Democrats always bring that up, and I'll contend that it doesn't matter. If you are at the point where you are under oath, tell the f*ucking truth. But, he is a Clinton so the truth is up for debate. Can you define "is" for me?
But knowingly starting a war based on false "evidence" that cost thousands of lives an billions of dollars and led to the rise of a dangerous terrorist group is OK.
if you're at the point where you're spending around $70 million on an investigation over a possible $300,000 mortgage was improperly attained by another person involved in the investment... maybe you'll find the true problem. Hell, throw $70 mill investigating any property owner reading this thread and the majority of us would face jail time. I know I had to do some shady shit when we bought our home b/c the money had to be "seasoned" in my wife's account, and when our offer was accepted, my wife was out of the country. As it was, I only faced a jury of a pimply-faced teller and a branch manager who recognized me, knew of our goals and housing budget, and very kindly looked the other way when the numbers added up.
So using your elected position to gain illegal benefits is just fine with you because it just costs too damn much to investigate? Unless, of course, the person being investigated is someone you don't support, right?
Sigh. So thwarting the vote of the people to try and create a scandal out of nothing in order to take down a democratically-elected public servant is ok with you? Why do you hate America? But in response to your question: No. I don't think the price of an investigation should determine whether or not to pursue justice. But this entire charade was nothing more than a GOP-led witch hunt looking for something... anything ... to circumvent the Constitution and destroy an elected official. It was never about justice. So stop feigning as if it was.
I think he's saying jaywalking shouldn't be enforced unless it's a herd of llamas crossing the same highway at rush hour every day for a week.
Funny you should mention llamas. It prompted me to remind you not to risk attending any political rallies. We don't want you to go missing [well, a few of us] like you did a while back.
1. Just for historical accuracy's purpose, let me point out that the obstruction charge got more votes than the perjury charge. IMO, he didn't perjure himself (I'm going on memory here; don't ask me to justify it) but he did obstruct justice. For whatever reason, in pop culture, it's always "lying about a BH" (immediately followed by someone from Team Red pointing out the lying was under oath.) 2. The whole thing was an illegitimate fishing expedition. Yeah, Clinton f'ed up. Shouldn't have done it. But there's not one ********ing president in the history of the US that couldn't have been put in a position where he had to choose between covering up something that was politically toxic and doing something impeachable, on the one hand, and letting the truth out and getting killed for THAT. All that was needed was a bloc of folks in Congress who wanted to destroy him. Andrew Johnson was impeached for violating a law that was clearly, CLEARLY, unconstitutional. 3. To me, short of something extreme like murder, you should only impeach a president for doing something you and I can't do. Otherwise, you're opening the door to that kind of BS. Hey, Thomas, let's get you under oath about Sally Hemings. Hey, Andrew Jackson, let's get you under oath about your duels. Everyone after Andrew Johnson and before Wilson, let's get you under oath about how your campaign was funded. 4. If there was ONE THING that I think I could have supported impeaching and convicting Clinton for, it would be the finger wagging performance at the press conference where he denied the relationship. Yeah, it was illegitimate as hell he was ever in that position, but there you have it. That gets back to my point...you and I could never be in the position of undermining trust in the president in a substantial way at a press conference, cuz we ain't president. What Bush did wrt Iraq wasn't a crime. But it was a million times more impeachable than what Clinton did. The GOPS in the 90s got away with redefining impeachment. It was set up as a cure for an illness within the body politic. It was never supposed to be about punishment for bad deeds, or even crimes. That's what the criminal justice system is for. By making impeachment smaller, it enabled the Bush administration to avoid real scrutiny for massive impeachable offenses. Can you impeach a member of the cabinet? Because Colin Powell's performance at the UN was a textbook example of the kind of thing impeachment is supposed to prevent and, failing that, correct. Rumsfeld and torture. Cheney and intel. Bush and about 1000 acts of either omission or commission. Pretty much every administration official involved with the buildup to the war, and the occupation, should have been impeached and convicted. Almost every one either lied to the American people to get us into war, or didn't care if they were lying or not, or were part of the war crimes we committed.
I don't know, and I'm not sure I have it exactly right. I think Pelosi (?)quoted it in the debate building up to the impeachment-- somebody did-- but I had heard it many many times before. Or maybe it is just so obvious that many people have said almost the same thing. If it were just a matter of punishing the President, the appropriate thing is to wait until he's out of office, and then charge him-- Nixon would clearly have eventually been indicted, and that is why Ford pardoned him in advance of charges. The Reeps could have charged Clinton after W's inauguration-- if they could have found a venue to take it seriously enough-- and I imagine he would have been convicted. I can't see the "what does 'is' mean defense impressing even the OJ jury. But this way, they not only froze up the government for much of a term, they also inoculated themselves against impeachment for quite a while when they got back in, IMO.
Do any of y'all recall the context of this one? Another situation similar to "lying about a **************." I don't recall the exact specifics, but it was something like, Bill was asked a question about his relationship with Monica with the present tense "is" but after the affair was over. It's what all two term GOPers do. They do something impeachable. Nixon we know about. Bush we just covered. The Iran-Contra affair is PRECISELY the kind of thing impeachment is in the Constitution for. Congress passed a law that Reagan didn't like, so he and his people sold arms to Iran to raise money for the Contras. Clear cut and plain as day. If Trump wins, what's the over/under on impeachable offenses in the first month? 10? Say what you want about Clinton, he "honored the process." He didn't use the FBI to interfere with an investigation into a break-in committed against his political opponents. He didn't sell arms to our greatest enemy to get around a Congressional prohibition on funding his pet project. He didn't muster his whole administration into lying to the American people to launch a war. What he did was wholly personal.
Which is a major part of why I doubt they could find a venue to take it seriously enough to indict. Lawyer: "Dr. Bartlett, do you know what time it is?" First Lady: "It's 3:15." Lawyer: "Dr. Bartlett I'd Like you to break that habit." First Lady: "Telling people the time?" Lawyer: "No. Answering more than was asked. Dr. Bartlett, do you know what time it is?" First Lady, steaming, but subdued: "Yes." But it is still a sophistry. If they had gotten it in front of a jury, I imagine he'd have been convicted, though any judge worth his salt would have sentenced him to time served...
Should we close this thread? This is what I've been saying : http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...07/hillary_s_email_scandal_was_overhyped.html