No. Because if Clinton had gotten blown but not lied under oath, there would have been no impeachment.
Only if you presume the shoes are equivalent. One of them has blood on it. Lots of it. See the difference?
Oh, I agree with that. No question – if Clinton had lied under oath about something less salacious and similarly trivial, there would likely have not been an impeachment either.
Not really, no. A witch hunt that is politically motivated is still a witch hunt by any other name…it smells as foul.
Now, if you have some of that actual evidence stuff…but then, if you or more specifically the Dems really HAD that kind of evidence we wouldn’t be having this discussion, and the Dems wouldn’t have shelved this stupid impeachment attempt…would they?
-XT
Oh, I didn’t realize you had that document at hand, the one that says the Dems aren’t going for it because they don’t have the evidence. Darn, you got me there, just as soon as you produce it.
I wait with bated breath.
Evil Captor and BrainGlutton, I’m not sure why you are going nuts on this topic.
If you wish to assert that an existing witch hunt against Clinton was ultimately so unsuccessful that the Republicans were reduced to tracking him down over statements unrelated to governance that pretty much all emanated from a blowjob, I could sort of see your point, although the witch hunt had begun years earlier.
If you are asserting that the only reason the Republicans were willing to go after Clinton with such fervor or that the witch hunt was the result of his getting an extramarital blowjob, then you are being delusional.
Either way, it does not require this much passion to make your point. Take some Accupril and calm down.
Please say you are kidding? If you aren’t kidding, please go back and re-read the thread, ehe?
-XT
You seem to forget the he was a defendant in a sexual harassment trial. He had to testify in that trial, as past acts come into play to establish a pattern. I’m sure Bricker can do better on the explanation. And if I recall correctly, didn’t Clinton sign into law the bill that allowed defendants in sexual harassment suits be able to establish a pattern in order to prove guilt? So, you’re kind of right. It was about a blowjob—the one he tried to get from Paula Jones, which cause him to then lie.
Not a bit of it. There are any number of theories as to why this is proceeding as it is. Yours is that there is no evidence, an astonishing assertion given the huge pile of the shit lying in plain cite.
I’ll give you one back, if you’ll forgive the repitition. Perhaps the referral to committee is a) standard operating procedure, it being the Judiciary Committee and all, or b) it is intended to empower a JC investigation, with subpoena power and all that good stuff, with an eye to producing the very “smoking gun” you are so adamantly insisting doesn’t (yet) exist.
Your assertion that the reason is that such evidence does not exist is based on nothing more than your insistence that it is so. Have you a memo from Reid to Kucinich: “Dear Dennis: We are shelving this because we don’t have any evidence to support our partisan witch hunt”?
You got, you bring. No got?
Shifting the burden of proof.
It’s for the proponent of a positive assertion to provide the evidence.
You can’t claim that evidence exists, the proof for which is that no one has said it doesn’t.
So, which Dem witch hunts are you talking about here?
Well, I’m trying to figure out which of my posts in this thread you’ve rebutted.
And yet the Dems have pretty obviously shelved the proceedings (despite your hope which springs eternal)…just like the shelved the same thing when it was Chaney’s turn a year ago. Oh, I know…the investigation COULD be continuing covertly ready to spring out any day now…
Since I’m not privy to what the Dems may or may not actually have your call for evidence is absurd…which you knew when you asked for it. We can simply look at the situation and attempt to extrapolate the motives and actions.
Kucinich goes off the reservation and pretty much on his own decides to lay out the articles of impeachment (at night when no one is about…well, there were a few people there including the cleaning staff) against Bush in a similar vein as he did against Chaney a year ago. This is pretty much met with a rousing call of ‘meh!’ from the Democratic party, who swiftly move to shelve this indefinitely and make it go away as fast as they can…while the Republicans vote en masse to bring this to the floor for a full on debate.
And yet you seem to think this is all part of a master plan by the Dems to actually impeach Bush with the purported weight of evidence in the Dems furry little paws.
Well sure…it could be as you say. They COULD have an invisible magic pink unicorn who will give key testimony during this investigation to. I really think you should hold your breath to see your proposed vision of things transpire. I’m sure it will happen, someday…
Why no…it’s based on an assessment of events and a knowledge of how politics happen in this country. If the Dems REALLY had the goods on Bush et al then they would be going after them. That they aren’t (except for a few moonbats like Kucinich) says something. That the Republicans WANT this to be brought out as a public debate says something as well…except obviously to the faithful who still think this evidence is cut and dried and ready to go.
Very convincing. You want me to prove a negative with access to evidence that only the party elite or their legal staff would have…and then you want to win the argument when I can’t produce this mythical evidence. All the while asserting that your view of events, despite the fact that nearly no one else concurs with said assessment that this is nothing more than the Dems shelving this thing to get rid of it asap.
-XT
sigh Despite the shouting from the faithful the Dems have been to smart to launch said witch hunt…though Kucinich obviously gave it the old college try (though actually I think this was just grandstanding).
Was I talking to you there?
-XT
Obvious to you, based on evidence you have not got, and cannot get. AS you make clear when you say:
You may be right, you may not, and you are free to insist that you are. But as you slather on the sarcasm, please be mindful you have proved nothing at all. It may be as you say, that the Dems are running from this, or it may be that the Judiciary Committee is the best means for obtaining needful investigation. Or, it may be both, as keeping options open is dear to politicians.
Which would be the tactic of choice if they fear an investigation, would it not?
It could be the means to obtain that evidence.
Would you prefer to conduct this conversation purely on a level of snark? I’m yer huckleberry, I can give as good as I get. But a subpoena, for testimony under oath, with the threat of perjury behind it is hardly a mythical creature with a fondness for virgins.
Superior to mine own? So you say. You are welcome to that assessment.
Sure they would! Whisper the word “subpoena” in their ear, and you can hear the snap! as their rectum slams shut. They would love the chance to dispose of this without a sordid display of evidence and facts. Under oath.
Not a bit of it. Simply pointing out that your opinion is based on nothing but your alleged expertise. Which you are welcome to, and which I need not consider as anything more.
Oh, its not the first time I’ve had an unpopular opinion. Not afraid of it.
Sorry, but I was under the impression that:
, being posted in this thread, was by definition addressed to anyone who cared to rebut it.
I did so awhile back.
Your turn.
Let me sum up my reply to you thus: What do you base your own opinion on, 'luci? Aside from wishful thinking I’m hard pressed to see how you are drawing your conclusions here. In the article cited earlier in this thread it’s clear the Dems have shelved this thing. Based on how the impeachment articles are being vigorously not-investigated against Chaney I’m unclear how you think this time will be different.
I’ve certainly explained what I base my own argument on…why don’t you come clean and tell me what you are basing your own on, ehe? Because from my perspective your argument seems to boil down wishful thinking and simple contrary-ness on your part.
Edumacate me 'luci…since you feel that I’m simply talking into my hat here, or that this is XT’s Grand Theory™ here, and not something that is pretty much the prevailing thoughts on this (at least from the ‘Dems have shelved the impeachment’ part…obviously WHY they have done so is still debatable, as I freely concede).
-XT
I’m sorry…I’m viewing the thread on my phone atm (and on one of the customers servers earlier). Could you be specific as to which post you are refering to so I can look it up and see if any of the points you are making haven’t been addressed?
-XT
elucidator:
Presumably, on January 20th, 2009 at 11:30 AM, if no substantive move has been made to resurrect this bill from the Judiciary Committee, you’ll agree that your view here is in error. Yes?
I imagine that it doesn’t even have to be that long. After all, the House can hardly begin proceedings on January 13th if they expect to finish and have the Senate convene to hear the impeachment - right?
So – right now you insist that this is a valid move to keep the impeachment train going. My question to you is: at what point will you concede error on this claim, if no forward motion results?
On what basis do you conclude that I have not “come clean”, save for my stubborn refusal to agree with you?
You freely admit you have no evidence beyond your own opinion, and that no evidence is possible. It may even be true, I can certainly see tactical advantages for allowing Dennis the K to fulfill his promise, and get busy with chucking the buggers out. And I wholeheartedly agree that is the crucial issue of our time.
But I want the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but. We are owed that much, at the very least. If it takes subpoenas and the threat of perjury to get that, so be it. “What did the President know, and when did he know it?” And if he didn’t know, what is his excuse for not knowing, when it was his sworn duty?
Don’t know what that is, but it sounds like something a good country boy like me should steer well clear of. Too many syllables for an honest man.
Best guess? The cynical bastards want it both ways, they want to keep the threat of an investigation towards impeachment open as they turn over rocks to inventory the vermin therein under. If they are obstructed, they can always dust it off. If we can get the truth without it, that’s probably best, but the truth! goddamit! the truth!
I doubt that Bush will actually be impeached. But I have no doubt, none whatsoever, that he thoroughly deserves whatever official disgrace can be mustered. As I also have no doubt that we deserve to know exactly how this thing was done in our name, on our dime, under our flag.
If we demand less, the disgrace is ours.
My view is that he *should * be impeached, yes. Do you disagree?
Will he be? The time frame makes that unlikely, granted. Of course, all the wise analysts agreed that it was impossible to impeach Nixon, you may recall.
But I want the truth, I want it laid out, sworn to under oath. And if we can have that without impeachment, peachy. If that is the only method that will compel the truth, then so be it.
But I’m damned if I’ll let that lying little shit toddle off to Crawford like an elder statesmen with the thanks of a grateful nation. Too many have suffered too much.