To me “nailed” implies he was impeached, which he was and which is the topic of this thread. As noted above perjury was the main thrust of the Articles of Impeachment.
YMMV
Starr had the authority to file for it himself, but knew it wouldn’t hold up in a real court. That’s why he sent the House a $40 million porn novel instead.
Not even then. Impeachment/removal has exactly bollocks to do with the legal system.
The 25th Amendment, if you could get a majority of the cabinet to say the guy “is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office”.
I think it’s fair to say that there’s going to be a market in Texas for an Impeach Obama sticker from the moment he’s sworn into office, even if it’s just Republicans annoyed at half a dozen years of Impeach Bush stickers. Then when you look at the last few presidents and the explosion in presidential lawlessness caused by the start of the war on terror, illegal torture, wiretapping etc., it’s a racing certainty that Obama will and has already I suppose break a number of laws, soprinting a bunch of these stickers at the start of Obama’s period in office is a far-sighted entrepreneurial move.
Even after ten years, you guys can’t give this one up.
Clinton was the defendant in a sexual harassment lawsuit. He was asked about his private, consensual sexual activity with Monica Lewisky as a part of that lawsuit, under oath. This is very much legitimate and could be asked of you or I if we were defendants in a sexual harassment lawsuit.
Clinton denied that sexual relations occurred. Starr found that sexual relations did, in fact, occur.
Clinton was the one who was parsing words over the definition of “sexual relations”. It would have been remiss of Starr not to lay out exactly what happened in order to show that Clinton had perjured himself.
I believe I saw “Impeach Clinton” stickers in January 1993. The whole thing is silly.
Even after ten years, you guys still don’t get it.
Which had already been thrown out. As well, the suit, as you also conveniently omit, was the creation of a foundation created precisely for the purpose of getting Clinton for something, anything, no matter what, and with whom Starr, who shared their outlook, had colluded in his own, similar effort. Remember any of that?
As if it were material to that case that no longer existed. :dubious"
No it isn’t, and no we wouldn’t. You know better.
As defined in the question he was asked.
And in great, loving, prurient, legally superfluous detail. Hence the “porn novel” remark.
“The” one? And not the Scaife lawyers asking him? You do know what a “perjury trap” is, don’t you? :dubious:
Perjury requires materiality. It wasn’t there. Starr knew it. It was remiss of him not to drop an investigation that had turned up nothing and required creating something instead.
But then you know all that, even if you won’t stipulate it. So, tell us anyway, why do YOU think Starr never filed an indictment? :dubious:
What do you mean that the suit no longer existed? I’m talking about the Paula Jones lawsuit which was settled after the Lewinsky matter.
A person’s consensual sexual history, right or wrong, is a valid line of questioning in those type of cases. Only if you are trying to be misleading is the definition of “sexual relations” at all hard to understand. And the very fact that Clinton was dancing around the issue made it relevant for Starr to include these lurid details. He put a cigar in her cootchie! That’s not sexual?
And, IIRC, in exchange for everything being dropped, Clinton agreed to a 5 year suspension of his law license and was held in contempt by the judge. Why would that happen if he was railroaded? Why wouldn’t he fight the injustice?
If the Birthers’ claim turned out to be true, would he have to be impeached to be removed from office? Could his election be declared invalid by Congress, or does the cert stand regardless? Just wondering…
The Paula Jones suit that the judge dismissed after Scaife’s lawyers, given every chance, were utterly unable to turn into an actual case, no evidence of sexual harassment having been uncovered. The one that “poor Paula” was paid so handsomely by Scaife to front for. That one. Ring any bells?:dubious:
*Not *one about sexual harassment, unless the behavior being questioned constitutes such, in a pattern consistent with the behavior being alleged. Which it didn’t, no matter how hard Starr tried to suborn Lewinsky into saying it did.
For normal people in normal use, true. For lawyers in an adversarial, on-the-record legal matter, false.
What part of “materiality” is so hard for you to understand? :dubious:
Are you completely unaware that he was the fucking President of the United States? That he realistically could not “fight the injustice”? That to do so would cost him more, in time and money, than giving it up? Why do you think any nuisance case is ever settled by the defendant? :dubious:
If you still don’t get it then it’s only because you’re determined not to.
The most outlandish set of circumstances the Birthers can claim still leaves him a US citizen since birth. So it doesn’t matter.
Many scientists agree that in 4.5 to 5 billion years, the Sun is going to run out of hydrogen and swell up into a red giant, probably swallowing up the Earth. What is Obama doing about it? Nothing. NOTHING!
I say impeach him.
The Constitution doesn’t address the question of who resolves disputes as to whether a particular candidate does, in fact, meet the eligibilty requirements for the Presidency. Implicitly, it would fall upon the electors to satisfy themselves that they were voting for an eligible candidate.
“Policy differences” were stipulated too. Hoo boy, were there policy differences at the heart of the law Congress passed to restrain Johnson, over the minor matter of keeping the Civil War won.
The final charge, about his bringing Congress into disrepute through defamatory speeches, was in there solely because of his unpopularity with the base of the Radical Republicans who were left in dominant controll of Congress after Secession.
You know who *else *is doing nothing about it? 
You have the point there. Policy differences did, indeed, play a significant role in why Congress crafted the law that Johnson broke. So you’re right, I phrased my argument poorly.
But the more important point is, do people look back and say, “Congress acted reasonably and properly in trying to craft a law for Johnson to break so that Congress could gin up a good reason to impeach the president?”
I think most observers would say that the impeachment effort was a soap opera that reflected very poorly upon Congress, and Johnson too. Holding up the Johnson impeachment as a good example of how Congress can impeach for any reason it likes, ignores the prevailing view that it is a BAD example of how Congress can impeach for any reason it likes.
I would say “cautionary” instead. It’s the best possible example of how Congress can impeach for any reason it likes, AND the best possible example of how Congress must take its responsibility to the republic and the people extremely seriously when it even considers the possibility.
John Stuart Mill. But he can’t, because he’s dead.
Let’s impeach him anyway, just to be on the safe side.
Obama is clearly guilty of BPWB (being president while black.)
Whether it was proper or not, we kind of have to look to the Johnson and Clinton cases for precedent on impeachment, because those are the only impeachments of the President we’ve had.