Poll: Should Clinton have been impeached?

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Perknose
No, what's sad is that over 10 years later you jokers are still obsessed with him, and the fact that he got more head while sitting in the oval office than you'll get anywhere, ever.

:laugh:

Can always count on Perky for a lame-ass retort. :roll:

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: eskimospy

So you think that any time the president violates a law he should be impeached? You are certainly welcome to that viewpoint, but I think it is sewing the seeds of chaos.

No, I dont. I was arguing THIS case.

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Does this mean you believe Bush should be impeached for violating FISA? (maybe in some world the executive authority arguments would prevent conviction, but certainly not impeachment?)

No. I would rather see him pursued for FISA *after* he leaves office.

I just find it strange that you would view perjury as a more serious offense to the office then the violation of FISA. Perjury is certainly not something to be taken lightly as it undermines the oversight of the legislature among a whole load of other things. Bush's breach of FISA has directly violated the civil liberties of the people he's supposed to protect, and violates the 4th amendment of the constitution he swore to uphold though. That to me seems so much worse.

I'm really not trying to turn this into a "but Bush!" sort of thing, I guess I'm just having trouble reconciling wanting to impeach Clinton but not Bush.

Because the punishment for Bush violating FISA would be MUCH worse in a private sector trial than an impeachment. Thats why.

But this isnt about Bush, so I dont have to reconcile anything

 

[Deudalus]

Originally posted by: marincounty
Very few of us would survive a $65 million investigation of our personal lives without some major embarrassments.

I would do just fine.

Isn't it ironic that all of these Presidents are at the very least rule benders, most are law breakers, and a few are even felons; yet I (and probably the vast majority here) have never committed a crime outside of traffic offenses.

Ironic huh.

 

[waggy]

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.

i agree. I don't give a shit that Clinton got a hummer by i love you ugly chick. thats between him and his wife. BUT the fact he lied under oath justifies impeachment.


And while i used to back Bush now that the facts have come out i am disgusted by him And yes i would vote for impeachment. not just the war but as you said infringments on constitutional rights.

wich scares me what the next presidant is going to do. i don't trust either one at all.

 

[Atreus21]

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.

This is politics, and it's a game born in cruelty. The motivation behind the witch hunt doesn't excuse the fact that he lied to a grand jury, a felony in civilian courts. If he'd told the truth, I'd have been pissed, but I wouldn't have called for his impeachment.

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.

With this I agree. I frankly wish the Republicans had never engaged in it, because Karma is biting them.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: 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".

This man has a clue. :thumbsup:

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: 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".

This man has no clue. :thumbsup:

I went ahead and fixed that ommission for ya.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: Caminetto

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.

I never said Clinton wasn't a liar or scumbag. Indeed he betrayed many Americans and worse, those in his administration who put their faith and trust in him.

But the topic is impeachment. And no one gets fired because they were caught lying in divorce court about an affair.

An average person will not get fired.

A lawyer will get disbarred/fired for lying in court if caught. And quickly.
The lawyer is held to a higher standard.

And Clinton wsa being held to that standard. He tried to use slicing/dicing as a lawyer and it did not work.
As others had stated, he could have stated it was none of their buisness.
Instead of accepting a "mistrial" situation, he tried for the innocent verdict and was found guilty.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: Pabster
What is sad is that over 10 years later, you jokers are still defending him.

No, what's sad is that over 10 years later you jokers are still obsessed with him, and the fact that he got more head while sitting in the oval office than you'll get anywhere, ever.

And who says that it was JUST head for him.

I think there may have been stories about missing undies also.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: 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.

Interesting positions, to put it politely.

The impeachment stems from a sex harrasment lawsuit concerning Paula Jones. Clinton lied to the courts.

What are your positions? That the President is above the law whether it may be for crimes alleged to have been committed against other citizens? Or that he/she be above the law and can do what we can't - lie to the courts?

IMO, bad precedent to be against his impeachment for several reasons. I'd bet if the Dems hadn't pooh-pooh'd such things back then and soured the nation on impeachment, they'd have a much better chance of impeaching GWB.

Fern

 

[Perknose]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Perknose
No, what's sad is that over 10 years later you jokers are still obsessed with him, and the fact that he got more head while sitting in the oval office than you'll get anywhere, ever.

:laugh:

Can always count on Perky for a retort to a lame-ass. :thumbsup:

Fixed your word order and emoticon for 'ya!