As if that would be any dumber than “you are charged with trying to keep the details of your personal sex life with a consenting adult private”?
Except that’s not what he was charged with.
Nor was Al Capone charged with racketeering. But don’t kid yourself about what either case was really about.
In the legal sense, nothing. In the political sense, he was charged with being a successful and popular Democrat.
Wrong. He was actually a Democrat, of the Southern pro-slavery but pro-union minority faction, the only Senator from a seceded state who did not resign his seat. Lincoln chose him as his running mate in a gesture of the national unity he was determined to re-achieve, despite the serious policy differences which were the original source of the breakdown in Johnson/Congress relations.
Yet that’s how most Americans describe themselves, isn’t it?
Did that happen in the Clinton impeachment, done against the will of the people solely by the opposition party in a lame-duck session? Gotta be consistent, ya know.
You are being dishonest.
Kindly explain that.
Find a cite for your quote.
Bill Clinton was not charged with “being a successful and popular Democrat.” If it fits into your worldview and makes you happier to think so, feel free, but it doesn’t make it true.
Nope, Johnson was a Democrat.
So the rest of your argument falls apart. He was a Democrat, and disliked, and hadn’t been elected, so there was a witch hunt to impeach him.
Bill Clinton’s impeachment was a perfect example of a politically driven witch hunt that wasted millions of dollars in taxpayer money and countless hours of Congress’ time (the one bright spot). It was a shameful example of someone given unlimited authority and told to push until something cracked. When Clinton perjured himself, that was the crack they had been trying to create and they ran with it. That being said, Bill Clinton had no more chance of being removed from office then the so called FMA has of passing into law today. However, had Bill Clinton been removed from office, it would have been political suicide for the Republicans to go after Gore, just as I’ve stated in this thread. If you’ll actually read what I’ve written, I’ve been careful to stay party neutral in my statements. For starters, like Monty said, what would they have charged Gore with? I know you like to feel persecuted and to imagine yourself as a heroic knight standiong tall against evil Republican plots, schemes and black hellicopters, but in reality I think you’ve been drinking too much of Sancho Panza’s wine.
Not the argument that impeaching the president and then the vice president (now president) in succession would be political suicide except in the most gross abuses of those offices.
But the charge that the congress was the same party as Johnson, and therefore impeached him by following their collective conscience, is ridiculous.
It wasn’t a quote. :rolleyes:
Now, can you actually *explain * where what I’ve said is dishonest, or does it simply “fit into your worldview and make you happier” to simply repeat the charge? :rolleyes:
I’m sorry. I was unclear. Find a cite for your statement, which I quoted.
It is dishonest because it is untrue.
Apparently all you can do *is * repeat yourself. In this forum, we explain and defend our statements.
Having said that, one would have to be totally unaware of the nature and history and politicization of the Starr effort in order not to conclude that his goal was to find something his fellow Republicans could use as a pretext to get Clinton for something. One would have to be totally unaware of all the blind alleys he went down in a fruitless attempt to get the evidence for something they knew as an article of faith to be true, that Clinton was essentially an agent of evil who had to be removed. One would have to be totally unaware of the circumstances of the impeachment vote, who led the charge, and what their own morality was. One would, in short, have to be as unaware of the facts, and as lacking in substantive argument, as you.
Now it’s your turn, as in fact it has been for several posts now. What do you think the Clinton impeachment was about, if not to get him for something? Why did he need getting, if not for being a successful and popular Democrat? Whatcha got there, my slanderous friend?
Slanderous? You must be joking. I posted the answer to the question, as factually as can be given to “What was Clinton charged with?” with cites and everything. Links to the texts of the articles of impeachment as well as a story about the judge’s citing him for contempt.
You haven’t done anything but spout opinions.
I have to back you up on this one. The old “well everyone KNOWS they were just trying to get him” doesn’t wash with me, either.
The word “slanderous” refers to your repeatedly alleging my dishonesty - which again you fail to support in any way.
Anyone who can answer the questions I asked in my last post, about alternative explanations, is welcome to do so. It’s still your turn to contribute some actual substance, pal.
As we say around here, “When come back, bring argument”.
Can we please move past this?
Anybody who denies that the literal impeachment was what was laid out in the articles of Impeachment is not reasonable.
Anybody who suggests those articles were really what the congress, and Ken Starr, was after, is also unreasonable.
You first.
Well, not first, since I already did…but whichever.
Your statement was dishonest. In the legal sense, Bill Clinton was “charged” (as much as someone is “charged” in an impeachment) with “provid[ing] “perjurious, false and misleading testimony” before Independent Counsel Ken Starr’s grand jury,” and “obstruct[ing] justice to “delay, impede, cover up, and conceal the existence of evidence” related to the Jones case.” He was also cited (not “charged,” again, as I made clear in my post) with contempt. These things were what he was “charged” with in the legal sense. Not “nothing.” Your statement was dishonest. I have provided cites (you know, “substance”) to back my claim. You have, as I said, done nothing but spout opinions.
Your turn, pal.
Certainly. I apologize for the hijack. I was attempting to answer what I read as an honest question as simply as possible by providing proper cites. My previous post will be my last on the matter in this thread.
Literally, yes, you’re right, nor has anyone suggested otherwise. You’re also right that it is unreasonable to limit oneself to that.
But that keeps cropping up anyway.
Look, impeachment is a political nuclear weapon in our system. It strikes at the heart of a democratic republic itself, and is only to be used when that democratic republic is threatened so much more fundamentally by an officeholder’s continued presence in office that it becomes necessary. The reasons for doing it, or not, have to be clearly understood and generally agreed to by We the People. The continued obfuscatory rationalizing we see from certain parts, that it was all about *upholding * the rule of law (not subverting it), using the special legal procedure provided for federal officeholders (exactly the opposite is true), means that it unfortunately *cannot * yet be moved past. Sorry.
Garfield226 answered a very narrow specific question. Assume he was arguing in good faith.