Let's Impeach Clinton (Again!)

Great Debates
21

I’m no fan of the GOP, but this post is asinine. The Republicans are no equating liberalism with crime, they’re calling theft and bribery by their proper names. Bill and Hillary have disgraced the White House with their corruption and dishonesty.
>Stealing government property
>Selling presidential pardons
>Renting the Lincoln Bedroom for campaign contributions
>Taking payoffs from foreign businessmen for favors
>Lying to Congress
>Putting supporters at risk for huge legal bills in defense of lies

Bill Clinton is no liberal. He signed the contemptible Defense of Marriage Act, he signed the equally contemptible welfare reform bill, he did nothing for health care, he did nothing to support Social Security, he did not sign an executive order allowing gays in the military, instead putting in the confusing and useless “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy.

The Clintons remind me of Juan and Eva Peron. Like the Perons, the Clintons pretended to have the interests of the nation’s poor and disenfranchised at heart; instead they were ruthless kleptocrats bent on looting the treasury and selling favors to the highest bidders.

22

Fear, Unc is right about the pointless quips: they don’t help one’s argument, and they just plain turn off some people.

I suspect that how such an act got treated would have a lot to do with one’s position in one’s company. If, say, Jack Welch takes his office furniture with him when he leaves GE (he’s still there, right?), nobody’s gonna prosecute him. But if some mid-level manager did the same, he would likely see the police at his door.

Even if they tried to prosecute Welch under those circumstances, he’d be much more likely to be able to wave it off with some ‘I thought we had an understanding about that’ line; the belief that the furniture was part of his eventual compensation would be considered much more credible, in court, with a top exec than with the mid-level guy.

IOW, under a capitalist system, some are more equal than others in the eyes of the law. The inverse of Animal Farm looks a lot like the original.

The Clintons, who are (as divemaster noted) without shame, registered where they stood on this scale, and attempted to take advantage of it. If they thought about it consciously, they understood that the worst to happen to them would be a demand that they return the furniture.

They are correct: what is criminal depends, to a fair extent, on one’s standing in society. And the greater the difference between the lives of the movers and shakers, and the lives of average people, the more this will be accepted as the natural state of affairs, IMO.

FWIW, I don’t think this is a good thing. And I think that, in and of itself, is an argument that our society needs to become more egalitarian.

23

Reeder wrote:
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.

FWIW: Charles Manson is in prison in State prison for State crimes. I do not think that B&H could pardon him.

24

First of all. I am not a “Repugnican.” I’m not sure exactly what that is. Maybe former President KKKlinton would know. (Tell me how I have helped my argument by use of this stupid spelling.)

Anyway, what is wrong with feeling a sense of shame and/or contrition when you do something unseemly, wrong, or out-and-out illegal? I’m not sure where you get off thinking I only apply this standard to liberals/Democrats and not to conservatives/Republicans. If President Bush were to engage in any of the acts goboy listed above, for example, I sure as hell would not excuse him. I think that puts me in a more consistent position than many Clinton supporters.

Just for the record, my soul is not “constipated with repression.” I think the words you are looking for are “accountability for one’s actions.”

25

He pardoned his brother for drug charges. That could very well have been a state crime.

Of course, the point is that it is dangerous to let one man yield such power. Our system is created with checks and balances. I suppose presidential pardons were created as a check on the courts, but giving one man such unilateral power is kind of dangerous. You just can’t assume that the President is a man of integrity.

The rules should probably be changed so that there is some limitation on who and why the Prez can pardon people.

26

Didn’t Ford pardon Nixon? Wasn’t Nixon being accused of some really nasty things at the time? Did anyone complain about the president having this power at the time?

Yer pal,
Satan

27

When Ford pardoned Nixon, there was a bit of hue and cry, but I don’t recall anyone objecting to the Presidential power to pardon, but only to Ford’s use of it.

28

The REAL reason why the Right Wing of the GOP hates Bill so much- is that he was a popular & very effective President. Both JFK & Johnson had more white house sex than Bill- and were in no sense ashamed of it. Hell- so did Ike. Carter was more Liberal. But- Bill has one of the highest approval ratings ever- and the GOP knows they have to besmirch this. However- it does not work- every attack just makes those who are Clinton-haters MORE rabid- but does not bother the rest of us a bit. We LIKE Bill- Bill was a great President who made a lot of us more wealthy, and actually had a budget surplus. We do not begrudge Bill a BJ in the Oval office- altho we would rather he did not let it get out- that is one of the “perks of power”. Unless they are some sort of sicko whois sexually repressed- ALL Politicians get sex. They are powerful, charismatic men- big surprize.

The GOP just can’t believe that despite all their attacks- Bill is still beloved by us. So there are new attacks. The GOP can’t understand how- despite all their lies, attacks & innuendoes- we still would have marched to the Polls & re-elected Bill. It drives them CRAZY. But you see- “all the lies, attacks & innuendoes” is what backfired. They made a big deal over a freaking BJ- and we knew that it was NOT a big deal. They accused him of muder, rape & mopery & dopery. We yawned. Didn’t the GOP get bedtime storeis read to them when they were kids? Did they skip over the moral behind “The boy who cried ‘Wolf!’”?

29

None of which have been proved, some of which are not illegal- and are currently happeneing with the GOP at the helm (it was the GOP who blocked campaign finance reform, you know).

How about GWB? We have:
Stealing an election.
Voter fraud
Use of force to intimidate election officials.
Drug use
DUI
Selling his support to the religous right
Taking payoffs from businessmen for favors
Allowing innocent men to be executed- which is tantamount to murder. And doing so because it got him more votes.

And you accuse the CLINTONS of “looting the Treasury”? Did you read his “tax cuts”? Every wealthy GOP supporter will get 10 times what they donated to him- while the rest of us get crusts. And by doing so- he will bankrupt the nation, and force the Elderly on Social Security to starve. Hmm, that sounds like “genocide” to me.

30

“None of which has been proven”? Come on, Daniel. I voted for Clinton in 1992, but let’s not be blind, here.

**Putting supporters at risk for huge legal bills in defense of lies. ** As he was leaving office, he admitted he lied on the stand and in his grand jury testimony. How much more proof do you want?

**Stealing government property. ** Already proven, although they thought the stuff really belonged to them. :rolleyes: They’re sending the stuff back to the White House, which is at best a tacit admission of wrongdoing and at worst a way to evade legal consequences.

The rest are fairly well-established at this point with the possible exception of the pardons, and those don’t smell too rosy.

How about your GWB list? Any of that proven aside from the DUI?

31

Incidentally, I saw on television this afternoon someone confirming that the Clintons did exactly nothing different when moving out that Ronald Reagan and Nancy did when they moved out.

In fact, I would say that every offense that Clinton was ever accused of (aside from ludicrous “death lists”) a slew of politicians and expecially Republican presidents have been guilty of, if not worse.

Why Bill Clinton is so hated by the GOP that they would cut off their nose to spite their faces just to get in some more digs at the man, while the American people love the guy… Well, you’d figure someone in the GOP would just say, “We have the oval office, the house and a tie in the Senate, and we will soon have the Supreme Court as well. Let’s forget about the past and dominate!”

Well, Nixon was going to go down as a great president and he was well-liked by the public before his controlling nature and irrational fears of losing (or not knowing something which couldn’t have helped him anyway) was his downfall. I guess nobody in the GOP learns from history… Like the history of two years ago! :rolleyes:

Yer pal,
Satan

32

Lest we forget, the virulent revulsion towards the Clintons by the hard right was there before a lot of these misdeeds were even blips in the horizon. I remember some RW radio personalities starting an “America held hostage” day count as soon as Jan 20 1993… during that campaign the main character issues were the bimbos, not inhaling, and the thing about doing everything legal at his disposal to avoid being sent off to SE Asia and ALREADY these were claimed to render him totally unfit and contemptible.

Bill’s actions provide a cause to seek his punishment, but who and what he is fuels a passion to see him punished hard for whatever can be made to stick … and I guess that’s why it all went the way it went – the people saw viciousness ín it, a “now we got’im!” attitude, as opposed to “just doing our jobs.”

In any case… Bill, the man I supported in two campaigns, really seemed determined to leave in such a way as to maximize those pissed off. And both him and the Missus need someone to slap them back into reality about “livin’ large” with OPM. But it’s time to let go.

jrd

33

If a guy robs a bank, gets caught, and then returns the money is he still a thief?

Another question:

Should he still be prosecuted?

34

When Ford pardoned Nixon, it was an enormous issue. It made the issue of Clinton pardoning Mark Rich seem like small potatoes.

Ford, a sitting president, agreed to testify in front of a Senate committee about the issue. Ford’s press secretary resigned in protest.

Senator Walter Mondale introduced a Constitutional amendment that would have limited the president’s pardon power.

Which pardon do you think was more reprehensible: Nixon’s or Marc Rich’s?

35

Folks this is the Republican version of wagging the dog. They are doing this histronics to try to avoid holding hearings on the McClain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform bill, which may have prevented the Rich-bought pardon.

36

Oh, for crying out loud. Are we still on this?

As was reported on the inside and back pages of a handful of newspapers, and not at all on television, this is no different than any other past administration; it’s just the first time anybody decided to make a stink about it, pretending it had never happened. I also remember reading that the “thousands of dollars of gifts” the Clintons received were actually around $11,000 less than what George and Barbara Bush took after their single term in the White House. I’d have to go digging for a cite.

Unproven. And how is this worse than George Bush pardoning the Iran-Contra people to save his own ass?

Also old news; the Lincoln Bedroom has been the traditional overnight bunk for high rollers since the 1950’s. Read some history; start with The Last Mogul to see how intertwined the movie moguls were with the White House since Hollywood’s earliest days.

Iran-Contra, again. And Dubya didn’t acquit himself very well with that oil-company thing, did he?

Again, the Iran-Contra pardons.

Look, I’m not suggesting Clinton’s an angel. I found him to be a rather charismatic leader who enacted a few bits of decent social policy, kept up awareness on a few progressive issues, and otherwise yanked the chain of the traditional Democratic base while selling the party to big business (NAFTA, inconsistent environmental regulation, etc.). And it goes without saying that his libido is an embarrassment, but it’s interesting that a lot of people from around the globe were confused about how big a deal we made of it.

By the same token, the GOP has skeletons in their own closet. They all do. They’re human beings. You don’t give up your essential humanity when you walk up the steps of the Capitol. Nobody gets to Congress without some stain, somewhere, some kind of imperfection or flaw. You can’t run that gauntlet and earn that position without a much-larger-than-average dose of ambition bordering on hubris, a variation of which has to fall somewhere into the seven sins. I wouldn’t want absolutely pure people in Congress anyway, because they wouldn’t be able to understand and identify with their constituencies. This latter-day insistence that our leaders have to be saints isn’t just asinine, it’s unworkable. So chill out already, okay?

37

Spoorters at risk? How so? They donated money to his legal fund. And he did NOT commit perjury- and did not admit to it. Read the actual 'admission"- what he admitted to was more like answering evasively. Nor did he perjure himself to the Grand jury or congress. Tell me one material deliberate lie under oath he said. He was indicted for perjury/impeachment- but not convicted- so he is legally innocent.

Did not steal anything. All was 'donated" to the east Wing- Bill’s personal residence. Yes- some was intended for the OFFICE not the man- but this happens every time a Pres leaves office. Sorry no theft- just an error. If he 'stole", where is the arrest? the warrant? the indictment? They ain’t there because there was no crime. And don’t think that if the GOP thought it could possibly legally done- they would not indict him on this. They have not- thus there is no indictable offence.

jenkinsfan- this is more like a man cashing a check at a bank for more money that is in his account- but unknowingly. There is no “theft”. Again- theft is legal term. If Clinton had commited ‘theft’ then I am sure Ashcroft would LOVE to indict him. Any arrests? Any warrents? Any charges? No? Then no freaken "theft’ or crime.
Nothing else is in any way illegal or proved.

38

Cervaise, I think we can both agree that because other Presidents have done things that are wrong, it doesn’t excuse other Presidents from trying not to make the same mistakes. Given Clinton’s reputation for being less than forthright a great deal of the time, the removal of White House property looks worse than it otherwise would. And admitting on his way out the door that, yeah, I might just have lied on the stand, is pretty crappy too.

Daniel, I’m really not interested in arguing with you about it, so we’ll agree to disagree. I am not so blinded by partisanship that I can’t see what a schmuck Clinton was. And we’ll never know what might have been material and might not, since Clinton settled out of court with Paula Jones before those issues could be decided. Certainly the state of Arkansas thought what he did was serious enough to revoke his law license for five years.

As far as the other issue, this looks a little worse than just “an error,” but if you want to dismiss it as that, fine by me.

39

I voted for Clinton twice (I blush to tell), but I’m not so blinded by partisanship that I can’t tell when a guy on my side smells rotten.

Clinton’s supporters did more than contribute money to his legal fund. Employees and staff memebers who testified before Kenneth Starr’s committee had to engage expensive legal counsel. Do you think Betty Currie, among others, can afford that?

You’re invoking the *tu quoque *fallacy. We’re not talking about Reagan(also a scoundrel); we’re talking about Clinton’s crimes. I never liked Reagan or Bush,so I was only too gleeful when they caught got fibbing. I supported Clinton, so when the evidence of his malfeasance came to light, I feel let down even more than I was already.

As far as taking payoffs, James Riady already pleaded guilty to funnelling illegal contributions to Clinton and other Democrats.

Nobody says politicians have to be saints, but is it too much to ask that they not be criminals? Maybe I’m the last one left, but I believe that lying for personal gain or to get out of trouble is wrong; I believe that a real man faces the music and takes the penalty for his wrongdoing; I believe that you should be held accountable for your actions; I believe in honor, duty, and responsiblity.

40

I haven’t seen any mention of this in the press - only stuff about other Presidents accepting gifts on the way out the door. There’s a big difference between the two.

If anyone has any info about past Presidents taking government property with them when they left the White House, cites would be appreciated.