They knew it, there was no way that they could gather 2/3 of the Senate to vote for removal and we all knew it.
There is no possible way you will be able to convince anybody except maybe an 8 year old relative otherwise.
The Politics of Diversion!
- Thread starter Dixie - In Memoriam
- Start date
There is no possible way you will be able to convince anybody except maybe an 8 year old relative otherwise.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
And here we have yet another classic example of the Democrats doing what they do best! Divert and Distract! Damo, you are a self-proclaimed Conservative, yet you have fallen for the Democrats rhetoric about Clinton/Lewinsky ....hook, line, and sinker! In your mind, despite the fact that Bill Clinton broke the law six ways from Sunday, it's somehow blamed off on Republicans! How the fuck does that work? The man clearly breaks the law, does it repeatedly, in numerous ways, and when Republicans make the legal case, a few moderates get picked off, and save his fucking bacon, and here you are, blaming the whole fiasco on REPUBLICANS!
I mean really Damo... WTF? Get your Conservative head out of your ass and see what's going on here! You are being duped! You have somehow bought into this total and utter bullshit spewed by the left, and by God, you're dead set to go to the mat against your own side! Against your own principles! It's really frustrating!
I mean really Damo... WTF? Get your Conservative head out of your ass and see what's going on here! You are being duped! You have somehow bought into this total and utter bullshit spewed by the left, and by God, you're dead set to go to the mat against your own side! Against your own principles! It's really frustrating!
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Again... they DIDN'T KNOW IT! Had they known it was impossible to remove him from office, they would have dismissed articles of impeachment! There was no reason to occupy the time of Congress to have the hearings and go through the motions, if it was a forgone conclusion! You're making NO sense, Damo!
No, I haven't.
I simply view the past differently than you are. You argue what you thought was important then, and I argue what I believe it was distracting us from that was far more important.
The Democrats' line is that he lied about a BJ and that is what stuck in people's minds (hence the loss of traction from the R party). All that time we were distracted from something that was far more important.
We should pick and choose our battles more wisely, continuing to argue the importance of an impeachment that every person in the US knew was worthless time wasting because the Ds were not going to vote to oust their own guy for lying which they made obvious by working to make it about a BJ and the Rs were ineffective in bringing attention to the perjury, because Americans are easily distracted by sex.
It's inane to suggest that we didn't know the outcome of it once it reached the Senate, it was anti-climactic.
C
Cancel3
Guest
The reason was always to make Clinton less effective and less popular. It accomplished that at the time.
The republicans knew they didn't have a 2/3 majority on the impeachment. They knew the democrats in congress were not going to vote to impeach the most successful politician their party had seen in decades.
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
Clinton committed perjury?
Where's the federal inditement on that? Surely if he had violated the law on perjury the Bush administration wouldn't have just ignored it?
Where's the federal inditement on that? Surely if he had violated the law on perjury the Bush administration wouldn't have just ignored it?
Minister of Truth
Practically Perfect
Generally there is just an impeachment and removal of office holders for such cases.
maineman
Banned
impeachment is nothing more than a legislative version of an indictment. the removal from office only happens after the office holder is found guilty of the offenses detailed in the "indictment".
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
So if the president murdered someone he wouldn't be sent to prison? He's just be removed from office?
If Clinton perjured, he should be in prison right now. I agree 100% with that. Present your evidence. If conservatives can convince 12 people on a jury that he's guilty of perjury, then I'll be the first person to demand that justice be done.
maineman
Banned
a dorky link that does not answer the question....why am I not surprised, coming from a worthless hack like you?
a dorky link that does not answer the question....why am I not surprised, coming from a worthless hack like you?
You have something against the UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI-KANSAS CITY (UMKC) SCHOOL OF LAW ???
Or were you too stupid to realize where the link referred to...?
anyway, you need to come up with a new schtik....every time you Democrats get your asses handed to you in debate, you attack the source of the facts that your presented with...your not special, all your comrades do it too...its just gettin' old....
OK Mr. Watermark...live and learn....
Clinton admits misleading testimony, avoids charges in Lewinsky probe
President's law license suspended for 5 years
January 19, 2001
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Clinton will leave office free of the prospect of criminal charges after he admitted Friday that he knowingly gave misleading testimony about his affair with Monica Lewinsky in a 1998 lawsuit.
Independent Counsel Robert Ray
Under an agreement with Independent Counsel Robert Ray, Clinton's law license will be suspended for five years and he will pay a $25,000 fine to Arkansas bar officials. He also gave up any claim to repayment of his legal fees in the matter. In return, Ray will end the 7-year-old Whitewater probe that has shadowed most of Clinton's two terms.
"I tried to walk a fine line between acting lawfully and testifying falsely, but I now recognize that I did not fully accomplish this goal and am certain my responses to questions about Ms. Lewinsky were false," Clinton said in a written statement released Friday by the White House.
The admission, which came on the president's last full day in office, stems from the same allegations that led to Clinton's 1998 impeachment by the House of Representatives, and the later acquittal by the Senate.
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/stories/01/19/clinton.lewinsky/index.html
Hope this answers your question...
Minister of Truth
Practically Perfect
I don't think a jury could be impartial.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
My goodness bravo... What do you plan to do with your newly acquired Waterhead Ass? I suggest mounting it on your wall in the den... makes a great conversation piece!
PWNED!
maineman
Banned
this was the question in reply to which you posted your link:
Where's the federal inditement on that? Surely if he had violated the law on perjury the Bush administration wouldn't have just ignored it?
your dorky link did not answer that question. You just as well could have put up a link to the Boston Globe Sports page....that would not have answered the question either.
the FACT of the matter remains: Clinton is not guilty of perjury... no court ever found him guilty of that crime. He was "indicted", in effect, by the House of Representatives for that offense, but the Senate did not convict him of it. THOSE ARE the facts.... you would do well to merely acknowledge them and move on.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
yes he is guilty of it, by his own admission... read bravo's post.
"I tried to walk a fine line between acting lawfully and testifying falsely, but I now recognize that I did not fully accomplish this goal and am certain my responses to questions about Ms. Lewinsky were false,"
"I tried to walk a fine line between acting lawfully and testifying falsely, but I now recognize that I did not fully accomplish this goal and am certain my responses to questions about Ms. Lewinsky were false,"
maineman
Banned
guilty is a legal term. Saying someone is guilty of perjury is a legal statement. Clinton is not guilty of perjury. That's a fact. sorry.