Impeached former President to swear in NYC Mayor

so wish I had a ticket!!!!!

would be great to see Bill.

I got a private tour of his office on 125th St a few years ago. He's really into JFK memorabilia.

- - - Updated - - -

yeah, Bush invaded Iraq and cost us 5,000 soldiers.

 

No it is an impeachment and Clinton remains the only impeached President in our history.

They choose not to remove him from office which is all they can do. The Democrat leadership wanted to censure him for the acts he committed but the Constitution does not allow for that. Read your Constitution judgement by the Senate shall be limited to one thing and one thing only, should the President be removed from office for the acts for which he is impeached.

In a court under oath, all better do so else go to jail.

And why did he mysteriously leave Cambridge? He lived in a small state where he learned the value of political favoritism.

BTW he once told my grandmother there were only two men in his life he ever feared, his step-father and my grandfather, I know of what I speak.

- - - Updated - - -

And what does that have to do with the issue?

 

Bird of a feather...

 

No they didn't, it was indisputable he submitted a false affidavit that is prima facie evidence of perjury. They said they wanted to censure him but the Constitution does not allow for the so they came up to with the absurd rational that a President committing felonies in a court of law does not violate his oath of office or is a high crime or misdemeanor behavior.

It's too bad none of the Senators ever went into the room in which he placed it to view it nor would they allow it onto the floor proceedings. OF course they had the false affidavit, they had the statements of Lewinsky and Curry, there was doubt he lied under oath and tampered with a witness.

And Starr had nothing to do with the impeachment. As the law required of him when he became aware the President had committed felonies he reported it to the House and turned the evidence over to them, at that point he had no more to do with it.

 

Actually as President with a subordinate federal employee while on the job it was everyone's business.

Never heard of the Molinari amendments which Clinton signed into law with much fanfare by feminist seeking protection for women in the workplace? HE signed the law which compelled him to give the testimony in which he committed perjury and obstrucution of justice.

Why shouldn't women be allowed to sue bosses who try to get sexual favors from them at the least and sexually molest as Clinton did.

 

Andrew Johnson was impeached And the senate failed to convict by one vote
And to the rest of your response I only say this
You can say anything on the Internet

 

Greetings,

How is that everyone's business?

How did he break any laws by getting a blowjob? Did he force Monica to give him a blowjob?

Monica was not forced from what I've read. Molested? I don't remember this.

I am grateful for you though and for supporting the cause. This interest in carnal activity and such that never existed leaves doors open for certain deeds to take place.

Saggezza,
Tuo Padre

 

The act under which he was impeached was ruled unconstitutional so he committed no act under which to be impeached making it a nullified procedure, but I will give it to you he was impeached at the time.

 

Sorry Horace but your post is not factual; once again you don't get your facts straight. The Senate is part of the impeachment process whether or not you want to admit it.

 

Not according to the Senate.

Censuring him wouldn't have meant anything anyway. However, that doesn't mean they supported the perjury or obstruction charges.

To be fair, we don't really know the reasoning behind each senators vote, but the defendants initial argument was that there were too many inconsistencies in Clinton's grand jury testimony to prove perjury or obstruction of justice. In the closing arguments, Ruff stated that if you don't believe Clinton's behavior wasn't severe enough to be a risk to our national liberties, and you must vote to acquit, but no one can say for sure if that was the reasoning behind every vote on the issue.





The prosecution had 3 days to present their case, and did so thoroughly.

Currie's evidence wasn't that strong. She even stated that the gifts Clinton gave to Lewinsky were taken back at Lewinsky's request, not Clinton's.

And Starr had nothing to do with the impeachment. As the law required of him when he became aware the President had committed felonies he reported it to the House and turned the evidence over to them, at that point he had no more to do with it.[/QUOTE]

 

Even the Senate which wanted to censure him for it and the fact remains entering a false affidavite is prima facie evidence of perjury. The Senate had one concern, should he be removed from office, politics took over rationality.

That is exactly what it would have meant, but the Constitution allows no such actions, the Senate's judgement is limited to one thing only, remove or not remove from office.

We know exactly what it was they all made public statements. The Democrats choose to let a President who committed perjury and obstruction of justice remain in office.

No there wasn't in spite of their tortured attempts a few to portray any, the fact remains he committed perjury in the Jones deposition, he was held in contempt for and was disbarred for 5 months by the Arkansas Bar for doing so.

Which was utter nonsense there is NOT such requirement in the Constitution it was roundly laughed at.

It was political, they didn't want a sitting Democrat President removed from office and then turned it into the fallacious propaganda many here are spewing about it being about blow jobs, and none of our business.

They should have not just because it was the right thing to do so save the honor of the Presidency but it would have set Gore up for his run and he would have had a much better chance and probably would have won the office in 2000. But they prostituted themselves over Clinton, tell me do you think any of them have a leg to stand on now when it comes to sexual harassment and abuse in the workplace by bosses who try to solicit sex from women who work for them and reward or punish or at least threaten accordingly? Is that really what you think the man in the White House should have a history of and be engaged in? BTW rewarding subordinate employees who offer you sexual favors with rewards or special favors at work constitutes creating a hostile work environment for the other workers who do not make such offers.

Yeah what a guy to have in the Oval Office.

And were limited in the number of witnesses. With such an historical and important event in the works why did the Democrats so desperately want to limit the inquiry? Why didn't any of them even one go into the room Schippers had set up so they could view the evidence, remember they didn't want any of it public, not a single one?

She testified he violated Judge Wrights order and engaged in witness tampering and she confirmed that Clinton gave Lewinsky special favors, it matters not that some of the gifts were given back, she also go to engage in sexual activity while on the job not quite in her job description I would imagine. Witness tampering in a federal court proceeding is a felony.

Do you believe that Presidents who are involved in federal court procedures should be allowed to tamper with witnesses and commit felonies in the process and if not then what should be done with them?

 

I don't know how you can't respect a man who knows how to properly use a cigar.

Yes, guys, you've been doing it all wrong.

 

+

You know, I have to admit I was too young at the time to be interested in the case, and now I can't find any information on it that isn't completely loaded with partisan spin, either right or left. No two sites I can find explain the case similarly or provide enough details of the case to give me a solid background to debate it one way or the other. Therefore, I cannot continue to comment.

 

Pure BS without substantiation by a governmental authority web site.

- - - Updated - - -

Pure BS without substantiation by a governmental authority web site.

 

Sorry- that honor falls to Richard Nixon(R).

I think that Clinton should never have cheated on his wife, and I think that Clinton should never have lied about it.

But the majority of Americans recognize that your 'hate on' is just part of the same anti-Clinton madness that fueled Vince Foster claims.

Clinton's popularity is right below Ronald Reagan's.

That must really tick you off.

 

Hillary has no conscience and is a self-serving, opportunistic wench. She should make a fine successor to Pres. Soetoro.

 

What goes on in your house hold? Seriously. Stop letting your children watch adult programing. Did you explain to your 10 year old what gang rape was after all the news channels were covering what happened in India last year?

 

We can't even name all of the Republican political stars, whereas the left's lineup is basically just Hillary. They would like to groom DeBlasio but his greatest possible achievement is going to be not screwing up what Bloomberg built, so he will need all of the piggy-backing he can get.

 

You do once it becomes pervasive in the culture and media.

He's a scumbag but he's your scumbag. Got it.

 

I get the strong feeling you don't have kids. I'm hoping it stays that way.

 

Disbarred from practicing before the Supreme Court, he can practice the law in lower courts should he choose to.

 

You are the one who claimed that your child watches the 6 o'clock news. If Bill Clinton never existed, ever, your child would still be exposed to the very grown up things you complained about with the coverage of Clinton and his affair. That was your argument, was it not? That because the news covered the affair, you children whom were watching the 6 O'clock news were introduced to the grown up material. But the news covers all sorts of grown up material constantly. . .so isn't it best to watch and take care in what they are viewing?

 

Bill Clinton behaved in a manner that we would never tolerate from our neighbor, but ignored because he was president and the liberals defended him to his dying day.

True story: At the same time the Clinton impeachment was carrying out, in my community (in Massachusetts, no less) the principal of the local elementary school got caught in an extra-marital affair with his secretary (who was an unmarried woman a couple years younger than people). People were outraged and called for him to be fired, which he was.

I always enjoyed the irony of the morons who got outraged at the local principal having an affair, but didn't care about the president doing it.

 

This scumbag is the front man, the titular (in every sense) head of the Democrats.

Nice work. Back to back Scumbags-in-Chief

 

None really, other than folks left and right seem to not be aware of what the impeachment was actually about.