How Long Did It Take To Impeach Clinton

[rsmith6621]

From start to finish..............If less than a year then what is Pelosi's problem....

is she in the Bush pocket????

is she a DINO????

or does she just not no how to lead????

[BobRossi]

1. All of the above.

She is a major league sellout.

[A wise Man]

25. At first I thought she would be great

Now I have second thoughts. I'm in agreement with you.

[blm]

2. I think the REAL power Dems in DC are insisting on no impeachment because

of their own GOP alliances and the sides they took throughout the war on terror and Iraq.

Face it - many of the Dems with real power sided more with Bush the last 6 years than they ever did with our candidates running against BushInc in 2002 and 2004.

[GOTV]

3. The whole process took about 4 months ending in acquittal and humiliating the GOP

> If less than a year then what is Pelosi's problem....

Not enough votes in the Senate

> is she in the Bush pocket????

Not enough votes in the Senate

> is she a DINO????

Not enough votes in the Senate

> or does she just not no how to lead????

She doesn't lead the Senate.

[gatorboy]

5. Thank You.

Is it that hard to understand that the votes simply aren't there without Republican support?

[GOTV]

6. I'm speculating but...

... I think the percentage of the "impeach now" crowd that doesn't understand the realities of the process is small. I think there's a sizable proportion that really doesn't care whether impeachment accomplishes anything. They just can't stand the fact that Clinton was impeached for almost nothing and Bush, with all his crimes, will not be impeached.

I, on the other hand, consider the Clinton impeachment a plus for the Clinton legacy. They claimed he deserved to be removed from office and were proven wrong. I don't want to give Bush the same vindication.

I'm for removal from office and so I'm for impeachment only when impeachment will result in removal from office.

[Raine]

15. I agree

there is no way there are the votes to remove him and in the end the Democratic party would come off as revengeful and bitter which is something the public does not like. Our side are the ones that well be hurt in the long run by such a move.

[TheWraith]

16. Some people don't WANT to understand.

I suppose raging at Democratic pols, and acting like it's just so easy to stop the war and remove Bush all at the same time, makes them feel better for some reason.

[KansDem]

8. "humiliating the GOP"

Oh, yeah. They were soooo humiliated that 1) they won the White House in 2000 and 2004; 2) they continued to control Congress for another six years; 3) they managed to get two neo-con fascist justices on the Supreme Court; 4) they managed to shred the US Constitution, establish torture as national policy, get rid of habeas corpus, etc; 5) they maintained control over the media; 6) they got us involved in an illegal war based on lies, 7) they exposed an American intelligence operation to our enemies; 8) they allowed us to be attacked by Bush's buddies on 9/11 without investigation; 9) they rifled the US Treasury with no-bid contracts to the vice-president's former corporation; 10) they committed election fraud--(do I need to go on?)

Oh, yeah! They were sooooo humiliated!!!

[GOTV]

9. You ask them if they are proud they acquitted Clinton. Maybe you don't know what "humiliate" means

It certainly doesn't mean "incapable of committing election fraud".

[KansDem]

19. Well, if you want to get technical about that whole sordid mess, the GOP *did* impeach Clinton

The GOP House succeeded in impeaching Clinton; the GOP Senate didn't remove him from office.

But really, I think the whole country knew what a farce that was, including the GOP senators who voted to acquit Clinton. However, one cannot compare Clinton's indiscretion with the glaring crimes of Bush. That's why I wonder why there is no impeachment...I'm confident that if impeachment got going, the information released during the proceedings would be so damaging and embarrassing that any right-minded GOP senator would have to vote to remove.

edited...

[GOTV]

20. Yes they did. And then the Senate gave them a pie in the face for it....

... they didn't even get a simple majority and demonstrated to the whole country that the charges were trumped up.

That's what an acquittal of Bush would say to the nation again.

[GOTV]

22. Oh, and yes we CAN compare the Clinton and Bush impeachments if the outcomes are the same....

.... if they are both acquitted you'll be doing a lot of foolish tap dancing to explain why Clinton's acquittal exonerated him but Bush is still guilty in spite of his acquittal.

If you really want to get Bush, you need to work on the Senate. The house will go when the Senate is ready.

[KansDem]

23. OK, so a consensual BJ is just as bad as the crimes committed by Bush

...too numerous to mention here? Gotcha!

I'm sure glad we cleared that up!

So you're saying we need to have the Senate all ready to declare Bush guilty as charged even before the House does its investigation and trial?

Who would've thought that a well-planned a executed trial on the part of the Dems would lay out all the crimes of Bush for the world to see, only to have it perceived by the American people as nothing worse than Clinton's BJ... Color me dumbfounded! :crazy:

[GOTV]

24. If they are both acquitted that's the implication. You still want Bush acquitted? n/t

[disndat]

13. and BushCo had

big media in solid with him: mainly , Faux News, NBC, owned by G.E., ABC, CBS, most especially, The Washington Post( * biggest cheer leader), all the Sunday talk shows. Al Gore is now saying only the internet could save us, if government would keep its hands off.

[Raine]

14. History will be the judge and in the future

I believe that they going to go down in it as looking like idiots for impeaching Clinton when no way could they remove him.

[GOTV]

18. Yes! n/t

[Bandit]

27. Before any evidence is presented you can say that?

There are one hundred votes in the Senate and all that are needed is sixty seven. Once solid evidence of wrong doing is presented that is undisputable they would have an extremely difficult time not voting to Impeach. Imagine the campaign ads against any that did not wish to follow the LAW..You are quite wrong on this issue. Start the process and see if Republicans believe in Law and Order or Dictatorship....Start the Process. Republicans were not humiliated and in fact one the next three elections after the fact. You are talking BS..

[givemebackmycountry]

4. Check this out....

This may shed some light on what's going on and why the Dems are reluctant to make a move.

http://salon.com/opinion/kamiya/2007/05/22/impeachment/

[Beelzebud]

7. We have a bunch of useless wimps that represent us. Thats the problem.

[jackstraw45]

10. October 1998 - February 1999 - 4 little months

From the House Judiciary Committee considering it to the trial...

[Bonhomme Richard]

11. Did the repugs care that the people were not...........

interested in impeaching Clinton. Of course not. Hell, during the middle of the impeachment He had like 60% approval rating. That didn't stop them one bit.

[helderheid]

12. K&R

[Rosemary2205]

17. None of the above.

The press is not behind impeachment.
The American public is not behind impeachment.
Much of the house and most of the Senate is not behind impeachment.

IMHO there's nothing wrong with Pelosi's leadership, or Reid's. Not at this point anyway. They barely have a majority. If all they can do is get a few tweeks of law in place (like raising min wage or stopping some of the worst abuses of the Patriot act) and supply the oversight that was missing then that is enough for now. Showing the R's as the thugs they are, and getting the elections "unrigged" will mean a greater D majority next time and more actual work can get done.

IMHO we didn't get into this mess overnight. The R's played the system for 20 years to get us here. Asking the D's to get us out in a few short months is, IMHO, unrealistic.



Now if something remarkable happens that the press picks up and the public changes it's mind on impeachment than that's a whole other thing.

[ComerPerro]

21. Took 5 years and hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars

[WilliamPitt]

26. Five years

The push to impeach - the blizzard of subpoenas and House "investigations" - began pretty much immediately upon Clinton's arrival. The actual impeachment took less than a year, but the process in its entirety took five years.