Gingrich, Livingston & Hastert Impeached Clinton for What?

[laserhaas]

Think Progress has a matter of fact piece that should be on LBN, if it were not for the 12 hour Rule. It is titled appropriately "What We Now Know About The Men Who Led The Impeachment Of Clinton" and it nails the Rethuglicans' for being the hypocrisy extraordinaire.
[br]






[br]

As is reflected by the Think Progress story ---

On December 19, 1998, the House of Representatives impeached Bill Clinton on two charges related to his extramarital affair with Monica Lewinsky. (The charges were for perjury and obstruction of justice.) The historic vote, and subsequent trial in the Senate, involved the work of three men who were elected Speaker of the House Of Representatives by the Republican majority, Newt Gingrich, Bob Livingston and Dennis Hastert.

Almost 17 years later, with the federal indictment of Hastert for illegally concealing up to $3.5 million in hush-money, we finally have a more complete understanding of the men who led this effort.

Turns out that

Gingrich was having affairs - while trying to bust Clinton for having an affair.


On the day of the impeach vote - Livingston resigned - being busted about his affairs.


As for Hastert - well, we all know now - so please don't get me started....

I'm just sayin......

[br]

3 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	To be a Republican, is to swear allegiance to hypocrisy
	0 (0%)
	Only good Republican - is a mute one
	0 (0%)
	Thugs in power - all have dark secrets
	0 (0%)
	These 3 should be put in hypocrisy prison
	0 (0%)
	All of the Above
	3 (100%)
	Clinton needed a butt whoop
	0 (0%)
	Laser is to be put out to pasture
	0 (0%)
	0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[merrily]

1. He was impeached for perjury and lost his Arkansas license to practice law

for the same reason, though only a suspension. He was guilty of perjury. A court also cited him for contempt of court, but I don't know if that was one of the Articles of Impeachment or not.

A sitting President who was also an officer of the court, under oath in both capacities to uphold the law, perjured himself and was held in contempt of court.

People can claim all they want that he was impeached for receiving an adulterous blow job, but you don't get your license to practice law suspended for a blow job.

Now, whether or not perjury is a high crime or misdemeanor within the meaning of the Constitution is another issue and perhaps an interesting one. But the pretense that he was impeached over sexual activity is played out and factually and legally incorrect.

[laserhaas]

2. Pretending the goal was not to "get em" is not in keeping with facts either.

Yes he did (and probably still does) get some - here and there.

His lie was stupid..... all he had to do is say he made a mistake... seeking relief from pressure.

But oops~

[merrily]

4. I didn't pretend shit. I never said they weren't delighted to have grounds to impeach him.

Of course they were delighted he gave them grounds for impeachment. Duh. (By the time he opened his mouth to perjure himself in response to Starr's questions, had it escaped Bubba's attention that they were out to get him?)

However, there have been decades of pretense by Democrats over what he actually got impeached for. It wasn't a blow job. It wasn't adultery. It wasn't a lie either. It was perjury and maybe also contempt of court and by a sitting President, no less.

[Whiskeytide]

46. You are technically correct...

... but it's like saying Capone was only convicted of tax evasion. Sure. It's technically correct - but it's not why they went after him. They went after Clinton because of the sex. Period. They ended up getting him for perjury, but that was only because it was all they could get.

[merrily]

49. Investigating him and impeaching him are two different things. BTW, they did not even investigate

him because of a blow job from ML or because of sex. They started with things like Hillary's law firm and Whitewater, remember? They investigated him because they wanted to get him period. While they were investigating, the bj came to their attention. And, when he handed them lying under oath, they impeached him for that.

This is what laserhaas said about my Reply 1.

Pretending the goal was not to "get em" is not in keeping with facts either.

My Reply 1 said nothing of the kind. It said only what he got impeached for and implied zero about whether they were out to get him or not. My reply cleared that up because I don't like to be accused of "pretending" when I did no such thing. So, in context, my reply to laserhaas was totally correct, period and not merely technically correct.

Now, nothing to do with you, but i got bored with this thread and have gone on to threads I've been enjoying more. Have a good night.

[Major Nikon]

55. Sure it was totally correct

That's why you claim now to not using the word "perjury" (even though you still are).

If the best answer to Starr not indicting Clinton for perjury is he wasn't in the mood or you can't read his mind, Clinton didn't commit perjury. If he did, the judge would have issued a criminal contempt charge against Clinton instead of a civil contempt and she would have forwarded her citation to a prosecutor instead of the state bar. But you go ahead and keep claiming your "links" prove perjury when they never so much as mention it.

[Major Nikon]

54. He's not technically correct

Clinton was never indicted in any court for perjury because he never committed perjury. The judge in the Paula Jones case cited Clinton for civil contempt, not criminal contempt, and she never forwarded her citation to any criminal prosecutor which she would have done had Clinton committed a crime.

Clinton was impeached for a blowjob. Listing perjury as a reason for impeachment was never anything more than a smoke screen.

[madokie]

3. It was the years of witch hunts that soured many of us

[merrily]

5. All the more reason not to have given them grounds. nt

[treestar]

6. Hastert just got busted on lying, too.

So the hypocrisy is still there.

[merrily]

7. You betcha. Hypocrisy here, hypocrisy there. E-I-E-I-O.

Perjury and contempt of court are not the same as lying, though.

[horseshoecrab]

8. Perjury IS lying under oath

However, former Pres. Clinton was never convicted of perjury by the Senate, which tried the President after he was impeached.

Impeachment is analogous to an indictment and the trial is held in the Senate. The Senate did not have the votes to convict him. Pres. Clinton was not found guilty of either grand jury perjury or obstruction of justice - the two counts against him. There is no solid legal basis to say he lied or obstructed, considering that they were unable to muster the votes to convict him at his trial in the Senate.

[merrily]

9. No shit, but ordinary lying is not a crime. Perjury is.

Don't teach your grandmother to suck eggs.

Two courts convicted Clinton of lying under oath. So, the fact that the Senate did not vote him out of office does not mean he was not convicted of perjury.

Geez. Imagine if every politician got impeached or lost their lawyer tickets for ordinary lying.

[horseshoecrab]

10. Pres. Clinton = Never Convicted

How charming!

However, no court convicted President Clinton of lying. I’d like to hear about the two courts you say convicted him of lying under oath, i.e. the crime called perjury, or of obstruction of justice, for that matter.

A civil court, in the Paula Jones civil suit, an entirely different action unconnected to the impeachment or the trial in the Senate, cited and fined Pres. Clinton for obstruction and willfully evading testifying in the Paula Jones civil suit. Just to be clear, there is a lesser standard of proof in civil court than in criminal court. Civil = Preponderance of evidence, while Criminal Court = Proof beyond a reasonable doubt. This civil suit is the action which referred its results to the Arkansas courts for potential action on Pres. Clinton’s law license.

BTW, the Senate’s sole purpose in taking up the case, after the House of Representatives had impeached, was to either convict or not convict the President (or any other impeached official). They did not have the required amount of votes to convict Pres. Clinton.

[merrily]

11. Jebus. Google. The Court that heard the Paula Jones case held him in contempt for

lying under oath.

That is why he got impeached by the House. Get a clue. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/articles122098.htm

The fact that the Senate acquitted him meant he did not get removed from office. It did not take away the court's finding.

The court that suspended his legal license confirmed the finding of the Paula Jones court or his legal license would not have been suspended.

Lower burden, higher burden. Big deal. A sitting President lied under oath. He was guilty. He did not get impeached for a blow job.

[horseshoecrab]

12. here's a clue!

You’re referring to the sanction of the civil court ($90,000) in the Paula Jones case. In fact, that Paula Jones case was later dismissed by that same judge for having no basis in fact.

The burden of proof was low (preponderance of evidence). I get that you’re unconcerned about types of proof required to find fault or guilt. Sort of a cavalier attitude. I’d prefer proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Yes, the matter was referred by that same civil court judge to the Supreme Court of Arkansas who then suspended Pres. Clinton’s law license for 5 years. So Pres. Clinton has actually paid for that mistake.

The Paula Jones civil suit had nothing to do with the impeachment of Pres. Clinton. Monica Lewinsky is the person you’re thinking of, no?

But I wonder, how is it that you don’t know that Bill Clinton, our former President, was indeed impeached over a BJ? After years of an extraordinarily expensive investigation that was the only thing that Ken Starr was able to come up with. No, they didn't call the charges getting a BJ but... they were.

Get a clue yourself.

[merrily]

15. No, the Jones case was settled because Clinton paid a chunk of cash out of court.

Dismissal of the case of sexual harassment because the parties settled out of court has nothing to do with the finding that Clinton lied under oath.

The burden of proof is irrelvant because he was GUILTY of lying under oath. There is no question of his guilt.


And NO, for the love of God, he was NOT impeached for a bj but because he lied under oath to the Jones Court and in his Grand Jury. He didn't lose his license to practice law in Arkansas over a bj either. Deceive yourself all you want. What a waste of time.

Another Clinton supporter coming out of the woodwork.

[horseshoecrab]

17. You have no idea what you're talking about

You are too, too funny. I am open to voting for Elizabeth, Hillary or Bernie. Depends on who the Dems run.

Say, you’re not here to try to slime all of this onto Hillary are you?

Nah... that would be wrong, duplicitous and all that kind of stuff.

You are challenged on your facts and it's a waste of time for you?

[merrily]

44. Again, google and read for comprehension.

Clearly, your interest is in something other than facts and reality. Mine is in facts and reality. So, clearly, we don't have enough in common to continue this conversation.

[horseshoecrab]

18. the Jones case was dismissed because

She had failed to prove any damages, which is what a civil suit is meant to addresss.

[jberryhill]

42. Absolutely wrong

The Jones case was dismissed on the merits.

[merrily]

45. Clinton pays $850,000.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/jones111498.htm

[jberryhill]

57. Did you read it?

The case was dismissed.

That was to drop the appeal.

The Jones case had dragged on for quite a while and that amount was NOTHING compared to the time actually invested in it.

[merrily]

58. Did you read it? ALL of it? The article mentions reinstatement of the trial, saying

Last edited Mon Jun 1, 2015, 04:54 AM - Edit history (3)

many experts thought that would have happened absent the settlement.* It also says the Jones side brought forward a new witness, Wiley, hours before the settlement was inked. You don't bring in a new witness on appeal.That's trial level.

He paid her $150,000 MORE than she had even sued for. If she had WON the appeal, she would not have gotten as much as he paid her to end an appeal from a SUMMARY JUDGMENT. You know what the standard of appeal from a summary judgment is. Read between the lines. If all he was buying with almost a million bucks was making the appeal go away, he could have paid her more than she sued for before she even filed the suit. Alternatively, if she was more bent on publicity than money, he could have bought her off for less the day after she filed the suit. Instead he paid her more than she sued for after 4.5 years of "scorched earth" just to end an APPEAL FROM SUMMARY JUDGMENT? Come on, now. Be real. We may have been born at night, but it wasn't last night.

You cannot honestly say you know exactly what all the negotiations and considerations were, nor what the course of negotiations were. The Washington Post sure doesn't know everything. I'd bet my home on that.



*more from another source on possible reinstatement of trial

In April, U.S. District Judge Susan Webber Wright threw out Jones' lawsuit on grounds that, even if what Jones said was true, she had not suffered sexual harassment. The judge concluded that Jones had no evidence she was demoted or otherwise punished for rebuffing Clinton's alleged advances.

But in June, the Supreme Court, ruling in a Chicago case, said that a female worker does not need evidence she suffered a demotion to bring a claim of sexual harassment against a male supervisor. "Severe or pervasive" sexual harassment from a supervisor is enough, the high court

Jones' lawyers appealed Wright's dismissal of the suit and on Oct. 20 the U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals heard arguments in the case.

Most courtroom observers and many lawyers, including some attorneys close to the president, considered it likely that the three-judge appellate panel would vote to revive Jones' case.

Such a ruling also could have subjected the president to a possible trial on sexual harassment charges during his final years in office.

.

http://articles.latimes.com/1998/nov/14/news/mn-42627

At this point, I am going to have to see links before I keep replying to conclusory statements that I'm wrong. So far, I'm the only one who has been backing up anything.

[Major Nikon]

61. You have no idea what you're talking about

If Paula Jones had won the settlement would almost certainly include attorney fees on top of whatever she was originally asking. The settlement would have been well into the millions.

[horseshoecrab]

13. articles of impeachment are charges. THEY ARE NOT PROOF OF GUILT

Once more: The articles of impeachment, in the link you posted above, are the indictment if you will. They are proof of nothing.

The trial, held in the Senate of the U.S., DID NOT CONVICT.

Not sure why you post a link to them as if they proved guilt. They are the charges which President Clinton was not convicted of.

Get it?

[merrily]

14. STOP Focusing on the impeachment. Two courts of law held him guilty of lying under oath.

I posted the articles of impeachment to show he how the jones court finding related to the impeachment. Jeez.

[Major Nikon]

47. I could have sworn you said "perjury"

In fact, I'm quite sure of it.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6758757

The "two courts" you mentioned never once so much as used the word perjury. Add this to the fact that Clinton was never indicted in any court for perjury, and it isn't hard to figure out you have provided zero evidence of your claim.

[merrily]

50. Never once denied I said perjury at first. Desperate much? Still ignoring lying under oath, I see.

How very distateful of you.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6759738

[Major Nikon]

51. Neither did you ever admit it wasn't perjury

I guess admitting you are wrong is just so hard you have to pretend I'm "ignoring" something I never took issue with. Very telling that.

[merrily]

52. Again, it met all the elements of perjury. I cannot read anyone's mind to tell you why

no criminal prosecution occurred. For one thing, he was a sitting President. For another, the material I can and did show you indicates he and his attorney were making deals. For another, he was going to be impeached. Scores of possible reasons why no criminal prosecution occurred, but it's not me saying he met all the elements. It is the court.

What errors did you admit, even after you got links proving your claims wrong? And why are you still ignoring lying under oath? I referred to changing my claim from perjury to lying under oath almost four hours ago. This is the first time you've come anywhere near acknowledging he lied under oath.

You lot are funny. Only person has provided links for any claims at all--the same one your lot has been accusing of being wrong, clueless and/or deceptive. Yet, I've got the liinks that back me up. What laughable bs.

Nitey nite.

[Major Nikon]

53. Sure, Starr just didn't prosecute Clinton for perjury because he wasn't in the mood...or something

Keep repeating that because it's hilarious. Damn hilarious even.

[Major Nikon]

20. Perjury is more than lying under oath

There are three elements to the crime of perjury:

(1) a false statement is made under oath or equivalent affirmation during a judicial proceeding;
(2) the statement must be material or relevant to the proceeding;
(3) the witness must have the Specific Intent to deceive.

Clinton gave answers which may have been misleading, but that doesn't mean they were false. It wasn't Clinton's fault Ann Coulter couldn't legally define a blowjob. As such 1 and 3 are out, and 2 is also dubious and also arguably out. That's why Ken Starr or any other prosecutor never indicted Clinton for perjury. The reason he was held in contempt was because as an officer of the court (a lawyer), the judge held Clinton to a higher standard.

The problem with making an analogy between impeachment and an indictment is that impeachment is a political process and indictment is a legal one. As the Republicans proved, impeachment does not require violation of any law.

[horseshoecrab]

23. Thanks for this as well Major Nikon

The info about the 3 elements is much appreciated. To my knowledge, Clinton was never convicted of anything.

[merrily]

31. Both the Paula Jones Court and the Arkansas Supreme Court found all 3 of those things.

[Major Nikon]

40. They did not

The word never so much as appears in any of those documents. But you can keep pretending it does if you like.

[jberryhill]

43. Stop lying

[loyalsister]

16. Yes, it was a witch hunt

But that fact is no excuse for his behavior. In fact, in a way it makes it worse. I was more on his side when it happened, but in retrospect, the arrogance makes me angry. Especially considering the historical impact. I have heard the arguments that Gore should have used him in the campaign more, but unfortunately Clinton's behavior made his potential impact questionable.

I don't think it was worthy of impeachment, but it's still on his shoulders because he was guilty and he knew better.

[merrily]

21. No matter what it was, knowing they'd been after him, he sat in front of TV cameras and in

depositions and lied. This plays into exactly what is said about them. That they don't think the laws apply to them. And when they're found out, they blame the messenger. Remember Hillary on the Today Show, Matt Lauer about the "vast right wing conspiracy" that was falsely accusing her husband of having an affair with Monica? It's the Republicans. It's the media. It's the left. It's never them.

As for whether it was worth impeachment, imagine if it had been Dimson who had been sued for harassing women who worked for him while he was Governor and lying to the court about it. Sent his security team to bring a state employee to his hotel room, so he could proposition her. I think she married at the time, too.

Dimson, sitting in front of TV cameras and lying while giving grand jury evidence about a young white house intern whom he was cigar fucking. A President and an attorney, each of which takes an oath about upholding the law, one of which is an officer of the court, lying under oath.
And, though I don't think this was in the articles of impeachment, how about getting a blow job while on the telephone with another head of state, conducting official government business?

Would we not have screamed for impeachment? Would we have said he was impeached over nothing but a blow job? Would we have said, awww, chill out, this is no one's business but his and Laura's? And why did everyone say that? Because we really thought it was ok or because we got convinced it was?

Christ, there's more hullabaloo on DU over Sanders 1971 essay than there's ever been over this. I pity most of all the poor junior high school and high school history teachers who have to teach this impeachmment in their American history units.

As far as the witch hunt, Starr chose to proceed with this, because proof was easy, but there was not nothing either. Maybe nothing was prosecutable, but why was the First Lady of Arkansas a director of the largest corporation of Arkansas? No conflict of interest there? How about getting a partnership in a law firm that got work from the state of Arkansas while her husband was Governor? Why were papers under subpoena supposedly lost for a year. Why did people in the Clinton circle go to jail for contempt of court rather than testify against them?

[Major Nikon]

19. Wrong

Clinton was never charged or convicted for perjury. If Clinton had committed perjury, Ken Starr would have criminally indicted him for it. People should stop pretending he committed perjury. It didn't happen. It was bullshit.

The reason Clinton voluntarily suspended his law license (which he had no plans to use anyway), was to stop the investigation which would have drug on for many more years and cost Clinton and the government millions of more dollars on top of the countless millions already spend on a which hunt. It was an admission of defeat for the special prosecution who spent several years, about $100 million, and never managed to come up with any indictments for either of the Clintons.

[horseshoecrab]

22. Thank you Major Nikon! n/t

[merrily]

27. You can thank him for coming to your aid, but he's wrong.

[Major Nikon]

32. Perhaps

But you still haven't answered the question as to why Clinton was never so much as criminally indicted for the crime of perjury, if he indeed did commit perjury as you wrongfully claimed.

Very telling that.

[merrily]

37. Actually I answered it many times over. And disproved your claims

about voluntary surrender. What is telling is either you can't figure that out or you're pretending you can't. Also telling, you keep ignoring that there is no question he lied under oath. How very, very crappy that is. Buh bye.

[Major Nikon]

39. You answered it once and it was completely hilarious

Why wasn't he prosecuted criminally? Look up prosecutorial discretion.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026756638#post33

As if Ken Starr would spend around $100 million prosecuting Clinton and then decline to prosecute him because he didn't feel like it.

It's hard to make shit up that funny, but there it is and you should be commended for it.

[merrily]

24. The court found that he had lied to the court while under oath. There is no question of that.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/contempt041399.htm

The Arkansas Supreme Court that suspended his license found the same thing. It was NOT voluntary. The bar association or whatever the correct title is wanted it taken away and the court fucking agreed. Bar association do NOT do this lightly, any more than a cop turns in another cop lightly, let alone when the fellow lawyer was former Governor of Arkansas and a then sitting President. He had a choice, his ONLY choice, between surrendering his license for five years or getting disbarred permanently. That's not "voluntary" surrender."

The Arkansas Supreme Court suspended Clinton's Arkansas law license in April 2000. On January 19, 2001, Clinton agreed to a five-year suspension and a $25,000 fine in order to avoid disbarment and to end the investigation of Independent Counsel Robert Ray (Starr's successor). On October 1, 2001, Clinton's U.S. Supreme Court law license was suspended, with 40 days to contest his disbarment. On November 9, 2001, the last day for Clinton to contest the disbarment, he opted to resign from the Supreme Court Bar, surrendering his license, rather than facing penalties related to disbarment.

In the end, Independent Counsel Ray said:

"The Independent Counsel’s judgment that sufficient evidence existed to prosecute President Clinton was confirmed by President Clinton’s admissions and by evidence showing that he engaged in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_v._Jones


He lied on TV while giving grand jury testimony. There is no question he lied under oath. . He later admitted to the nation that he had. Ergo, the burden of proof is irrelevant.

This stuff is not poetry. It's not a matter of individual interpretation. There are court opinions out there, videostapes, sworn depositions by Clinton in which he lied, newspaper stories. You know, actual facts and actual evidence.

[Major Nikon]

25. So if it were perjury, why wasn't he ever criminally prosecuted for it?

He was never so much as indicted, BTW, and it certainly wasn't for lack of assertiveness on behalf of the Special Prosecutor.

So for all the links and cutting and pasting you've done, you haven't answered that one simple question.

Furthermore Clinton's suspension of his law license was under a deal with the Special Prosecutor, so it very much was voluntary. Clinton could have continued to fight and he would have won, the question was at what cost.

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/01/19/politics/19CND-CLIN.html

[merrily]

26. OMG, you're back about five posts ago. I haven't used the word perjury since then.

Since then the term used has been been lying under oath, including in the post you just replied to.

And NO, surrendering his license was NOT voluntary. The highest court in the state had already ruled against Clinton. He was going to be permanently disbarred. Instead, he got himself a better deal. He was OUT of options.

That's like saying a guy whom the SCOTUS has ruled can go to electric chair is making a voluntary deal with his state if he accepts five years in jail instead of the worst penalty the court already gave him.

Read for comprehension.

[Major Nikon]

28. Your refusal to answer the question speaks volumes, BTW

As usual, the "Clinton committed perjury" assertion ends with a fart and a sputter.

[merrily]

29. Um, no you got answers and links. Your trumped up story was the only fart and splutter in the

discussion.

Too bad you can 't get even that much, after all the time I spent on this. I should know better.

He lied under oath, to a court. Two courts so held. He lied in sworn grand jury testimony. He did not surrender his license voluntarily.

Jeebus. It was spelled out, with quotes and links.

[Major Nikon]

30. Ah yes, a clever repackaging of the tired old, "I'm rubber, you're glue"

Never saw that one coming.

I'm not the one pretending to have answers. I'm not the one with the "story". It was your assertion that Clinton committed perjury and as yet you have provided zero evidence for it other than the impeachment circular argument fallacy. For good measure you threw in the contempt citation and the law license suspension Clinton accepted as part of the deal with the Special Prosecutor. Neither of those two things even contain the word perjury.

So keep dodging the question. It provides all the evidence anyone really needs about your nonsense assertion.

[merrily]

33. All three elements you described above were met. So held both the Paula Jones court

and the Arkansas Supreme Court. He was held to have met them. Why wasn't he prosecuted criminally? Look up prosecutorial discretion. And, as is obvious from the wiki link I gave you, he and his lawyer cut a deal.

Yes, you are certainly are pretending to have answers. Yours are factually wrong, however.

[Major Nikon]

35. So your argument is that Starr didn't prosecute Clinton for perjury because he exercised discretion

[merrily]

36. Again, read for comprehension. You got all the info any reasonable person

could expect. He lied under oath, with two courts holding he met all three elements you cited above. Morever, there is no question he met all three elements. He does not even claim he did not. He did not surrender his license voluntarily.

If you get can't that after all the above, I can't help you. Or your friend. My bad. I should have seen from the jump facts were going to be irrelevant to both of you. But I am educable and I get that now.. I'm done.

[Major Nikon]

38. Sure he was completely guilty of perjury, but curiously was never so much as indicted

...despite the fact that the Special Prosecution spent about $100 million investigating Clinton with the sole purpose of prosecuting him. Yet for some reason they didn't because of discretion or something.

Makes perfect sense.

[Johonny]

34. To justify the never ending perpetually expanding expensive witch hunt they had against him

They finally found something, impeached him, and discovered Americans liked Bill Clinton and didn't care if he lied about a BJ. They also discovered that Victorian era was over... probably 100 years ago. Well, they may not still have figured that out.

[Major Nikon]

41. Clintons approval ratings during the impeachment were higher than St. Ronnie's ever were

[KentuckyWoman]

48. Republicans impeached Clinton for personal financial gain.

Always follow the money.

[laserhaas]

56. Amen....

A Repub Book 101 - find a way to prosecute them out of office.

[quadrature]

59. lying under oath, which is perjury. ...nt

[Major Nikon]

60. All perjury is lying under oath

All lying under oath isn't perjury.

Clinton was impeached for a blowjob.

[quadrature]

63. he wasn't forced to answer the q.... that is what bothers me....nt

[Major Nikon]

64. He actually was forced to answer them to a Grand Jury

What bothers me is that he was asked those questions in the first place. It was a consensual affair which was really nobody's business.

[quadrature]

65. not at all . there was no waterboard or gun pointed at him ...nt

[Major Nikon]

66. Sure, if you discount the threat of going to jail for criminal contempt

[quadrature]

67. not at all. he(BC) would have fought it out ...

in the courts for years if not decades.
.........................
Lots WORSE than that.

blowjob, was not my business,
until,...
he wags his finger at me
and tells me about it (not then under oath)
then it is my business

I think you have something of a point
in that lying under oath' is not necessarily perjury.
perhaps the Clinton Library should
put up a display discussing that matter.
put it in the Impeachment Wing.

[deutsey]

62. Don't forget to lump Henry Hyde in with the hypocrites n/t