Right- Starr used Taxpayer money to embarass a political rival.:mad:
So? It’s called “domain squatting”, and doesn’t prove much in this context. I bet a month before the convention www.<everycandidateeventhelunaticfringe>impeachment.org was squatted on. Doesn’t mean anyone was planning on it then, just means some entrepreneur was making a play and grabbing up the names.
http://www.impeachhilaryclinton.com
http://www.impeachhilarynow.com/
Relatively common, and unremarkable, I’d say.
You don’t seem to understand the legal standard for asking a question during a deposition. There was plenty of good reason to ask the question, and it was perfectly proper in that circumstance to ask it. And if a deponent believes a question is improper, he cannot proffer a lie in response. He can certainly refuse to answer and demand that the judge rule on the issue.
I’m unaware of any such allegation against Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush 43, or Obama. Also, going back, not aware of any accusation against Eisenhower while in office, Hoover, Coolidge, or Wilson.
In any event, if all you’ve got is “my prof told me…” I’d say it’s pretty indefensible.
The question was immaterial and Clinton didn’t lie. We adjudicated this garbage 10 years ago and your side lost. Are you guys ever going to move on to the current century. I can’t believe I let myself get drawn into a Clinton blowjob food fight yet AGAIN.
I was against impeaching Bush, but seriously, nobody who supported the Clinton impeachment with a straight face has any business saying Bush was not impeachable.
Oh, but you just don’t like his policies. Clinton was a dirty immoral philanderer.
Clearly Clinton should have just made it official policy that oral sex isn’t really sex ahead of time, just like Bush said waterboarding isn’t really torture, and he would have been fine.
Extremely deceptive summary. Very little was “ajudicated.” Clinton was never tried for perjury. The judge in his case certainly made it clear how she would have ruled, had that trial been commenced with her sitting on the bench and no jury to decide the issue.
But certainly a jury could have chosen to aquit Clinton; we’ll never know. For you to characterize this as “ajudicated,” however, is not right.
Here’s the truth: if Clinton had been tried, been convicted, and appealed his conviction, the record is legally sufficient for a reasonable jury to have found him guilty. What an actual jury would have done is anyone’s guess.
Is it possible we could go back to talking about impeaching Obama?
That ship has sailed.
“…But certainly a jury could have chosen to aquit Clinton; we’ll never know…”
I think that a former president could never be tried for a crime, it is moot. How could an impartial jury, as per the Constitution, ever be seated? Can anyone imagine the quality of a jury made up folks who do not even know who the president is!
Clinton, Bush, or whomever in the future–a ridiculous idea. Just fodder for zealots.
Not when he was in the White House, but but it’s possible that he had an affair with Christine Larson in 1952-3 (Kitty Kelley even said that Reagan and Larson were in bed together when Patty was born).
There are also rumors (and an Enquirer story) that Bush 43 had an affair with a former stripper named Tammy Phillips.
I’d be pretty shocked to hear that James Buchanan had cheated on his wife in office, what with him never being married, and all.
Andy Jackson would have given that poly-sci guy an ass whipping, or challenged him to a duel.
I think I will start a website designed to revoke the Constitutional restriction to two terms for President so Obama can be President-for-life.
Too early…?
You think I write as well as Sinclair? Thank you! He won a Pulitzer, you know.
Which of the items on my list of possible impeachment charges against Dubya do you find to be unsupported by published fact?
Oh, and “pamphlet press” is a dated reference. For those if us living in the Twenty-First Century, it’s called a blog. You can get one yourself. It involves a long series of tubes …
Really?? More than fifty years?! Well, color me impressed.
Then you can tell me how much less impeachable Dubya is for his multiple constitution shattering shenanigans than Clinton was for his deceptions under oath, than GHW Bush was for his participation in Iran-Contra, than Reagan was for Iran-Contra and other official corruption (which Cabinet secretary of his did not get indicted?), than Carter was for the failure of Desert One, than Ford was for his suspicious meetings with Al Haig prior to the transition, than Nixon was for Watergate and the cover up, than LBJ was for Viet Nam/personal corruption/affairs take your pick, than JFK was for his affairs, and than Ike was for letting Sherman Adams snag a Vicuna coat.
As a mere lad of less than fifty years, I obviously can not begin to understand the depth of your political experience and acumen, so please forgive me if the above list, generated off the top of my head and involving no reference materials whatsoever, is in any way inadequate.
Bless your heart.
In the most ladylike Southern lady sense.
And a classic Rand Rover response: when you can’t argue with the facts of a post, make up a new interpretation that nobody with bat brains would think the post actually said and argue that one while trying to hide an encyclopedic ignorance and a near complete inability to argue with all the success and self delusion of a benighted elephant hiding behind a dogwood tree*.
*In winter when the limbs are bare.
Been busy googling, eh?
You should have googled impeachment. It is the equivalent of an indictment.
And, as the old saying goes, “A district attorney can indict a ham sandwich.”
“…As a mere lad of less than fifty years, I obviously can not begin to understand the depth of your political experience and acumen…”
Another old saying, “Some people live, and never learn.” You are a primo example.
“…indisputable evidence…”
Really? I was under the impression that all evidence is disputable. Correct?
Otherwise, why even have a cross-examination of witnesses? Or even waste time with such an archaic procedure of a trial?
Which “he”?