports the charges, would you support convicting them?

< sarcasm >

As a side note, I think Clinton should have been impeached for another crime -- embarrassing the country with skanky conquests with negative point scores.

At least, when John Kennedy fooled around, he had the class to do it with a more significant trophy like Marilyn Monroe. :lips:

< /sarcasm >

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Deudalus
The "But Bush" crowd is retarded.

You think they are retarded, how about the morons that voted for Bush the second time? All they can do now to wipe the egg off of their face is to try and discredit his detractors and say they are retarded. Pathetic don't you think? Oh wait you seem to be one of them..DOH!!!

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Deudalus
The "But Bush" crowd is retarded.

You think they are retarded, how about the morons that voted for Bush the second time? All they can do now to wipe the egg off of their face is to try and discredit his detractors and say they are retarded. Pathetic don't you think? Oh wait you seem to be one of them..DOH!!!

You think they're retarded? How about the tards who are so in denial that they STILL support the Bushwhackos and deny they've lied or committed any crimes? :roll: