Let's Impeach Clinton (Again!)

Great Debates
#1

Apparantly, they don’t give Arlen Specter enough to do in the U.S. Senate. He has devised a solution to solve the pesky Mark Rich problem – impeach Clinton. He delivered his grand and ingeneous solution while on “Fox News Sunday”

Never mind that he’s not a sitting president. Never mind that Clinton hasn’t done anything illegal that we know of yet (that won’t last long) in the matter. Apparantly the tango was so fun for him, Arlen is asking Clinton for another dance.

So how will this work? Will Dubya step down for a day so it can be official? Will they replace Bill Clinton’s name in all the history books with Ronald Reagan when they mention the forty-second (I believe) president? Will they strand him on an uninhabited island to live out the rest of his days in shame?

I got to know.

#2

Arlen’s idea: impeach him after the fact, then strip him of his pension, Secret Service protections, etc. Boy, when you look at the people who hate his guts, he’s gotta being doing something right.

Burton and Barr would sell thier souls to see Clinton re-impeached (if that is the word). If they could find a taker, that is.

I lived through Nixon, a more reprehensible sack of poisonous goo never wore shoes, but I wouldn’t do this to him, much less an ordinarily venal and corrupt politician like Slick Willy.

Infuckinunbelieveable!

#3

To paraphrase Dana Carvey: “Na ga ha.” (Not gonna happen)
The GOP, already on precipitous footing since their president didn’t actually…ahem…win the election, would be utter fools to try to pursue another divisive and publicly unpopular impeachment proceeding against a man who isn’t even president anymore.

#4

Lord Acton, I believe:

Never underestimate the importance of stupidity as a factor in history

#5

I’ll go so far as to say a prayer to Jesus that they try and go through with this.

The wounds are still gaping from the election debacle. How soon they forget that more people in this country who bothered to vote didn’t WANT Dubya in office, huh? And all this while the guy leaves office with an approval rating which shows that we would STILL have a President Clinton if there weren’t term limits?!?

I’ll say one thing: Maybe the GOP has short memories about what happened to them two years ago (when Clinton’s stray cockmeat was reaching crisis proportions, America responded by… Voting Republican incumbants out of the House and Senate in record numbers!), but if the Republicans really do wish to go through with it, I’ll bet that the American voters will remember two years from now when it’s voting time again!

What a bunch of morons they are, but you have to admit that Specter’s face would sure look comical without his nose attached…

Yer pal,
Satan

*TIME ELAPSED SINCE I QUIT SMOKING:
Ten months, three days, 2 hours, 17 minutes and 18 seconds.
12363 cigarettes not smoked, saving $1,545.68.
Extra life saved: 6 weeks, 22 hours, 15 minutes.

See my Sig File FAQ: http://pages.prodigy.net/briank.o/SigFAQ.htm
*

#6

Agreed. I love watching the GOP dig their own graves.

Maybe they figure it’d distract the populace from the numerous shortcomings of “President” Dubya?

#7

I totally agree with Satan. I would LOVE to see this happen. And then to watch the midterm elections, as the House and Senate go overwhelmingly Democrat.

To see this done at a time when Clinton is still so enormously popular and the wounds are still fresh from the election would be absolute, total political suicide for the far right.

It would be a beautiful thing.

#8

I agree, this is the real reason for this latest vitriol. Even the Repugnican nitwits could couldn’t be this short-sighted, could they?

I am reminded of the scene in Animal House, with Flounder gleefully giggling, “This is gonna be GREAT!!!”

#9

Satan- I hate to sound like a dittohead- but i agree completely.

I think it is a smokescreen to cover up some Bush boners.

#10

:: faints ::

Yer pal,
Satan

*TIME ELAPSED SINCE I QUIT SMOKING:
Ten months, three days, 4 hours, 44 minutes and 59 seconds.
12367 cigarettes not smoked, saving $1,546.19.
Extra life saved: 6 weeks, 22 hours, 35 minutes.

See my Sig File FAQ: http://pages.prodigy.net/briank.o/SigFAQ.htm
*

#11

Section 2 - Civilian Power over Military, Cabinet, Pardon Power, Appoint

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States,
when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each
of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to
Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#A2Sec2
Nowhere does it say anyone can do anything about his pardons. Hell…he could have pardoned Charlie Manson and Manson would be free today. The republicans don’t have a leg to stand on.

#12

Satan?! Is it really you? Where the hell have you been, o diabolical one? We’ve missed you!

Lisa, hugging a prostrate Satan as he begins to wake up from his faint, only to send him back into an unconscious stupor.

Ahem. Back to the OP:

Personally, I don’t know why the GOP hates Clinton so much. He’s smug and popular, yes, but is there any reason for this irrational hatred? They make themselves look ridiculous by continuing these attacks.

Of course, I say the same thing to W. Haters. Get over it!

#13

Um, aside from the pardons, there’s also the embarrassing fact that he and Hilary took a bunch of stuff from the White House that didn’t belong to them, and may have been doing it for as long as a year. I doubt that it rises to the level of this nonsense, but it certainly does nothing to mitigate the Clinton Slime Factor.

#14

As pl observes, BC did not exactly make a classy exit.

And no, Reeder, he just couldn’t have pardoned Manson. Manson wasn’t positioned to make a large enough contribution to the presidential library.

I wish I could just say, “Much ado about a blow-job.” But, man! He keeps proving himself to be quite a piece of work.

#15

I watched the “Fox News Sunday” interview with Arlen Specter. It seemed to me that he brought up the second impeachment possibility as an interesting aside; something that a technicality might allow. But he did state emphatically that he was not sponsoring or encouraging such a movement or action.

I don’t think we’ll see it tried.

I would say the shame the Clintons are feeling once they got caught shipping out the funiture last year and not properly declaring the White House gifts was punishment enough. (Not to mention re-directing the funds for the Clinton library). But everything I’ve seen about these two is that they are absolutely incapable of experiencing shame.

#16

When the reaction is worse than the crime, who do you think gets burned?

We’ve been through this sort of thing so many times in recent years. Remember 2 Live Crew a decade or so ago? They released an extremely vulgar and misogynistic album that had everyone from women’s groups to the Falwell/Robertson crowd up in arms. Practically the whole country was united in telling those sleazebuckets that they’d gone way too far.

Then the usual fundie suspects decided that protests and boycotts weren’t enough: their album had to be banned as obscene. And that (quite appropriately) made freedom of speech the issue, and the sleaziness of 2 Live Crew became completely secondary.

Same idea with the attempts of the right to hang Clinton over a blowjob a few years back: Clinton was a sleaze, alright, but few non-fundies thought he deserved to be hounded over it the way he was. The 1998 midterm elections showed who came out smelling better over that one. (You’d think Specter’s memory would go back that far.)

Clinton’s pardon of Marc Rich was sleazy enough to embarrass his most conscientious defenders. And hauling furniture from the White House that had been given to the government, not the Clintons, was shabby as hell, especially in the wake of Hillary’s $8M book advance.

But an impeachment inquiry right now would be absolutely wonderful; it would be the overreaction that eclipsed the sin. Unfortunately, it won’t happen; however low my opinion of Dubya’s policies, his political instincts are unfortunately excellent. He will put the word out that this should go nowhere, and it will die.

#17

This goes to the heart of why Repugnicans hate the Clintons so much. It isn’t what they may or may not have done, so much as an unwillingness to show contrition. A sense of shame is central to the Repugnican psyche; sinners (read: people not like us) must feel shame, and must be punished. If public figures like the Clintons are able to prosper without consequences, it is a threat to the very fiber of repression that constipates the conservative’s soul. Without shame and punishment for liberal acts, who knows what kind of behavior might break out all over the country?

#18

Really? Someone notify me when “President” Dubya shows some contrition over his desertion and year-long AWOL from the Air National Guard, then.

And in a related vein (and to close the circle a bit), just how much contrition has Dan “Clinton is a Slimeball” Burton showed over that bastard son of his, whose existence Burton denied and ignored for over a decade?

#19

Originally from Fear Itself:

Can we drop the stupid quips? They’re pointless and actually cause people to give less weight to your statments. You undermine your own position, and that of your allies, with stupid reactionary wisecracks like that.

Liberal acts? You are equating criminal acts with liberalism? As much as I might like to agree with you, or maybe reverse your statement, you cannot write off the Clinton’s actions as merely liberal. If, when you left your job, you took the office furniture with you, you’d likely be prosecuted, or at least liable for prosecution. Now that we’ve determined these are not merely “liberal acts,” and in fact, are crimes, I think you should reconsider that statement. I’ll requote it substituting the proper words.

I think we all well know the answer to that. Unchecked criminal behavior multiplies.

#20

No, I was pointing out that Repugnicans equate liberalism with criminality. Their hypocrisy regarding the crimes committed by their own (it’s OK, so long as you show shame and contrition) and the unforgivable sins of the Clintons is laughable.