When Bill Clinton was impeached.

Jack said:
Really? I thought Party of God all had their noses in a Blue Dress. (?)
Click to expand...

You never think JackOFF. Clinton wasn't impeached for banging interns; although that glaring lack of judgement would qualify for abuse of power. He was impeached and charged with the crimes of perjury and obstruction of Justice.

How many times do we have to beat the facts into that empty head before you comprehend the Obvious JackOFF? :rolleyes:
 
Truth Detector said:
You never think JackOFF. Clinton wasn't impeached for banging interns; although that glaring lack of judgement would qualify for abuse of power. He was impeached and charged with the crimes of perjury and obstruction of Justice.

How many times do we have to beat the facts into that empty head before you comprehend the Obvious JackOFF? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

TD: "Clinton wasn't impeached for banging interns; although that glaring lack of judgement would qualify for abuse of power."
Jack: :laugh:
 
Truth Detector said:
I didn't see an impeachment article of bribery. Where did you see that? Claiming that Trump obstructed congress is hysterically stupid. Congress does not have any right to pry into what happens in the White House. ;)
Click to expand...

Just because the Democrats were too stupid to add an article of bribery, doesn't mean it didn't obviously happen.
Pushing his staff to ignore subpoenas is obstruction.
 
I voted for Bill Clinton twice, the same way that I voted for his old lady years later--holding my nose.

Centrist Democrats are Republicans-Lite.

I can only give enthusiastic support for Social Democrats like Bernie and Liz.

I never vote for a "moderate" Democrat in my primary--only when my party fucks up and nominates one.

That being said, lying about a blow job isn't quite the same as abuse of power, bribery, and obstruction of justice.

Clinton was a lousy president, but his turds would have made a better president that Donald the Pigfucker.
 
StoneByStone said:
But you don't think he should be removed?
Click to expand...

Sure but not for abuse of power and obstruction of congress , neither of which are crimes. He should be formally charged with Diarrhea of the Mouth and the articles of impeachment should be changed to that. After that the senate should try him, remove him and then be formally prosecuted on charges of Diarrhea of the Mouth by a federal or state prosecutor.
 
StoneByStone said:
When Bill Clinton was impeached, was it just trying to overturn an election? Were the Republicans just impeaching Clinton because they hated him? Did they not respect the people who voted for Clinton? Should they have just waited for Clinton's term to run out? Was it a coup?
Click to expand...

Clinton committed perjury.......Trump committed ridicule......
 
StoneByStone said:
I guarantee that in less than twenty years, Republicans who were associated with Trump will be desperately trying to distance themselves from him.
Click to expand...

and I guarantee that in slightly more than twenty years, when you finally get a job and start paying taxes, you will vote Republican.......
 
archives said:
There we go again with the "it just could not accept the 2016 election outcome," bullshit, you can't accept the fact that America elected a black guy President, twice, by substantial majorities both times, get the point

And I don't think abusing the power of the Presidency nor obstructing Congress is "lowering the standard of what constitutes impeachment," but then again, if one thinks a President is above the law, can not be charged with a crime, could shoot someone on 5th Avenue and not lose their vote, and that the Constitution allows the President to do anything he wants as most Trumpkins do, I can see how you think it "lowered the standard of what constitutes impeachment"
Click to expand...

you're absolutely right.....Trump was impeached because Obama was black.......
 
StoneByStone said:
But how come when Trump commits bribery and then tries to obstruct the hearings, it's just a partisan hack witch hunt beginning with his candidacy because he won an election, but when Clinton lies under oath, it's not just a partisan hack witch hunt beginning with his candidacy because he won an election?
Click to expand...

I think it has something to do with the fact that Trump didn't actually bribe anyone or obstruct any hearings.........while a transcript of the Jones trial showed that yes, Clinton actually lied under oath in court.....despite what you want to believe, that actually makes a big difference.........
 
Nordberg said:
According to lovely Lindsey. a crime is not necessary. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/lindsey-graham-crime-impeach/ If the Senate decides that your behavior is clearly out of bounds, you can face impeachment. But obstruction is a crime. So is ab8use. That is according to the basis law, the Constitution.
Click to expand...

correction......if the HOUSE decides your behavior is clearly out of bounds you can face impeachment........if the Senate decides it you can be removed from office.......if the Senate does not decide it, you can get re-elected and the House can shift back to Republican control and you can pick Ginsberg's successor.......
 
StoneByStone said:
Just because the Democrats were too stupid to add an article of bribery, doesn't mean it didn't obviously happen.
Click to expand...

That is a laughably stupid claim; you seem to be quite full of them. The reason it wasn't added is because there was ZERO evidence of any crimes. Dunce.

StoneByStone said:
Pushing his staff to ignore subpoenas is obstruction.
Click to expand...

No it is not when the House is engaged in a purely partisan fishing expedition and NO CRIMES have been claimed or charged.

Because you are an uneducated sod, I will explain this to you; the House could have taken their demands to the courts. They chose not to because they knew their weak sauce case would be laughed out of the court.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top