Except for lying under oath to be relevant to impeachment, it has to rise to the standard of “high crimes and misdemeanors.” And therefore, whether you like it or not, what it was about is relevant.
Just as a hint to you, not all lying under oath is perjury.
Well… not in the conventional sense perhaps, but there was a Mrs. Buchanan.
I didn’t make the adultery claims, but presidents for whom the evidence of adultery is pretty strong include
Warren G. Harding (the famous ‘coat closet’ incident with Nan Britton, among others)
FDR (his long time on-again/off-again girlfriend was with him when he died, courtesy of his daughter no less)
Ike (had adulterous relationships, though he may have been impotent by the time of his presidency due to heart and back ailments)
JFK
LBJ (was actually furious that JFK had the ladies man rep when “I get more pvssy before breakfast than he gets in a month”)
Lots of 19th century ones had odd or less than faithful sex lives (though I don’t buy the ‘gay Lincoln’ theories), but then who cares.
There are rumors about Hoover (middle aged multimillionaire- it’d hardly be surprising), Nixon (he liked Asian ladies and certainly had access to them, but it’s not known there was anything going on), Bush Sr. (supposedly had a car accident while traveling with his mistress as VP), and others but no smoking guns. Reagan’s age and then the shooting probably left him without much interest in an affair by the time of the presidency. Something interesting though is that the adulterous proclivities or lack of seem to have absolutely no correlation whatever to how well the president’s policies, politics, or how well he did or didn’t do his job. Since Obama’s a lot younger and considered probably sexier than most presidents, I’m sure there will be lots of innuendo and attempts to snag smoking gun photos or stories about him for the next few years regardless of the validity or lack of.
Dio referred to the Judge Webber’s rulings earlier, so I think it would be fair to say she carries some weight in the matter.
"On two separate occasions, this Court ruled in clear and reasonably specific terms that plaintiff was entitled to information regarding any individuals with whom the President had sexual relations or proposed or sought to have sexual relations and who were during the relevant time frame state or federal employees. See December 11, 1997 Order, at 3; Pres. Depo. at 53-55, 66, 78.FN13 Notwithstanding these Orders, the record demonstrates by clear and convincing evidence that the President responded to plaintiff’s questions by giving false, misleading and evasive answers that were designed to obstruct the judicial process. "
" Given the President’s admission that he was misleading with regard to the questions being posed to him and the clarity with which his falsehoods are revealed by the record,FN15 there is no need to engage in an extended analysis of the President’s sworn statements in this lawsuit. Simply put, the President’s deposition testimony regarding whether he had ever been alone with Ms. Lewinsky was intentionally false, and his statements regarding whether he had ever engaged in sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky likewise were intentionally false, notwithstanding tortured definitions and interpretations of the term “sexual relations.”
"The President never challenged the legitimacy of plaintiff’s lawsuit by filing a motion pursuant to Rule 11, however, and it simply is not acceptable to employ deceptions and falsehoods in an attempt to obstruct the judicial process, understandable as his aggravation with plaintiff’s lawsuit may have been. “A lawsuit is not a contest in concealment, and the discovery process was established so that ‘either party may compel the other to disgorge whatever facts he has in his possession.’ "
Just as a piece of advice, let it go. There is no way you will ever convince Dio.
Reagan. The story is that Reagan had an affair in 1952-53.
Is that what the kids are calling it these days?
Actually, no, it isn’t. The House voting that there is enough evidence to pursue a trial may be, in some ways, mechanically similar to an indictment, but it is a hell of a lot harder to do, and consequently far more serious. There’s a reason it’s only happened twice, and both times were blatant partisan/personal politics.
“in some ways”?
What ways?
Impeachment leads to trial by the senate.
Indictment leads to trial in court.
Show me the difference.
Keep grasping.
You have only my word on this, but I wrote my previous post strictly with my own memory - my little gray cells in my black and gray head. The only resources I used were my computer, my browser, the SDMB, and the intervening networks. I did not use google or wikipedia or any other web sites, or books. I didn’t even ask anyone else about my posting.
This is The Pit, so if you want to call me liar go right ahead. After all, you have only my word.
In my 49 years on this planet, I have not yet learned what your response to the substance of my assessment of the relative impeachablity of the last several presidents, including the most recent one.
Unless you calling me an ignorant callow liar is your substantive response. Well, I wear ugly clothes, too.
None of that means that President Obama has committed any high crimes or misdemeanors in his eight (8) days in office so far. Nor does it mean that Dubya complied with the US Constitution, or the Geneva Conventions, during his presidency.
Typo,
Whatever you say.
Ah, thanks-the post you were quoting mentioned several ex-presidents.
Of course, wasn’t he still married to Jane Wyman then? (Not that that made it okay.)
I never heard anything about Teddy Roosevelt, Calvin Coolidge, William Taft, or Gerald Ford. President McKinley was said to be very devoted to his wife, and was there ever any talk of Abraham Lincoln having an affair? (Other than recent speculation that he may have been gay-which seems to affect almost every historical figure?)
spike404, one does not need to google to remember Iran-Contra or Watergate.
I believe I have the honor of posting the first “Impeach Bush” thread in GD, on the occasion of his first huge bald-faced lie in the Iraq War sell-a-thon. When he stood there with Blair and lied his ass off. Ahhh, bad times, bad times…
Like having your feet nailed to the railroad track, and the train is a mile and a half away and coming at you at five miles per hour, but you can’t get out of the way, and the train won’t stop…
Seems like only a couple thousand years ago…
It’s unfortunate that you disagree with Bill Clinton’s blowjob-lying policy.
Also too bad for those petitioners that have a difference in opinion with Obama’s friend-enrichment policy (that seems to be their beef, hollow as it is).
And …
wait for it!
Yes I am!
All those poor Jews who disagreed with Hitler’s Final Solution policy…:eek:
If you want, there’s Shelley Ross’ Fall from Grace: Sex, Scandal, and Corruption in American Politics From 1702 to the Present. It’s been about 20 years since I read it, but I do recall it having a good deal of information on this matter.