Poll: Should Clinton have been impeached?

[LumbergTech]

Originally posted by: 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?

your comparison is ridiculous..

so in this instance bush is a murderer and clinton is a rapist?

lets try bush is a murderer and clinton is an adulterer

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: LumbergTech
lets try bush is a murderer and clinton is an adulterer

:roll:

What color is the sky in your world?

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Craig234
I'm not disagreeing with the conclusion, but Clinton was put in a bad situation few appreciate.

A situation entirely of his own making, I might add.

Craig, you're always attempting to get folks to cough up sympathy for the Clintons. Sorry, I've got none.

My post accurately pointed out what was his own fault, and what was not his own fault.

Your post predicatbly, falsely, distorts my post and the situation to only one part of it.

 

[Capt Caveman]

Nope.

 

[Grunt03]

I say no and the reason is, look at what the poor guys has to wake up to every morning. Hillrod, also look at their ugly kid, no telling how many operations she has had. Heck for that matter Hillrod should go have a few of her chins tightened up.

On a more serious note, look at the fool we have now, it's gotten to the point that no one wants to hear from him anymore.

 

[tvarad]

The only thing that Clinton could have been impeached for is being an idiot. This guy could have had just about any woman and he kept picking one floozie after another. Must have been the Hillary effect.

As for the impeachment process, all it did was to make Americans look like idiots around the world, who were left wondering how a floozie can bring down the President of the most powerful country in the world.

And the Ken Starr investigation morphed from Whitewater to unearthing the President's peccadillos. The guy spent $65 million of the tax-payer's money to unearth a soiled dress! Unbelievable.

 

[blackangst1]

Yes, because perjury is against the law. If you say "no", then we might as well take perjury out of the law books. The law applies to all, and makes no distinction what the subject matter is. Or should we refine perjury to say "except in the case of questions about adultry"?

Silly.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Yes, because perjury is against the law. If you say "no", then we might as well take perjury out of the law books. The law applies to all, and makes no distinction what the subject matter is. Or should we refine perjury to say "except in the case of questions about adultry"?

Silly.

Not really. I think we need to look at this in a practical and functional sense. Pretty much every president does things in office that are illegal. Reagan had Iran-Contra, Clinton had Monica, Bush 43 has... oh jesus so much. This is obviously bad. I think if I looked hard enough I could find a reason to impeach every president in the 20th century though, and that doesn't mean we should have done it.

As I said earlier though, impeachment isn't supposed to be something you do each time the president goes 75 in a 65mph zone. It was intended to remove people who were inflicting serious damage on our government or Constitution. Now you can argue that perjury in a civil case meets that standard, (although I think I would disagree) but to say that if the president does something against the law he should always be impeached is simply not holding with the purpose of impeachment as it was intended to be used.

 

[Foxery]

If you can show me how screwing fat chicks affected his ability to do his job, I'll try to take you seriously.

Or maybe you can list some people you know personally who have lost their jobs over private matters...

Flamebait thread++;

 

[Druidx]

While reading this the 1st thing that comes to mind is
Wasn't all this because of a "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy"?
I guess those who voted no still actually believe that.

For me.
Should Clinton have been impeached.
Yes.

For those wanting to ask the same question about Bush.
I don?t know for sure but I honestly believe congress had every obligation to bring charges and answer that question based on the apparent illegal wiretaps.

To everyone whining about how Bush should be impeached concerning his "lies" about Iraq, you only prove you are a slave to your political agenda.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Yes, because perjury is against the law. If you say "no", then we might as well take perjury out of the law books. The law applies to all, and makes no distinction what the subject matter is. Or should we refine perjury to say "except in the case of questions about adultry"?

Silly.

Not really. I think we need to look at this in a practical and functional sense. Pretty much every president does things in office that are illegal. Reagan had Iran-Contra,...

And he should have been impeached for it. And Ollie North is a traitor who would have gone to prison for it if he hadn't had his conviction overturned on a technicality.

Clinton had Monica, Bush 43 has... oh jesus so much. This is obviously bad. I think if I looked hard enough I could find a reason to impeach every president in the 20th century though, and that doesn't mean we should have done it.

And Clinton WAS impeached, not for his affairs, but for purjury and obstruction of justice. The fact that he wasn't convicted by the Senate speaks to the political convenience/practicality of the action, but it was right that Clinton was impeached for what he did.

As I said earlier though, impeachment isn't supposed to be something you do each time the president goes 75 in a 65mph zone. It was intended to remove people who were inflicting serious damage on our government or Constitution. Now you can argue that perjury in a civil case meets that standard, (although I think I would disagree) but to say that if the president does something against the law he should always be impeached is simply not holding with the purpose of impeachment as it was intended to be used.

If you start making exceptions based on an arbitrary standard of someone's opinion of which breaches of which laws are serious enough to warrant impeachment, the entire system of justice becomes subject to the whims of those in power.

It's no stretch to see the Bushwhackos' acts of treason, murder, torture, etc. as worthy of impeachement, but at this point, it's impractical to do so simply because it couldn't be completed before November, and the entire matter would become a major distraction from the real issues in the coming election.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Yes, because perjury is against the law. If you say "no", then we might as well take perjury out of the law books. The law applies to all, and makes no distinction what the subject matter is. Or should we refine perjury to say "except in the case of questions about adultry"?

Silly.

Not really. I think we need to look at this in a practical and functional sense. Pretty much every president does things in office that are illegal. Reagan had Iran-Contra,...

And he should have been impeached for it. And Ollie North is a traitor who would have gone to prison for it if he hadn't had his conviction overturned on a technicality.

Clinton had Monica, Bush 43 has... oh jesus so much. This is obviously bad. I think if I looked hard enough I could find a reason to impeach every president in the 20th century though, and that doesn't mean we should have done it.

And Clinton WAS impeached, not for his affairs, but for purjury and obstruction of justice. The fact that he wasn't convicted by the Senate speaks to the political convenience/practicality of the action, but it was right that Clinton was impeached for what he did.

As I said earlier though, impeachment isn't supposed to be something you do each time the president goes 75 in a 65mph zone. It was intended to remove people who were inflicting serious damage on our government or Constitution. Now you can argue that perjury in a civil case meets that standard, (although I think I would disagree) but to say that if the president does something against the law he should always be impeached is simply not holding with the purpose of impeachment as it was intended to be used.

If you start making exceptions based on an arbitrary standard of someone's opinion of which breaches of which laws are serious enough to warrant impeachment, the entire system of justice becomes subject to the whims of those in power.

It's no stretch to see the Bushwhackos' acts of treason, murder, torture, etc. as worthy of impeachement, but at this point, it's impractical to do so simply because it couldn't be completed before November, and the entire matter would become a major distraction from the real issues in the coming election.

But the whole system IS arbitrary, and in my opinion arbitrary by design. The constitution is deliberately vague on the point. Impeachment isn't really part of the system of justice, it's part of a political system.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

But the whole system IS arbitrary, and in my opinion arbitrary by design. The constitution is deliberately vague on the point. Impeachment isn't really part of the system of justice, it's part of a political system.

Not THAT arbitrary. Impeachment is very much a part of the system of justice. It is defined as such in the Constitution:

Article II, Section 4:

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

Article I, Section 3:

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

Judgment in Cases of Impeachments shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust, or Profit under the United States, but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment, and Punishmnet, according to Law.

The word, impeachment means an accusation, not a conviction, and the ONLY remedy specified for conviction is removal from office. Note that conviction under an impeachment proceeding specifically does not bar further prosecution under criminal statutes.

Clinton was not impeached for failing to return his fly to its upright position before landing. He committed purjury and obstruction of justice, both of which are felonies under both Federal and state statutes.

The Bushies crimes are far more onerous because infintely more American troops are dead and wounded because of them than as a result of Clinton's purjury and obstruction. Regardless of whether they're impeached, they should be indicted and tried for their crimes.

If anything, elected officials should be held to at least the same standard as any other felons, if not higher, and if convicted by the Senate, they should be removed from office.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: eskimospy

But the whole system IS arbitrary, and in my opinion arbitrary by design. The constitution is deliberately vague on the point. Impeachment isn't really part of the system of justice, it's part of a political system.

Not THAT arbitrary. Impeachment is very much a part of the system of justice. It is defined as such in the Constitution:

Article II, Section 4:

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

Article I, Section 3:

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

Judgment in Cases of Impeachments shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust, or Profit under the United States, but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment, and Punishmnet, according to Law.

The word, impeachment means an accusation, not a conviction, and the ONLY remedy specified for conviction is removal from office. Note that conviction under an impeachment proceeding specifically does not bar further prosecution under criminal statutes.

Clinton was not impeached for failing to return his fly to its upright position before landing. He committed purjury and obstruction of justice, both of which are felonies under both Federal and state statutes.

The Bushies crimes are far more onerous because infintely more American troops are dead and wounded because or them than as a result of Clinton's purjury and obstruction. Regardless of whether they're impeached, they should be indicted and tried for their crimes.

If anything, ielected officials should be held to at least the same standard as any other felons, if not higher, and if convicted by the Senate, they should be removed from office.

Well sure they should be removed from office. I think we're talking about two different things. Trust me, I know what Clinton did. I think there's a reasonable argument for what happened too, I was only taking exception with the idea that simply because the president broke a law that we should always attempt to remove him from office for that. I know it sounds crazy, but I think if you step back and look at the larger picture it makes sense.

 

[bozack]

voted yes

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Well sure they should be removed from office. I think we're talking about two different things. Trust me, I know what Clinton did. I think there's a reasonable argument for what happened too, I was only taking exception with the idea that simply because the president broke a law that we should always attempt to remove him from office for that. I know it sounds crazy, but I think if you step back and look at the larger picture it makes sense.

I agree with you that not just any lawbreaking demands impeachment. Crimes that are related to 'abuse of power' and corruption more demand it.

I disagree with you if you are implying that most presidents commit such crimes.

Sadly, sometimes the crimes only become more clear as crimes, and/or politically unacceptable, long after they happen.

For example, looking back I think it's clear our starting a war with Mexico and taking half their land - a war which Lincoln spoke out against powerfully in Congress, and which future US President Grant said after serving in the war was "...one of the most unjust ever waged by a stronger against a weaker nation. It was an instance of a republic following the bad example of European monarchies, in not considering justice in their desire to acquire additional territory."

In hindsight, our policies in the Philippenes, our use of our military to invade Russia soon after their overthrowing the czar (which led them to turn to a more authoritarian approach), our battles against the legitimate governments of Iran, Nicaragua, Chile, Grenada, and others, are all more visibly wrongs.

I think we should impeach such wrongs to the extent possible. In cases where Congress assents, as in the disastrous Johnson policy on Vietnam, it's not so easy to call it a crime for impeachment. But where the president leads the way against the law or without authorization, as is especially clearly the case with Nicaragua (the Contra in Iran-Contra) or Nixon's invasion of Cambodia, impeachment is helpful.

I'm not suggesting that presidents be impeached as a political weapon (as with the two impeachments our nation has done), of for appropriate policies that don't go well.

 

[marincounty]

I don't think Clinton should have even answered the questions that got him in trouble.
A sitting president has more important things to do than answer questions about a civil suit.
He is the commander in chief. AFAIK even Army privates are exempt from certain things while they are serving, this should also apply to the president. I think he got bad legal advice.

This could have all waited until after his service was over. And the Republicans were trying to overthrow the president with their ridiculous investigations. Very few of us would survive a $65 million investigation of our personal lives without some major embarrassments.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Yes, because perjury is against the law. If you say "no", then we might as well take perjury out of the law books. The law applies to all, and makes no distinction what the subject matter is. Or should we refine perjury to say "except in the case of questions about adultry"?

Silly.

Not really. I think we need to look at this in a practical and functional sense. Pretty much every president does things in office that are illegal. Reagan had Iran-Contra, Clinton had Monica, Bush 43 has... oh jesus so much. This is obviously bad. I think if I looked hard enough I could find a reason to impeach every president in the 20th century though, and that doesn't mean we should have done it.

As I said earlier though, impeachment isn't supposed to be something you do each time the president goes 75 in a 65mph zone. It was intended to remove people who were inflicting serious damage on our government or Constitution. Now you can argue that perjury in a civil case meets that standard, (although I think I would disagree) but to say that if the president does something against the law he should always be impeached is simply not holding with the purpose of impeachment as it was intended to be used.

All those things are true. But they arent perjury. Plain and simple. If he would have lied in a press conference or an interview he wouldnt have been impeached-because he wouldnt have perjured himself.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Foxery
If you can show me how screwing fat chicks affected his ability to do his job, I'll try to take you seriously.

Or maybe you can list some people you know personally who have lost their jobs over private matters...

Flamebait thread++;

What does breaking the law have to do with affecting job performance? Two separate issues.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Not really. I think we need to look at this in a practical and functional sense. Pretty much every president does things in office that are illegal. Reagan had Iran-Contra, Clinton had Monica, Bush 43 has... oh jesus so much. This is obviously bad. I think if I looked hard enough I could find a reason to impeach every president in the 20th century though, and that doesn't mean we should have done it.

As I said earlier though, impeachment isn't supposed to be something you do each time the president goes 75 in a 65mph zone. It was intended to remove people who were inflicting serious damage on our government or Constitution. Now you can argue that perjury in a civil case meets that standard, (although I think I would disagree) but to say that if the president does something against the law he should always be impeached is simply not holding with the purpose of impeachment as it was intended to be used.

All those things are true. But they arent perjury. Plain and simple. If he would have lied in a press conference or an interview he wouldnt have been impeached-because he wouldnt have perjured himself.

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. 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?)

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: marincounty
A sitting president has more important things to do than answer questions about a civil suit.

Ah, so a sitting President should be immune to answering a civil lawsuit. Bill tried that argument too...remember? :laugh:

What is sad is that over 10 years later, you jokers are still defending him. I'll buy the argument that it wasn't a high crime and misdemeanor (at least, not the sex) but to write off Slick's legal wrongs (while at the same time looking to crucify another President) strikes me as *slightly* unfair.

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[fskimospy]

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.

 

[LumbergTech]

Since we are on the topic..

anyone care to explain how the fact that clinton screwed monica lewinsky was relevant to what he was being accused of?