You gotta be kidding, Diogenes. You’re asking for a cite on something that is totally public record? Gimme a break.
But since you insist:
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/19/impeachment.01/
And I used to play Tron at its sister ship, Gala West. It was always hard to play with an onion in your belt, 'course that was the style of the time…
The request for a cite, and I asked the same thing, regards your claim that Clinton “committed a felony”. We’re still waiting.
I wanted a cite that he committed a felony. Where is it?
That was the opening the lame-duck GOP finally found after years of searching for something, anything. He was impeached out of sheer personal spite. And, in your heart of hearts, *you * know that.
What facts did you consider in reaching that conclusion? Any?
But the Senate declined to convict. No conviction, no crime.
Impeachment is not a criminal charge anyway. Even if the impeachment had ended in conviction, it still wouldn’t have been a criminal conviction. Clinton was never criminally charged with anything and was acquitted even of the impeachment charges.
good grief. we cannot simulatneously claim Bush guilty of war crimes while claiming that Clinton’s act wasn’t a felony if he wasn’t charged w/it.
there is, of course, a difference between some one who has been convicted of a felony w/some one who has committed an act which could be charged w/a felony. the former includes all in prison,the latter includes both clinton and bush.
So why was he disbarred?
The fact of the matter as I see it are this.
The current administration has done several things that warrant congress to exercise it’s oversight responsibilities. Testifying under oath, providing documents, are things the current administration should be required to do now. Then, when the facts are actually out, we will see if impeachment is the next step or not. This has nothing to do with previous presidents, or previous impeachments and the validity of those proceedings.
However, the possible manipulation of intelligence to convince congress and the American people to go to war is a very serious matter and it needs to be investigated in a thorough and disspassionate way. That issue along with others are things Congress should not ignore, in the name of bi-partisanship, because ignoring them can only be called dereliction of duty.
Contempt of court, essentially. It’s more circuitous than that but essentially Clinton agreed to a five year suspension of his license as part of an agreement to end the Paula Jones investigation. He was never charged with a felony.
What, sir! No criminal trespass? No crime committed? What, sir, about defilement?! What about how he sullied the virtue and reputation of Ms Jones, the Heidi of the Ozarks, with his big city ways and the seductive wiles he learned in the sophisticated underworld of Little Rock? What about a bright career in the Civil Service dashed on the rocks of his depraved lusts, and an innocent naif reduced to fighting with Tonya “Toecutter” Harding for her meagre crust of bread?
No crime? For shame!
Niether of those questions deal with pro- or anti- impeachment directly. You can word the same question two different ways and get drastically different results.
Do you support congress considering impeachment if the President illegally wiretapped people?
That question leads to people oversimplifying the issue in their heads. They just think of it like “Well, if he illegally wiretapped, then sure, he should be impeached” without considering other relevant issues.
I agree that these polls say something, but I don’t believe it is in any way that the majority of the country supports impeachment.
I am pretty sure he did commit a felony. Was he convicted, no.
Now that we have put this to bed (you see, dwelling on this only gives pro-Bush people the diversion they are looking for) I am also positive that if we were to investigate president Bush with even 1/4 of the resources poured into Clinton, and put him under oath to give testimony, he too would have the same charges if not more.
And there’d be the actual public will to oust him that Elvis assumes already exists. It might not be the empty exercise he’d have us engage in immediately.
Shine a light first, then act on what is revealed -to everyone- to be true.