Reply With Quote
Since he was not convicted, it's pretty obvious.
Actually, it did rise to the level of high crime or misdemeanor. He was impeached.
The Senate just failed to convict. But, since he was impeached, the charge had to have been "for treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanor."
So, you tell me, which was it?
Since he was not convicted, it's pretty obvious.
You're pretty slow so I'll type slow.
Just because he wasn't convicted doesn't mean the offense for which he WAS impeached wasn't a high crime or misdemeanor. If it had not risen to that level the House would not have impeached.
The section of the cons ution says that the President shall be removed from office upon impeachment AND conviction of such. Since only one of the requirements was met, he wasn't removed from office. However, that doesn't mean the offense he was accused of didn't rise to the level of high crime or misdemeanor -- just that the Senate failed to convict him of such.
The way you're framing your argument would be the same as if saying just because O. J. Simpson wasn't convicted of murder then what happened to his ex-wife and Ronald Goldman didn't cons ute a murder. Yeah, I know, pretty outrageous...but, that's what you're arguing.
President Clinton perjured himself, he suborned perjury, and he obstructed justice. For this he was impeached. Just because the Senate didn't convict doesn't mean perjury, suborning perjury or obstructing justice are not high crimes or misdemeanors.
So why didn't they convict?
What were the reasons given by the Republicans who didn't vote to convict?
I don't recall, but I believe they did not convict for political reasons.
And the impeachment was clearly based only on objective standards for measuring whether an act cons utes a high crime or misdemeanor, right?
Could it be that the Senate decided that the House was wrong to impeach because the crimes did not rise to the level of impeachment?
Is that possible?
Yes or no.
Possible? sure. But, the fact remains he was impeached. And, the fact also remains that an independent body revoked his law license for those crimes -- not for being impeached.
That just proves the House Republicans didn't like him.
As for rising to the level? I'll go with the experts:
ON A `JURY' OF 12 cons utional law professors, all but two told The National Law Journal that, from a cons utional standpoint, President Clinton should not be impeached for the things Independent Counsel Kenneth W. Starr claims he did.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/...bnQA3:e150915:
Cons utional law professors bring biases to those sorts of determinations and are notoriously political. Unlike elected representatives.
No, it proves the House impeached him.
Are there only 12 cons utional law professors? And, are they the same ones that got their asses handed to them when they wrote that letter claiming the NSA program was uncons utional?
A ridiculously partisan house.I doubt it, but your trying to change the subject is expected.Are there only 12 cons utional law professors? And, are they the same ones that got their asses handed to them when they wrote that letter claiming the NSA program was uncons utional?
" In her complaint initiating the suit, Ms. Jones alleged violations of her federal civil rights in 1991 by President Clinton when he was governor of Arkansas and she was an Arkansas state employee. According to the allegations, Governor Clinton invited Ms. Jones to his hotel room where he made a crude sexual advance that she rejected."
"On April 1, 1998, Judge Susan Webber Wright granted summary judgment in favor of President Clinton, dismissing the Jones suit in its entirety, finding that Ms. Jones had not offered any evidence to support a viable claim of sexual harassment or intentional infliction of emotion distress. Ms. Jones appealed Judge Wright's decision to the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, but before a decision on the appeal was rendered, Ms. Jones and the President settled the case on November 13, 1998."
Just like monopoly law and prosecutions, ALL impeachments are political.
Tripp's contribution showed the the sex between Clinton and Lewinsky was fully consensual, even provoked by Lewinsky. As such, it had no bearing on the accusation that Clinton made unwanted sexual advances to Jones. ie, the question to Clinton about consensual sex with Lewinsky should have never been asked/allowed.
Your characterization, not mine.
I was merely pointing out that you can cherry-pick "experts" for any position you like.
Your argument is not too sound. First, Clinton settled,
wonder why? He had fought for years, then just gives up.
I don't think so.
Your second argument is one that pedophile sometimes use
about Children. They came on to me and I couldn't resist.
Good thing we started this bogus war to take our minds off blowjobs!
And thanks mr. bush for creating more terrorist than exterminating.
What is your characterization of that house?Well, show me your links for 8 pro-impeachment profs and we'll be even.I was merely pointing out that you can cherry-pick "experts" for any position you like.
Yeah, why didn't he just leave them to their own devices (that would be training an ever-burgeoning, well armed legion of heavily financed, American hating, trained terrorists) and stick to the battle plan of trying to figure who to retaliate against after mind boggling terrorist attacks on our homeland.
What was he thinkin'?!?
Maybe he could've just finished the job in Afghanistan then gone after Osama. Remember that guy?
And we would have all lived happily ever after.
No, those missions would indeed be accomplished rather than festering.
And you know that how?
Call me an optimist....
Oh, I think we all have a name for you and, it ain't optimist.
Okay but optimism doesn't win battles.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions