# BILL Clinton for President, AGAIN?! / Repeal 22nd Amendment? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 29, 2003, 8:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bill-clinton-for-president-again-repeal-22nd-amendment/178354 "2003-05-29T20:21:48Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 16\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![zev\_steinhardt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/97f17d/32.png) [@zev\_steinhardt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zev_steinhardt)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2003, 3:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bill-clinton-for-president-again-repeal-22nd-amendment/178354/101 "2003-06-02T15:18:05Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by rjung \* > \*\*How about the special prosecutor who used an investigation into real-estate deals as an excuse to question the President under oath on unrelated matters about his sex life? How big of a deal is that? \*\* Which is really beside the point. Even if you feel that a question is unwarranted or out-of-bounds, once a judge rules that it’s OK, then you have to answer in a truthful manner. Your opinion that a question is irrelevant to the proceedings at hand do not give you license to lie under oath. Zev Steinhardt ---
**Author:** ![Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e36b37/32.png) [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airman_Doors_USAF)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2003, 9:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bill-clinton-for-president-again-repeal-22nd-amendment/178354/102 "2003-06-02T21:36:48Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by rjung \* > \*\*That’s because the Clinton-hunters keep ignoring that critical point – saying “he lied under oath” is meaningless when you realize that he wasn’t supposed to be _questioned_ under oath on that topic to begin with. Especially not by an “independent” prosecutor who was colluding with the accuser (Paula Jones). > > Of course, actually acknowledging this point would mean your entire position comes crashing down, which is why you dismiss it every time it’s brought up. The ends justify the means, eh? \*\* So I guess by this you mean that you are either incapable of answering a question honestly or are unwilling to realize that since the lawsuit was filed for sexual harassment, the question of Clinton’s womanizing and history of adultery was very relevant. Either that or you just don’t know the answer and are completely devoid of any capability to think for yourself since you just gave me the stock Democrat response to the question. Now, are you willing to answer the simple yes or no question or are you going to continue to be obtuse? I vote obtuse, myself. ---
**Author:** ![zev\_steinhardt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/97f17d/32.png) [@zev\_steinhardt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zev_steinhardt)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2003, 9:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bill-clinton-for-president-again-repeal-22nd-amendment/178354/103 "2003-06-02T21:39:51Z")
BTW, does all this Clinton/perjury/Paula Jones stuff mean that we’re done discussing the Twenty Second? 😃 Zev Steinhardt ---
**Author:** ![survivorology.com](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/0ea827/32.png) [@survivorology.com](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/survivorology.com)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2003, 9:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bill-clinton-for-president-again-repeal-22nd-amendment/178354/104 "2003-06-02T21:45:31Z")
could Bill be Vice President? Does the constitution prevent him from being elected Vice President? Elect a presidential candidate that is over 100 years old, and dies in office. It could happen. ---
**Author:** ![zev\_steinhardt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/97f17d/32.png) [@zev\_steinhardt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zev_steinhardt)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2003, 9:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bill-clinton-for-president-again-repeal-22nd-amendment/178354/105 "2003-06-02T21:51:25Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by [survivorology.com](http://survivorology.com) \* > \*\*could Bill be Vice President? Does the constitution prevent him from being elected Vice President? Elect a presidential candidate that is over 100 years old, and dies in office. > > It could happen. \*\* No. At the end of the 12th Ammendment it states: > [@](#): > > But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States. Since Bill Clinton is “constitutionally ineligible” to be the President, he is ineligible to be the VP as well. Even if he were eligible to be the President, he’d wouldn’t become President. For example, suppose BC became the Speaker of the House (he’s second in line, right? If not, then substitute the office that is second in line) and the President and VP both die. BC wouldn’t become President because he is ineligible. Consider it as if he wasn’t a natural born citizen. He’d simply be skipped over for the office. Zev Steinhardt ---
**Author:** ![zev\_steinhardt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/97f17d/32.png) [@zev\_steinhardt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zev_steinhardt)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2003, 9:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bill-clinton-for-president-again-repeal-22nd-amendment/178354/106 "2003-06-02T21:53:12Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by zev\_steinhardt \* > \*\*Even if he were eligible to be the President, he’d wouldn’t become President. \*\* :smack: That should be “eligible to be the \*\*Vice-\*\*President…” Zev Steinhardt ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2003, 10:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bill-clinton-for-president-again-repeal-22nd-amendment/178354/107 "2003-06-02T22:53:15Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Airman Doors, USAF \* > So I guess by this you mean that you are either incapable of answering a question honestly or are unwilling to realize that since the lawsuit was filed for sexual harassment, the question of Clinton’s womanizing and history of adultery was very relevant. No, the point I’m making is that Ken Starr was tasked with investigating questionable real estate deals _vis-a-vis_ Whitewater, **period.** Everything beyond that – up to and including baseless accusations of murder or harassment – were merely extraneous points tacked on by Clinton’s enemies because the Whitewater charges proved pointless. You choose to focus on the _technical_ aspects of Clinton’s questioning; I’m pointing out the _moral_ grounds for asking the questions in the first place, and their irrelevance to the original matter. But then, the Republicans generally don’t care about messy things like that, IMO – as long as you can fabricate _some_ excuse to nail Clinton (or invade Iraq), who cares if the original charges are bogus? ---
**Author:** ![Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e36b37/32.png) [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airman_Doors_USAF)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2003, 11:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bill-clinton-for-president-again-repeal-22nd-amendment/178354/108 "2003-06-02T23:10:40Z")
Good thing I’m an independent, then. And once more you fail to answer the question. I was right. Obtuse it is. ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2003, 11:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bill-clinton-for-president-again-repeal-22nd-amendment/178354/109 "2003-06-02T23:15:15Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by rjung \* > \*\*No, the point I’m making is that Ken Starr was tasked with investigating questionable real estate deals _vis-a-vis_ Whitewater, period. \*\* The decision to appoint an independent counsel for any given investigation was made by the Justice Department under the (now-lapsed) independent counsel statute. Every expansion of Starr’s investigation was approved by both by Janet Reno and by a three-judge panel. Do you think it would have been a better option to have appointed an entirely separate independent counsel for each investigation, complete with his own staff, office space, etc? If so, you’d better not bitch about the cost of the investigation, because that option would substantially increase those costs. ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2003, 7:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bill-clinton-for-president-again-repeal-22nd-amendment/178354/110 "2003-06-03T07:13:15Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Dewey Cheatem Undhow \* > The decision to appoint an independent counsel for any given investigation was made by the Justice Department under the (now-lapsed) independent counsel statute. Every expansion of Starr’s investigation was approved by both by Janet Reno and by a three-judge panel. Which sounds great on paper, until you recall that the three-judge panel was hand-selected by Chief Justice William Rehnquist and staffed entirely by conservative partisan judges. As for having everything go through Reno, it turns out Starr was concealing major parts of his investigation from her: > [@](#): > > There were several other items the OIC did not confide to (Assistant Attorney General Eric) Holder and Attorney General Janet Reno. No mention was made of Rosenzweig’s conversations with Jerome Marcus, who represented Paula Jones. **Nothing was said about (Jones’ legal team member) Richard Porter being Kenneth Starr’s law partner.** … > > …Nor did Starr inform Attorney General Reno about his own personal involvement with the Paula Jones case. That Starr had once considered writing an amicus brief for the Scaife-funded Independent Women’s Forum supporting Jones’ right to sue the president before his appointment as independent prosecutor was no secret. **What Starr kept to himself, however, was the fact that he had also been consulted over the telephone by Jones’ lawyer Gil Davis.** The Virginia attorney had billed Jones $975 for consultationswith the former solicitor general on six occassions in 1994. > > The OIC also withheld mitigating evidence from the attorney general that day – specifically, that Vernon Jordan’s involvement in Monical Lewinsky’s New York job search had preceded her subpoena in the Jonese case by two monhs. In addition, Jordan was an old friend of both Betty Currie and Lewinksky’s mother’s fiance, Peter Strauss. **Those facts considerably weakened the likelihood of Jordan’s participation in a conspiracy to obstruct justice, Starr’s linkage between Lewinsky and the Whitewater investigation.** … > > …Had Reno known any of these facts, she would probably have chosen someone else to investigate Linda Tripp’s allegations. **The situation was rife with appearances of impropriety, exactly what the independent council statue was enacted to prevent.** > > –_The Hunting of the President,_ p.336-337 ---
**Author:** ![Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e36b37/32.png) [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airman_Doors_USAF)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2003, 1:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bill-clinton-for-president-again-repeal-22nd-amendment/178354/111 "2003-06-03T13:17:51Z")
Isn’t it a bitch that your entire post doesn’t change the fact that Clinton comitted a crime? All your post did was attempt to excuse it, and it did a piss poor job because nowhere did I see it admit that Clinton did something illegal. If you’re representative, it’s no wonder why people think Democrats are soft on crime- you can’t even recognize one when you see it. ---
**Author:** ![2sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/2/e47774/32.png) [@2sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/2sense)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2003, 2:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bill-clinton-for-president-again-repeal-22nd-amendment/178354/112 "2003-06-03T14:05:39Z")
So, is everyone satisfied that the presidential term limit has been completely discredited and there is no rational reason to support it? ---
**Author:** ![Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e36b37/32.png) [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airman_Doors_USAF)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2003, 2:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bill-clinton-for-president-again-repeal-22nd-amendment/178354/113 "2003-06-03T14:13:48Z")
No, I’m not, but it was at least a good discussion until it turned into the standard Clinton apologist thread. ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2003, 2:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bill-clinton-for-president-again-repeal-22nd-amendment/178354/114 "2003-06-03T14:17:15Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by rjung \* > \*\*Which sounds great on paper, until you recall that the three-judge panel was hand-selected by Chief Justice William Rehnquist and staffed entirely by conservative partisan judges. \*\*Whoopitie do. Unless you’re alleging that the judges in some way failed to follow the law or were otherwise derelict in their duty, this is just so much partisan sniping. \*\* > [@](#): > > As for having everything go through Reno, it turns out Starr was concealing major parts of his investigation from her: \*\* It’s a real bitch when your own citation indicates that an investigation was appropriate: > [@](#): > > Had Reno known any of these facts, she would probably have chosen someone else to investigate Linda Tripp’s allegations. IOW, the author apparently believes that the investigation into the Lewinksy affair was an appropriate task for an independent counsel. He just thinks Reno should have appointed someone other than Ken Starr. ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2003, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bill-clinton-for-president-again-repeal-22nd-amendment/178354/115 "2003-06-03T18:11:58Z")
The last I’ll say on this topic in this thread… > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Dewey Cheatem Undhow \* > It’s a real bitch when your own citation indicates that an investigation was appropriate:IOW, the author apparently believes that the investigation into the Lewinksy affair was an appropriate task for an independent counsel. He just thinks Reno should have appointed someone other than Ken Starr. Sure, which is fine by me – because I believe that an impartial someone else would have recognized that Tripp’s allegations were baseless and raised merely because she wanted to tear down Clinton. An independent review of Tripp’s case would have dismissed it as bullstuff and let it fade away into obscurity. But since Mr. Starr, the “independent” counsel, was (1) already biased against the President to begin with, and (2) actively colluding with Tripp’s legal team, he had every incentive to push her charges as far as he could to find _something_ to use against Clinton. ---
**Author:** ![MikeRochenelle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/49beb7/32.png) [@MikeRochenelle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MikeRochenelle)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2003, 6:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bill-clinton-for-president-again-repeal-22nd-amendment/178354/116 "2003-06-03T18:20:23Z")
**Airman Doors** **Is perjury a crime? The choices here are yes or no.** The answer is an obvious yes. However, I would think that perjury might not be a **high crime or misdemeanor** , i.e. something that harms the nation, if it wasn’t about a matter of state. And “high crime or misdemeanor” IS the standard by which impeachement and removal is judged. Otherwise we’d get random loonballs trying to impeach a president for jaywalking or something. I think Clinton was a far better president than the conservatives give him credit for. But I’m also quite convinced that he did indeed lie under oath. And I’m not real happy about his sexual conduct. The Monica Lewinsky thing is forgivable, though if I were Hillary I’d have divorced his unfaithful ass long ago. But what nobody, Demo or Repub, seems to remember about Clinton is the matter of Juanita Broaddrick. There’s at least decently credible evidence that Clinton sexually assaulted her, if not outright rape. Frankly I think the 'Pubbies look silly grilling Clinton about a completely consentual blowjob from Monica or possibly fishy property transactions at Whitewater when he may be a rapist. 😛 Uh, priorities?? Of course, my fellow Demos are very intentionally looking the other way on this issue, so I hate their stupid asses too. \>Sigh\< But I’m digressing, and this is the wrong thread. I think I will just say that regardless of party affiliation, I pretty much loathe all politicians, and I think they should all be shot in the head. And to bring it full circle, that’s just another good reason why we need to keep the 22nd Amendment! ;] -Ben [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bill-clinton-for-president-again-repeal-22nd-amendment/178354.md?page=5)