One Political Plaza - Home of politics
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main
Reason for impeachment
Page 1 of 2 next>
Oct 18, 2019 12:28:41   #
Tedtoake1
 
Although I’m uncertain of the wisdom of impeachment at this particular time, I feel that the words of previous Republicans during the impeachment of Clinton such as “Impeachment isn’t really just about the crimes committed, it’s about cleansing the OFFICE of the stain on it” apply.

Reply
Oct 18, 2019 12:56:39   #
Lonewolf
 
Tedtoake1 wrote:
Although I’m uncertain of the wisdom of impeachment at this particular time, I feel that the words of previous Republicans during the impeachment of Clinton such as “Impeachment isn’t really just about the crimes committed, it’s about cleansing the OFFICE of the stain on it” apply.



Reply
Oct 18, 2019 12:56:52   #
son of witless
 
Tedtoake1 wrote:
Although I’m uncertain of the wisdom of impeachment at this particular time, I feel that the words of previous Republicans during the impeachment of Clinton such as “Impeachment isn’t really just about the crimes committed, it’s about cleansing the OFFICE of the stain on it” apply.


Your lack of clarity is appalling. That you equate the possible impeachment of President Trump with the impeachment of President Clinton is not fathomable. The circumstances are clearly different. Clinton was convicted of perjury, PERIOD ! Until Trump is convicted of any crime in a court of law, no equating is valid.

Reply
 
 
Oct 18, 2019 13:37:25   #
proud republican Loc: RED CALIFORNIA
 
son of witless wrote:
Your lack of clarity is appalling. That you equate the possible impeachment of President Trump with the impeachment of President Clinton is not fathomable. The circumstances are clearly different. Clinton was convicted of perjury, PERIOD ! Until Trump is convicted of any crime in a court of law, no equating is valid.



Reply
Oct 18, 2019 14:07:34   #
woodguru
 
Tedtoake1 wrote:
Although I’m uncertain of the wisdom of impeachment at this particular time, I feel that the words of previous Republicans during the impeachment of Clinton such as “Impeachment isn’t really just about the crimes committed, it’s about cleansing the OFFICE of the stain on it” apply.

Absolutely, if violations of norms aren't checked, there is nothing stopping future presidents from expanding from there. Already we are seeing an attorney general who says a president can't be indicted, so there is no point in investigating him, and a president who refuses to cooperate with executive oversight. So who can stop a president from violating the law and constitution?

We are seeing republican senators that drew a far harsher and more absolute line on the integrity of the presidency under Nixon and Clinton, now there is absolutely none expected or enforced.

Reply
Oct 18, 2019 15:33:21   #
lpnmajor Loc: Arkansas
 
son of witless wrote:
Your lack of clarity is appalling. That you equate the possible impeachment of President Trump with the impeachment of President Clinton is not fathomable. The circumstances are clearly different. Clinton was convicted of perjury, PERIOD ! Until Trump is convicted of any crime in a court of law, no equating is valid.


Convicted by whom?

Reply
Oct 18, 2019 17:43:01   #
son of witless
 
lpnmajor wrote:
Convicted by whom?


It is called a court of law. Clinton was convicted of perjury, or did you forget ? No. I bet you never knew.

Reply
 
 
Oct 19, 2019 05:56:47   #
Singularity
 
lpnmajor wrote:
Convicted by whom?


The perjury charge was defeated with 45 v**es for conviction and 55 against, and the obstruction of justice charge was defeated with 50 for conviction and 50 against.

Reply
Oct 19, 2019 06:14:48   #
Singularity
 
Singularity wrote:
The perjury charge was defeated with 45 v**es for conviction and 55 against, and the obstruction of justice charge was defeated with 50 for conviction and 50 against.


Also, from Wikipedia.....

"Contempt of court citation

In April 1999, about two months after being acquitted by the Senate, Clinton was cited by Federal District Judge Susan Webber Wright for civil contempt of court for his "willful failure" to obey her repeated orders to testify t***hfully in the Paula Jones sexual harassment lawsuit. For this citation, Clinton was assessed a $90,000 fine, and the matter was referred to the Arkansas Supreme Court to see if disciplinary action would be appropriate.[33]

Regarding Clinton's January 17, 1998, deposition where he was placed under oath, the judge wrote:

Simply put, the president's deposition testimony regarding whether he had ever been alone with Ms. (Monica) Lewinsky was intentionally false, and his statements regarding whether he had ever engaged in sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky likewise were intentionally false ...[33]

On the day before leaving office in January 2001, Clinton, in what amounted to a plea bargain, agreed to a five-year suspension of his Arkansas law license and to pay a $25,000 fine as part of an agreement with the independent counsel Robert Ray to end his investigation without filing any criminal charges for perjury or obstruction of justice.[34][35] Clinton was automatically suspended from the United States Supreme Court bar as a result of his law license suspension. However, as is customary, he was allowed 40 days to appeal an otherwise-automatic disbarment. Clinton resigned from the Supreme Court bar during the 40-day appeals period.[36]

Civil settlement with Paula Jones

Eventually, the court dismissed the Paula Jones harassment lawsuit, before trial, on the grounds that Jones failed to demonstrate any damages. However, while the dismissal was on appeal, Clinton entered into an out-of-court settlement by agreeing to pay Jones $850,000."

Reply
Oct 19, 2019 17:23:02   #
Lt. Rob Polans ret.
 
Tedtoake1 wrote:
Although I’m uncertain of the wisdom of impeachment at this particular time, I feel that the words of previous Republicans during the impeachment of Clinton such as “Impeachment isn’t really just about the crimes committed, it’s about cleansing the OFFICE of the stain on it” apply.


They have no crime. The Bushes were far worse, only they hid behind patriotism. Think about it.

Reply
Oct 19, 2019 19:14:38   #
dcmdm77
 
Remember that Bill was impeached for lying under oath in a civil trial, a felony conviction he lost his law license

Reply
 
 
Oct 19, 2019 20:38:42   #
permafrost Loc: Minnesota
 
dcmdm77 wrote:
Remember that Bill was impeached for lying under oath in a civil trial, a felony conviction he lost his law license


Suspended, not revoked.. he got it back and can practice law if he wishes..

Looks like trump will be hoping for the same, but not more, convicted but not removed from office..

And now we feature the number one criminal of them all..
And now we feature the number one criminal of them...

Reply
Oct 19, 2019 21:07:16   #
Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON
 
Tedtoake1 wrote:
Although I’m uncertain of the wisdom of impeachment at this particular time, I feel that the words of previous Republicans during the impeachment of Clinton such as “Impeachment isn’t really just about the crimes committed, it’s about cleansing the OFFICE of the stain on it” apply.



Reply
Oct 19, 2019 21:55:17   #
son of witless
 
permafrost wrote:
Suspended, not revoked.. he got it back and can practice law if he wishes..

Looks like trump will be hoping for the same, but not more, convicted but not removed from office..



Clinton's law license was suspended for 5 years. As far as I can determine, he has not sought reinstatement of his law license, so unless he has. I cannot determine that he ever got it back. Perhaps you have better information than me.

Reply
Oct 20, 2019 03:43:12   #
crazylibertarian Loc: Florida by way of New York & Rhode Island
 
woodguru wrote:
Absolutely, if violations of norms aren't checked, there is nothing stopping future presidents from expanding from there. Already we are seeing an attorney general who says a president can't be indicted, so there is no point in investigating him, and a president who refuses to cooperate with executive oversight. So who can stop a president from violating the law and constitution?

We are seeing republican senators that drew a far harsher and more absolute line on the integrity of the presidency under Nixon and Clinton, now there is absolutely none expected or enforced.
Absolutely, if violations of norms aren't checked,... (show quote)



You have your presidents mixed up. It was FDR, LBJ and BHO who behaved as if there were no bounds to the power of the presidency. For that matter you can go back to Adams with it.

Reply
Page 1 of 2 next>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2024 IDF International Technologies, Inc.