The unconstitional impeachment of Bill Clinton

[sMiLeYz]

You ever wonder why Clinton was impeached for denying he had sex with an intern; while our current president can steal elections, block congressional investigations, wreck havoc with civil liberties, cook evidence to start a war and remain unscathed politically?

Simple.

The very same corrupt individuals who illegally conspired to put Clinton out of office are the ones in power right now under the Bush administration.

This is an semi review/commentary of the book "Clinton wars" by Sean Wilentz, a political historian.

Heres a quote directly from the article

The story of the media's complicity in the impeachment drama is more complicated. Historical ignorance, cynicism, self-importance, conformism, gullibility, careerism, hypocrisy, pride, and assorted other human frailties contributed in varying degrees to what Maslin calls the "breathless, baseless news coverage" of the time. History has judged and will judge some media participants more severely than others. Those who unprofessionally suppressed crucial pieces of evidence -- including the independent Resolution Trust Corporation report that exonerated the Clintons over Whitewater as early as 1995 -- will bear a heavy burden.

Near the top of the list for condemnation will be the multinational media conglomerate run by Rupert Murdoch, including the Weekly Standard, the New York Post, and (in conjunction with Roger Ailes) Fox News. Even before the Lewinsky story broke, Murdoch's outlets remorselessly hyped malevolent stories about the Clintons -- from Whitewater to Travelgate -- even after they were proven to be false. In 1998 and 1999, their slanted coverage of the impeachment drama performed a singular disservice to the truth. They have never corrected their numerous false reports, let alone apologized for them. Yet the Murdoch empire is now flourishing. Thanks to Bush administration rulings, its control over an increasingly concentrated and centralized media is likely to grow.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2003/06/09/blumenthal/index.html

 

[imported_Mike]

clinton was a retard...then again, so is bush

 

[AnImuS]

riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight

no i dont wonder and anyone with common sense knows that lying under oath is wrong. Men always lie but when your in court you best be 100% honest...

So stop being so close minded and open up!

yup yup
:beer:

 

[Insane3D]

Originally posted by: AnImuS
riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight

no i dont wonder and anyone with common sense knows that lying under oath is wrong. Men always lie but when your in court you best be 100% honest...

So stop being so close minded and open up!

yup yup
:beer:

Just curious, if you find lying under oath so bad, how do you feel about lying to the country about a threat that doesn't exist to get them to support a war in which we had our troops die? Is that all cool 'cause it wasn't under oath? Just curious..

 

[tcsenter]

The unconstitional impeachment of Bill Clinton

There is no such thing as an 'unconstitutional' impeachment of a high elected official. It is by deliberate intent a quasi-judicial political remedy, not a legal or judicial remedy. It would be like saying the Congress 'unconstitutionally passed a law' or 'unconstitutionally amended the constitution'. As long as the process adhered to the procedural requirements outlined in the constitution, it cannot possibly be unconstitutional.

Therefore, the entire article is based upon a false premise.

 

[Gaard]

<<...who illegally conspired...>>

How conspire illegally? Did these people take an oath not to conspire or something?

 

[nowareman]

Originally posted by: AnImuS
riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight

no i dont wonder and anyone with common sense knows that lying under oath is wrong. Men always lie but when your in court you best be 100% honest...

So stop being so close minded and open up!

yup yup
:beer:

There are some things men always lie about. And there are some personal subjects that shouldn't ever be brought up.

As a nation we need to learn to separate the personal and public lives of politicians. It is unhealthy politically for our society to demand candidates be perfect. Or to hold candidates to different standards. Or for the news media to use the public airwaves to give a slanted view of candidates they do not agree with. Especially when the media is owned by foreign nationals like Rupert Murdoch. There was a time when a foreign national couldn't own a media outlet in the USA.

All I am saying is the perfect man was only born once (IMO) and if we hold people to that standard they are bound to fail. Everyone has plenty of skeletons in their closet and people are making new skeletons as they go through life. I wouldn't want the government spending millions investigating my life and I don't think anyone else would either.

If that was the standard no one would ever pass muster. I don't believe the constant attacks on President Clinton while he was in office did our country any good and contribute to the adversarial atmosphere we have today. President Bush has plenty of skeletons in his closet but the media doesn't bring them up and no one in government is asking for a multi-million dollar investigation into his activities.

If there is a government investigation into the war in Iraq maybe they will find something there. But that is public not private. I think starting a war by convincing people there is a threat that isn't really there is more serious than what Clinton did if that is what actually happened. I also think that what Clinton lied about should never have been asked in the first place. Larry Flint doesn't publish smut as bad as the smut the house report contained. What Clinton did was disgraceful but what the Republicans did bringing it out in detail was just as disgraceful.

Just my 2 cents.

 

[tcsenter]

I also think that what Clinton lied about should never have been asked in the first place. Larry Flint doesn't publish smut as bad as the smut the house report contained. What Clinton did was disgraceful but what the Republicans did bringing it out in detail was just as disgraceful.

Good. We can agree then that the impeachment of President Clinton and relentless persecution by Republicans was a new low in the political discourse and decorum of our country, even for the already low and sleazy standards of Washington, DC., but that Clinton's atrocious behavior left even many ardent Democrats loathe to come to his defense and feeling ill for having done it.

The impeachment was unwise, inappropriate, vindictive, visceral, and political.

What it was not was unconstitutional.

 

[UltraQuiet]

As a nation we need to learn to separate the personal and public lives of politicians. It is unhealthy politically for our society to demand candidates be perfect.

Could not disagree more. It is imperative that we hold our elected and appointed officials to the highest possible standards. All of them have access to information pertaining to national security at the highest levels and have been entrusted with lives of our mother's, fathers, sister's, brother's etc. If I had done what Clinton did I would have immediately lost my security clearance, probably been discharged from the service and most likely would have done brig time enroute. Clinton did not promote two flag officers becuase of the same infidelities he commited. Both were "asked" to retire. When national security is involved there is no seperation of your personal and professional life. They are one and the same.

 

[nowareman]

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet

As a nation we need to learn to separate the personal and public lives of politicians. It is unhealthy politically for our society to demand candidates be perfect.

Could not disagree more. It is imperative that we hold our elected and appointed officials to the highest possible standards. All of them have access to information pertaining to national security at the highest levels and have been entrusted with lives of our mother's, fathers, sister's, brother's etc. If I had done what Clinton did I would have immediately lost my security clearance, probably been discharged from the service and most likely would have done brig time enroute. Clinton did not promote two flag officers becuase of the same infidelities he commited. Both were "asked" to retire. When national security is involved there is no seperation of your personal and professional life. They are one and the same.

If your standard is applied equally we need to begin another investigation and possibly another impeachment.

The armed forces have their code of ethics. I am saying personal lives of politicians should be considered separately from public lives. Otherwise, if we apply standards equally, we will be left with no one to lead.

 

[Moonbeam]

I agree with both of the last two posts.

 

[LunarRay]

Our elected officials are a reflection of the people. If we elect thieves and liars knowingly then it is safe to assume the majority are apathetic at best to the moral content of this nation. At worst the elected will continue in office what their proclivities are in private... No thank you.

Clinton was impeached because he thought he could be cleaver in a deposition.. "The meaning of Is" I think he did not lie by using the "is" but, the American people, the real jury, would never have bought off on it. So he was stupid there.

The verdict was reasonable as reached by the Senate. But, the continued hounding hurt all Americans as it hurt a sitting president in the performance of his job.

 

[Tal]

Originally posted by: HJD1
Our elected officials are a reflection of the people. If we elect thieves and liars knowingly then it is safe to assume the majority are apathetic at best to the moral content of this nation. At worst the elected will continue in office what their proclivities are in private... No thank you.

Clinton was impeached because he thought he could be cleaver in a deposition.. "The meaning of Is" I think he did not lie by using the "is" but, the American people, the real jury, would never have bought off on it. So he was stupid there.

The verdict was reasonable as reached by the Senate. But, the continued hounding hurt all Americans as it hurt a sitting president in the performance of his job.

I'm inclined to agree with most of what you have written. Integrity means being the same in private as you are in public..... -Tal

 

[NightTrain]

Sid Blumenthal

 

[Rogue9]

I am saying personal lives of politicians should be considered separately from public lives.

I don't know how others felt about Clinton's affair, but to me, it didn't matter. What DID matter was that he lied under oath and abused his power. That much cannot be disputed.

 

[ElFenix]

well, the constitution does say "high crimes and misdemeanors" and perjury is a misdemeanor. so, by the only standard the constitution gives, it was legal.

so far shrub hasn't been charged with anything.

 

[UltraQuiet]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
well, the constitution does say "high crimes and misdemeanors" and perjury is a misdemeanor. so, by the only standard the constitution gives, it was legal.

so far shrub hasn't been charged with anything.

Perjury is a felony, not a misdemeanor.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet

Originally posted by: ElFenix
well, the constitution does say "high crimes and misdemeanors" and perjury is a misdemeanor. so, by the only standard the constitution gives, it was legal.

so far shrub hasn't been charged with anything.

Perjury is a felony, not a misdemeanor.

At Common law, if I remember correctly, a perjurer can be sentenced to that which the charged can be sentenced.. not sure about US Code or 49 state P/C... but, I recall something like that.

I think you'd be hard pressed to not acquit on the issue of the meaning of 'is'.

 

[UltraQuiet]

Originally posted by: HJD1

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet

Originally posted by: ElFenix
well, the constitution does say "high crimes and misdemeanors" and perjury is a misdemeanor. so, by the only standard the constitution gives, it was legal.

so far shrub hasn't been charged with anything.

Perjury is a felony, not a misdemeanor.

At Common law, if I remember correctly, a perjurer can be sentenced to that which the charged can be sentenced.. not sure about US Code or 49 state P/C... but, I recall something like that.

I think you'd be hard pressed to not acquit on the issue of the meaning of 'is'.

Did he lie? Yes
Did he lie under oath? Yes.
Is he gulity of perjury? Yes.

But don't take my word for it, ask the state of Arkansas and the US Supreme Court.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet

Originally posted by: HJD1

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet

Originally posted by: ElFenix
well, the constitution does say "high crimes and misdemeanors" and perjury is a misdemeanor. so, by the only standard the constitution gives, it was legal.

so far shrub hasn't been charged with anything.

Perjury is a felony, not a misdemeanor.

At Common law, if I remember correctly, a perjurer can be sentenced to that which the charged can be sentenced.. not sure about US Code or 49 state P/C... but, I recall something like that.

I think you'd be hard pressed to not acquit on the issue of the meaning of 'is'.

Did he lie? Yes
Did he lie under oath? Yes.
Is he gulity of perjury? Yes.

But don't take my word for it, ask the state of Arkansas and the US Supreme Court.

Did he lie? Yes .... perhaps he did... I know he said he did but, I think he lied then... as part of a plea. I think he was being cleaver in the use of the word 'is' in the context used IMHO not beyond a reasonable doubt..

the other conclusions rest on the first... and there I'd be hard pressed...

 

[Gaard]

He lied.

 

[amcdonald]

Personally I don't think any man of integrity would be using his power/position/whatever to get blowjobs.
He is married, and I consider it a huge deal to cheat on your wife. If he's not concerned with keeping the integrity of his family/marraige, I feel that lack of ethics has to carry over into his profession, no matter what it is. If he was a single guy and didn't try to pull off the happily married man image, it wouldn't be a big deal. But america isn't going to vote for jay-z. Most people are looking for integrity.
And its not like he went for hookers or something he could cover-up... he messed around with an intern working for him... thats just plain stupid.
And the bottom line is he lied... so no matter what the situation that brought him to that point, there is no justification for perjury.

 

[JellyBaby]

He was impeached for more than a BJ. In addition to lying under oath in front of a grand jurty, there were obstruction of justice and abuse of power charges. If it was just a BJ the Starr Report would have been only a couple of pages. It was much larger.

Clinton's impeachment was constitutional and all proper rules were followed. I felt there was enough evidence to justify it but in no way did I think the overzealotness of the Rs was respectable.

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

Originally posted by: tcsenter

The unconstitional impeachment of Bill Clinton

There is no such thing as an 'unconstitutional' impeachment of a high elected official. It is by deliberate intent a quasi-judicial political remedy, not a legal or judicial remedy. It would be like saying the Congress 'unconstitutionally passed a law' or 'unconstitutionally amended the constitution'. As long as the process adhered to the procedural requirements outlined in the constitution, it cannot possibly be unconstitutional. Therefore, the entire article is based upon a false premise.

He is right...

 

[outriding]

sure clinton lied.

but the problem is why did this make it to court.

its a just a hummer people it should have never went to court.

taking a person to court over a hummer is really petty there is alot worse of things wrong with the US than a hummer.

if that is all what the R's can find wrong with the US why are you people voting for them. unemployment / health care / social security should be more important than clintons sex life. i guess the R's are just jealous because they are not getting any action .