quote:Well, to be even more accurate, he was impeached because enough Congresspeople voted to impeach him. You don't actually need a reason to impeach anyone, and they certainly didn't have one.
To be even more more accurate (hyper-accurate?), would those Congresspeople have voted to impeach him without him lying to a grand jury under oath?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: quote:Well, to be even more accurate, he was impeached because enough Congresspeople voted to impeach him. You don't actually need a reason to impeach anyone, and they certainly didn't have one.
To be even more more accurate (hyper-accurate?), would those Congresspeople have voted to impeach him without him lying to a grand jury under oath?
The congress was invading his privacy, his personal business something they had no right to inquire about whatsoever.
It was NOT their business. He had broken no law until he lied under oath -- but they had no right to put him under oath and question him about that anyway.
Regardless, it is not that Clinton was impeached that lends the frustration, it is that Bush has not been, when there are far more legitimate reasons for impeaching him than there were with Clinton.
Do you deny that, using the president set by Clinton's impeachment, we should have more than enough reason and evidence to impeach Bush as well?
Posts: 3295 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:To be even more more accurate (hyper-accurate?), would those Congresspeople have voted to impeach him without him lying to a grand jury under oath?
Almost certainly. Like I said, you give Congress the opportunity to remove a sitting president and claim they did it for a reason of principle? That's like a picnic. They didn't need the reason, though.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
So when the line item veto was ruled unconstitutional, did all the items Clinton vetoed get automatically restored? That was determined to interfere with Congress' power of the purse.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:It was NOT their business. He had broken no law until he lied under oath -- but they had no right to put him under oath and question him about that anyway.
Let's assume I agree with you about everything else (I don't, but it's a boring conversation at this point): you don't get to decide, "I shouldn't have to answer this question, so I can lie under oath," and get away without penalty.
quote:Almost certainly. Like I said, you give Congress the opportunity to remove a sitting president and claim they did it for a reason of principle? That's like a picnic. They didn't need the reason, though.
So without the perjury, howdo you think his impeachment would have happened, Tom?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Considering the investigation into the Clintons ended up covering all manner of things that had absolutely nothing to do with the perjury, I think it probably would've gone on anyway. They clearly were less interested in the perjury than they were excited about it being a gateway to a witch hunt, thus, I don't think the lack of a gateway would've stopped them.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: quote:It was NOT their business. He had broken no law until he lied under oath -- but they had no right to put him under oath and question him about that anyway.
Let's assume I agree with you about everything else (I don't, but it's a boring conversation at this point): you don't get to decide, "I shouldn't have to answer this question, so I can lie under oath," and get away without penalty.
quote:Almost certainly. Like I said, you give Congress the opportunity to remove a sitting president and claim they did it for a reason of principle? That's like a picnic. They didn't need the reason, though.
So without the perjury, howdo you think his impeachment would have happened, Tom?
[[Unnecessary grumpiness due to case of mistaken identity -- deleted. Sorry rakeesh, I mistook you to be the same person as Respibiggle (sp?).]]
The question of whether or not Clinton's impeachment was right or just is a moot point. It happened. I'm talking about Bush now.
Is there any one here who would deny that, using the precedent set by Clinton's impeachment, we should have more than enough reason and evidence to impeach Bush as well?
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: And before you say you don't think that was a very good reason to impeach, I remind you that the entire Supreme Court of the United States refused to attend Clinton's State of the Union Address following his perjury; something that never before happened in the history of the country.
The actions of the members of the Supreme Court are not very relevant to the question of whether or not it was a good reason to impeach.
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: But wait... BUSH LIED, KIDS DIED!!! IMPEACH THE CHIMP!!!
Thanks for showing us you have no credibility in this discussion either. Obviously you couldn't be bothered to take the time to understand why people want Bush impeached. Or why at least 25 congressman actively support holding impeachment hearings against Cheney (I guess they don't have real reasons and HR 333 must just be a packet of blank paper). Or why you can see middle-aged citizens declaring Bush to be the worst president in their lifetimes (trumping even Jimmy Carter in the opinion of my parents).
Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Eh, it's a possibility that without any perjury it still would've happened.
I doubt it, though. I think it would've remained a much more ordinary style of presidential scandal.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I liked Clinton, but he did lie about sexual conduct while being investigated, under oath, about a sexual harassment case. They DID have the right to question him...and he had the right to not answer.
He did not have the right to lie because he didn't want people to find out, and his past conduct DOES have bearing on that type of case.
posted
I don't think what proceeded, a multimillion dollar witch hunt that delved into every manner of his pivate, and professional life, and that of his wife, could possibly have been justified from what happened.
Do I think he should've been punished for lying? Yes. Do I think that individual offense was good enough excuse to rifle through every aspect of his life to find something else to pin on him as well? No, and I think it's against the spirit of the Constitution as well.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Do I think that individual offense was good enough excuse to rifle through every aspect of his life to find something else to pin on him as well? No, and I think it's against the spirit of the Constitution as well.
Do you have the same sympathy for Ken Starr and Monica Lewinsky?
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ken Starr is the prosecutor who spent $40 MM investigating the sordid details about exactly what happened between Clinton and Lewisky, and then published a legal report that some people used in place of pornography.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: Ken Starr is the prosecutor who spent $40 MM investigating the sordid details about exactly what happened between Clinton and Lewisky, and then published a legal report that some people used in place of pornography
You may have left out a few details about it but at least you stuck with the Democrat talking points.
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
He forgot that the Republican sponsors had already gone through a couple of special prosecutors who had investigated what their mandate was to investigate, said they could find no incidence of wrongdoing, and stopped.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
KenStarr quit as lead prosecutor to rejoin his law firm in time to collect his partnership share of the looting of the HughesElectronics employees' pension fund. After reaping more millions on the lecture circuit from Republicans grateful for his abuse of prosecutorial power -- abuse sufficient to cause permanent shutdown of the Office of the SpecialProsecutor -- he was then chosen to head the law school of PepperdineUniversity on MalibuBeach.
posted
You know, I missed 1998 completely because I was on my mission. I think it was the best year in the last 50 to have missed.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
What were the republican talking points, other than that hanky panky in the oval office can be turned into high crimes and misdemeanors as long as the president is a democrat?
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
But 1998 was also the year of Titanic. That puts it over the edge.
(I wouldn't have wanted to miss 9/11. It's too much of our collective experience. Clinton and his impeachment was just sordid.)
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
An outraged Jon Stewart: "It strikes me that if there is any power explicitly granted to Congress, it would be allocating the budget -- to decide whether taxpayer money could go to building permanent bases in Iraq."
"Senior Political Correspondent" Rob Riggle: "Oh Jon, I hear you. It's crazy. But at this point, really, I'd just let it go. . . . Look, this guy hasn't listened to anyone for seven years. He's got a year to go. You're just going to make him madder."
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: Do I think that individual offense was good enough excuse to rifle through every aspect of his life to find something else to pin on him as well? No, and I think it's against the spirit of the Constitution as well.
Do you have the same sympathy for Ken Starr and Monica Lewinsky?
For Lewinsky? Yes I do.
For Ken Starr? Most certainly not.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
He overstepped what should have been his authority, at the urging of his Republican masters, and after all he went through, he still couldn't find anything.
And in the end, became quite wealthy.
Where in there is there something for me to feel sorry about?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The difference between President Clinton I and President Bush II.
President Bill Clinton lied under oath.
President George W Bush refuses to testify, claiming Executive Privilege to almost everything.
So, we all know when Clinton is lieing. His mouth is moving.
We don't know when Bush is lieing because asking if he's lieing is somehow wrong, un-patriotic, un-constitutional, and helps the terrorists win.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
What clearly gets me about this current signing statement, is that its claims are so outrageous.
I'm not a constitutional scholar, but even I know that the founding fathers gave congress the power of the purse rather than the President specifically to reign in the power of the executive branch. They gave congress the power to declare war, not the President, explicitly to reign in the power of the military commander in chief.
Now while I wouldn't claim that the founders intent should always trump when interpreting the constitution, this is one case where I whole heartedly support the founders. The separation of powers is from my perspective the most inspired idea in the constitution. Weakening that separation leads to messes like the one we are currently in.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
My recollection of the constitution is fuzzy, but don't treaties have to have the consent of the senate anyway?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes. The President can negotiate treaties, but they don't enter into the full force of US law unless ratified by the Senate.
Case in point, the US never ratified the Treaty of Versailles even though Wilson was a key player in the negotiations. His one major point that made it through, the League of Nations, was never joined by the US as a result. Same thing with Clinton and Kyoto.
Also, it's the reason why the US is the only country that calls sparkling wine made outside of Champagne, France, Champagne. There was a provision in the Treaty that restricted any nation from calling it Champagne, but since we never ratified, sparkling wine from California goes by Champagne. (The issue was later settled and old champagne makers were grandfathered in).
I think Bush is finally crossing a line that he'll really get checked on.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I couldn't think of any off the top of my head, certainly no major producers. But yeah, it's anywhere in the country so long as they were producing it before the agreement with France went into the effect in the 70's or 80's, I can't remember.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Ken Starr is the prosecutor who spent $40 MM investigating the sordid details about exactly what happened between Clinton and Lewisky, and then published a legal report that some people used in place of pornography
You may have left out a few details about it but at least you stuck with the Democrat talking points.
As opposed to, say, providing no information at all but implying one's own position on a moral high horse...?
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the biggest detail I left out is that Starr didn't find any thing that could be considered a crime outside of family court.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Javert Hugo: Lying to Congress belongs to a family court?
I think Clinton lied to a grand jury not to congress.
Bush on the other hand has repeatedly told egregious lies to congress that have cost the lives of more American citizens than the 9/11 attacks in addition to the lives of tens to hundreds of thousands of around the world. He has broken treaties, trounced the constitution, spied on American citizens, order the kidnapping and torture or who know how many people and disgraced the country through out the world. It will take decades to rebuild what he has destroyed.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
On a related conservative not, I like what Doug Wead (the historian and political operative that coined the term compassionate conservative) had to say about Ron Paul and the conservative movement. The Mouse that roared: Why Ron Paul won the election.
quote:Well now, Republicans say, we have a nominee. That may very well be but there was only one clear winner in the confusing GOP nominating contest and it was not John McCain. The winner was Ron Paul. And the effects of his win will be felt for years to come.
Ron Paul made a classic political mistake. He told the truth. In debate after debate he pointed at his party, his president, his fellow contenders for the GOP nomination, shouting aloud like the little boy in the proverbial story, “they have no clothes” and lo and behold, we looked and they didn’t. They were all naked.
He showed that the conservative movement has lost its way, its moral authority and its logic. He showed us that we have become a red team versus blue team. That since we have decided that this is a political war and all normal rules are suspended, conservatives can do liberal things to win it. Conservatives can run up big deficits if it helps their side win. They can dole out needless pork if it elects another “conservative” to congress. They can go to war if it makes their president look like a leader and wins him another term.
But in the process, Ron Paul showed us, that we have lost our way. We are no longer conservatives. We are fighting for power not for principles. We have become corrupted by the process and the only way back is to retrace our steps and find all the things we discarded along he way.
Emphasis mine. I am so mad at Congress for its inability to reign in Bush. Bush has really damaged the party I used to think upheld my conservative values.
*note* I am not talking social conservative values. I am talking about monetary policy and the ideas of limited restrained government.
Posts: 2445 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why is it that every time one brings up President Clinton's perjury, President Bush's supposed greater lies are always brought up?
As though that made a difference, really. Let's say that for the sake of argument Rabbit's statements are totally, completely correct. Why is that an excuse for perjury?
The second President Bush wasn't around when President Clinton committed his perjury. It's not as though President Clinton said, "Hey, this other President will do a lot worse a few years after I'm gone, so I should get a pass for all intents and purposes on some really questionable relationships in the office and on perjury."
No. It doesn't work like that. It shouldn't work like that. "This other guy was lots worse," isn't an acceptable argument for any other kind of transgression, so why does President Clinton get to hide behind someone else's misdeeds?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:That since we have decided that this is a political war and all normal rules are suspended, conservatives can do liberal things to win it. Conservatives can run up big deficits if it helps their side win. They can dole out needless pork if it elects another “conservative” to congress. They can go to war if it makes their president look like a leader and wins him another term.
When has the republican party every been any different on these issues? Certainly not in my lifetime.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
And you know, the funniest thing about President Clinton getting a pass on perjury? It lends Bush apologists a defense against Bush criticisms.
If President Clinton's fans would just admit, "Yes, he committed perjury, and that's an awful thing for a President regardless of what sort of question he was asked. Now let's move on," Bush apologists wouldn't get to say, "You were a lot happier with lying when it was Slick Willy in office."
But I hardly ever hear fans of President Clinton admit, yes, he committed perjury and it was pretty dang bad for him to have done. Almost invariably President Bush gets trotted out like a shield.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Why is it that every time one brings up President Clinton's perjury, President Bush's supposed greater lies are always brought up?
As though that made a difference, really. Let's say that for the sake of argument Rabbit's statements are totally, completely correct. Why is that an excuse for perjury?
It isn't. No one said it was. The point I was making and I believe others have been trying to make as well is that if Clinton's lies justified his impeachment, Bush's certainly do as well.
quote:The second President Bush wasn't around when President Clinton committed his perjury. It's not as though President Clinton said, "Hey, this other President will do a lot worse a few years after I'm gone, so I should get a pass for all intents and purposes on some really questionable relationships in the office and on perjury."
Like I said, the issue isn't one of Clinton getting a pass because Bush has done worse, it is a question of whether or not Bush should be held accountable for his acts. If you have established a standard that lying is an impeachable offense, why aren't you holding Bush to that standard?
Until the people, who supported impeaching Clinton for his lies, stand up and demand at least an independent investigation of the crimes of the Bush administration, its difficult to see any principle behind Clinton's impeachment other than a partisanship.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Like I said, the issue isn't one of Clinton getting a pass because Bush has done worse, it is a question of whether or not Bush should be held accountable for his acts. If you have established a standard that lying is an impeachable offense, why aren't you holding Bush to that standard?
Until the people, who supported impeaching Clinton for his lies, stand up and demand at least an independent investigation of the crimes of the Bush administration, its difficult to see any principle behind Clinton's impeachment other than a partisanship.
Just to be clear, if I'm not mistaken President Bush has not perjured himself to a court. That's a technicality, but then so are laws.
So the comparison is not quite accurate yet. Morally, though, I agree with you. If Clinton's behavior was impeachable, so too should Bush's many misstepts be impeachable, to discover whether they were missteps or outright lies.
As for not excusing President Clinton's behavior but insisting President Bush be held to the same standard...I'm sorry. I find that difficult to believe. That is not the impression I get when I discuss this with people. I've heard, "It was no big deal, the question should never have been asked in the first place," too many times, I suppose.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bush may be technically innocent of perjury but there is substantial evidence that he has broken other laws like the National Strategic Intelligence Act.
Is your position that those laws matter less than the laws Clinton broke?
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, my position is that it's absolutely undeniable that President Clinton perjured himself, whereas as you say there is 'substantial evidence' that President Bush has broken other laws.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Some would dispute that Clinton's lie was on a material matter to the court in question. If it was not, it was not perjury.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
