Impeachment problem: Every D politician alive in the 1990s is on tape

[Recursion]

saying that a President lying to an investigator doesn't really matter. Any move towards impeachment makes it a wall to wall festival of CNN playing a politician saying today that obstruction of justice cannot be ignored, and then that same pol 20 years ago saying "It wasn't *really* obstruction of justice". I just don't think there's politically a way to make it work, which is why we should double down on the oversight hearings instead.

[struggle4progress]

1. Which two of the following things are not the same?

(a) Maybe lied about a blow job
(b) Got election help from Russia

[Recursion]

3. Yes, I'm sure CNN and especially Fox will be quick to make that point

You know how well the American public does with nuance, after all.

[Caliman73]

5. So you are saying that Fox News should dictate how Democrats govern?

I understand that you are saying that there may possibly be some bringing up of past statements but I think we need to have confidence that those people who said anything will be able to answer to those quotes.

People who watch Fox already have their minds made up, and they are a relatively small bunch of people. CNN has significantly fewer viewers than Fox.

I would be worried if the network news stations were going to be doing wall to wall because they have 10 or more times the viewers than the largest cable outlet, but they won't.

At least half of the American public aren't even paying any attention to what is going on regarding impeachment right now.

[struggle4progress]

6. Bill Clinton approval ratings

https://news.gallup.com/poll/116584/presidential-approval-ratings-bill-clinton.aspx

Donald Trump approval ratings
Latest job approval rating
42
May 1-12, 2019

Term average to date
40
Jan 20, 2017-present

Highest job approval rating to date
46
Apr 17-30, 2019

Lowest job approval rating to date
35
four times, last on Dec 11-17, 2017

[Recursion]

7. Yup. Clinton's numbers went up when impeachment started

And went way way up after he was acquitted. When the Senate hands Trump a vindication he'll probably cross into positive territory for the first time, and that's the last thing we want.

[NewJeffCT]

13. no, they did not

They went up 5 points upon acquittal, but had dropped during the actual trial in the Senate. That's not WAY UP. And, it was only 2-3 points above where he was in the several months before the impeachment process started. 2-3 points is NOT a huge bump. Trump received a temporary 2-3 point bump by launching a few missiles into Syria in 2017.

Within 30 days - by Mid March 1999 - his approvals he was down below his average approval ratings from the several months BEFORE the entire impeachment process started.

By mid April - a mere 60 days after acquittal - his approvals ratings went down further (another 3-4 points) and were well below his approval ratings in the several months before the impeachment process started.

They never came within 5 points of his average approvals again for the entire rest of 1999, thus creating the meme that Clinton was damaged good and morally tainted. The media told Gore he had to distance himself from Clinton and Gore complied. He also picked a boring straight arrow scold in Joe Lieberman instead of somebody young and exciting to be his VP.

So, Democrats lost in 2000 because Gore had to distance himself from the otherwise extremely successful Bill Clinton. yes, the election was stolen, but Bush was so underwhelmingly unqualified that it never should have been close enough to steal coming off of a great economy for 8 years, record job creation and relative peace worldwide.

[LanternWaste]

14. After this, therefor because of this?

[jpljr77]

17. And Trump will sail to a 2nd term. But DU's bloodlust is more important, I guess.

If we had retaken the Senate last year, the conversation would be different. But we didn't, so we HAVE TO DEAL WITH WHAT IS REAL AND ACTUAL, not what makes us feel better.

[SunSeeker]

2. That is not what Dems said.

Dems said it is not worth impeaching Clinton over lying about a consensual affair. Lying to an investigator is only prosecuted if it involves something material to the investigation. Remember, Ken Starr was appointed to investigate the Whitewater land deal, not Clinton's love life. That is why the impeachment did not politically damage Clinton--people intuitively knew it was bullshit.

Trump lies about EVERYTHING. Important stuff. He lied about his interactions with Russians, welcoming their attack on our democracy, lied about the Trump Tower Moscow deal being over, etc. He didn't just lie about a blow job. He lied about betraying his country, not just his wife. And then he blatantly obstructed justice to cover it up, trying to fire the Special Counsel who was appointed to investigate Trump's dealings with the Russians who subverted our election. Bill Clinton never tried to fire Ken Starr, nor bash him in the press.

The two are not even close to similar.

[Caliman73]

4. Are there citations for that argument?

Here is an article with statements from Democrats and Republicans who were in Congress during Clinton's impeachment who are still in Congress now. The statements are certainly not damning in any way for the Democratic politicians.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/27-senators-were-in-congress-during-clintons-impeachment-what-would-they-do-about-trump/

Here is another article that has some of what you said in the OP, but it is nuanced. Nadler was quoted as saying that "perjury on a private matter, perjury regarding sex is not a great and dangerous offense against the nation". While the quote is not great, and I am sure that the Republicans will do ANYTHING to distract, the reality is that a sizable majority of Americans felt the same way regarding Clinton. He got caught having an affair and did what a very large chunk of men would do, he lied about it. He should have just said, it really isn't anybody's business what I do in my personal life and there were never any security risks or anything that could damage the national security of the US, but instead he lied.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/heres-what-democrats-said-20-years-ago-about-presidents-illegally-covering-up-their-sex-lives-2018-08-23

Most other Dems pretty much said the same thing, "The process was way too partisan" and "What he did wasn't right but it never rose to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors against the United States. That part is true. If the Trump thing was only about Stormy Daniels and paying hush money to cover up sex, then I would be warning Democrats, but that is not what this is about. Some of the most important people around Trump during his campaign and afterward, had direct contact with the Russian government or actors thereof, and very likely accepted and quite possibly made arrangements for quid pro quo to help win the election. THAT IS a national security matter.

[RandiFan1290]

8. Cool story, bro. nt

[ecstatic]

9. We're not a full blown idiocracy yet. We're getting there,

but we're not there yet. People are smart enough to distinguish between lying to a prosecutor about sex versus lying about treason.

[Recursion]

10. ROTFLMAO

Sorry. I thought you were serious for a second there.

[StarfishSaver]

11. That's not true

Not even close.

But, ok.

[Recursion]

12. What Democrats supported impeaching and removing Clinton?

Lieberman? Zel Miller? I think that's it.

[StarfishSaver]

18. Lieberman voted no on impeachment. Miller didn't vote at all since he wasn't in Congress at the time

Perhaps you should follow Effieblack's advice and do some research before you post misinformation.

[Recursion]

19. Maybe you should research the difference between impeachment and conviction

Lieberman didn't have a chance to vote on impeachment, being in the Senate. He voted "Not guilty", after being the only Democrat I remember who floated doing the opposite. In the end the only party switching was a few Republicans voting guilty on perjury and not guilty on obstruction.

[StarfishSaver]

21. YOU cited Lieberman and Zell Miller, not I.

As I said, please check your facts before you post if you'd like to be taken seriously.

[LanternWaste]

15. You'll of course support your premise with objective and relevant evidence, yes?

[LiberalFighter]

16. Lumping everything together and saying it is the same is not the same.

[Recursion]

20. Is lying to obstruct an investigation impeachable and removable, or not? (nt)

[LiberalFighter]

22. Difference between lying to cover up a crime vs lying about a legal activity

[Recursion]

23. You've got to be kidding me. That's Barr's *exact argument*

We can't make Barr's argument for him, FFS. The subject of an investigation does not get to determine whether there was an underlying crime or not.