Impeached former President to swear in NYC Mayor

Here's how I look at the entire matter, now and then. Bill Clinton, despite all of his dalliances, was a darn good President. He was then, and in retrospect, he is still regarded as such. We enjoyed relative peace and prosperity. Since then, he has joined in some admirable enterprises.

But let's put this into a perspective that conservatives might understand. A successful business model. After all, isn't that what I hear frequently from conservatives? That you want government to run as a business?

Here we have a CEO that is taking his company on the right course. Things are looking great. The bottom line is positive for the first time in memory. He boinks his secretary in his office. Consensually, I might add. I really don't care what he and his secretary are doing up there in his penthouse office. What I want is good performance for him and the company. I don't look to him for my moral guidance.

So, you and I can argue all day about perjury, how many people (not named Clinton) in Whitewater went to jail, about the morality or immorality of a BJ in the corporate office, on and on, ad nauseum. But it's your OP with all the false outrage from distant memories. None of which really means diddle squat to what ails this country now. You post garbage like that, none of which should really be an issue at all, in order to stir the (*)(*)(*)(*). Fine. You accomplished that.

Now, should we argue something equally as pointless? Does God exist?

 

New York has just released it's official swearing in portrait of the Mayor.

 

He was held in contempt for them and plea bargained the criminal charge. He was disbarred for his perjury and obstruction of justice. Are you denying he submitted a false affidavit into the Jones deposition?

 

No he wasn't. He was held in contempt for discovery violations. The only time he was charged with anything was by the Republicans in the House. After spending, what, $100 million on his investigation, the prosecutor never even could bring charges and Clinton's agreed to give up his law license, not even a flick on the wrist for someone who certainly was never going to need to practice law again.

The whole thing was a Republican driven charade.

 

There were no formal charges and complaints, and if GOP millionaires hadn't searched out and found Paula Jones and financed her dubious lawsuit, there wouldn't have been any in Clinton's case either.....

 

ROFL as if that mitigates anything the fact is he as not the good of a President.

AHH in a private business the board of directors would have fired him immediately.

There is nothing false about it. The fact that the left holds this man in some honor is absurd.

I know it must upset you to have the facts about the man posted and your not being able to refute any of them. That you are stuck defending such a miserable scumbag who serially abused women and used his power over them must really be hard to swallow but you choose the ground you now defend.

I didn't force to come to this thread. I didn't select to put Clinton back in the limelight as some worthy and honorable person. I just point out the fallacy and sheer absurdity of giving this man a iota of respect.

 

OK. Let's continue with your game. It's not about policy differences. I guess my question to you as OP, what EXACTLY is it about? Sounds more like Clintonhate than your sincere concern who swears in the NYC mayor.

 

Yes because there were no grounds for them and no evidence or complaint by Tripp that her job as affected.

They didn't, his former body guards went public once they were no longer subject to his power and one of them, Danny Ferguson, brought her story to the public, she was defending her name as every citizen has a right to do.

Let me guess you are just as clueless as to what the Jennifer Flowers scandal was all about.

 

OK then stop trying to inject your policy differences with Bush.

I have been quite clear.

That once again this dishonorable scumbag is being put forth by the Democrats and the left as a man to be honored and how clueless, as evidenced once again by the post in this thread, the public truly is about the man and what happened during the scandals and what they were about. How the MSM media has created these myths and stick to them to this day.

 

Yep. Lying scumbag is bad enough. Lying, killing scumbag is even worse, don't you think?

"Hate" is a pretty strong word. Pretty loosely tossed around these days. If you're sincere about the feeling you have for someone, anyone, especially one who has really done no harm to this country, is a sad commentary, indeed. Hate? Just for a second, think about the depth and width of that emotion. What does that conjure up in the deepest part of your consciousness? I've never been able to find that in myself. Hate is a huge burden to carry. Try to work that one out or it can eat you up, as it apparently is for many on this thread.

 

Well there is a HUGE difference and Presidents are sworn to uphold the law and when they do committed high crimes such as perjury and obstruction of justice should be sent home packing. This isn't about matters of policy, but of committing criminal acts in a court of law and in the workplace.

It wasn't just his perjury, obstruction of justice, subornation of perjury and witness tampering all committed in an effort to deny a citizen their rightful day in court. It goes far beyond that such as setting up Lewinsky to do a term in a federal prison in order to protect his political future and then plotting to smear her if she didn't go along. His sexual assaults on women who worked for him, not just rebuffed advances, using his power over them to threaten and intimidate them.

And he should have been sent home packing forever to be disdained. Instead we see these myths about what happened and his still being the titular leader of the Democrat party held in honor and admiration.

Absolutely. Just as his being honored as a keynote speaker at conventions and other such gatherings. The picture of all the Democrat Congresspersons after the vote to remove him from office should be an utter embarrassment for liberals and those who believe in the protection of women in the workplace from such men.

 

What I take away from this whole thing, including your OP, is that there are a lot of Republican crybabies out there that drudge up pointless issues for pointless reasons. This one seems to be a poster child for such efforts.

Re: iotas of respect. I guess that begs the question as to which President you give your "iota" to? Certainly not one in recent memory.

 

I just find it funny that in this day and age and with both sides of the aisle screwing people over, that people in this thread are honestly flipping out about someone getting sworn in by someone else. Out of all things to be angry at, this is apparently it. What a joke.

 

Conservatives despise Clinton. He committed the mortal sin of raising taxes, and then, after the conservatives told us who his huge tax increase would wreck the economy and kill jobs, Clinton presided over the greatest period of job creation and sustained economic growth since WWII. Poverty and unemployment hit decade's low rates. 22 million additional jobs created. Stock markets tripled, even accounting for the correction in 2000. His economy bested Reagan's and blew away Bush's. And a then record deficit, proportionately bigger than the one we have today, was whittled down and turned into a surplus, and a golden opportunity for the nation.

Clinton proved every one of conservatives' theories are wrong.

 

Yeah, they were all generated by the right wing smear machine, the one that guaranteed Danny Ferguson a job for twice what he was making if he had something juicy on Clinton, the one that financed Paula Jones, because no lawyer would take the case on contingency, because there wasn't a case.

So we have a new standard, it's not what people actually do, it's what lawyers file in court.....
That's what we base our whole world on, forget what they actually did as president.....
So you probably think Hitler was a great guy, because no charges were ever filed in court.......

 

It was done for a very good reason, that you don't like the reason carries no weight with me. That you would prefer the true nature of this man and his reprehensible behaviors be swept under the rug and we all play dumb is not my problem.

The man is who he is and he did what he did, to honor and worship such a man as the left does is one of the most amazing things I have ever witnessed in political history. That many remain so uninformed and misinformed as is evidence by this thread is amazing in the fact that the MSM in cahoots with the Democrats could pull it off.

Effort? I would have nothing to say about it if the Democrats and the left didn't throw him in our face keep him as their titular head and most revered and still portray such lies about the whole affair as if HE were the victim.

This has nothing to do with other Presidents, it has to do with one Bill Clinton and HIS behavior and HIS dishonoring of the office to which he was elected and HIS violating his oath of office and HIS treatment of women.

How you can defend any of it and then hold the man in such respect and honor is just amazing to me.

 

People with honor and principles dislike him and have no respect for him.

Has nothing to do with his policies, policy agreement or disagreement has nothing to do with the legal, moral and ethical transgressions he engage in and the fact he should have been kicked out of office and sent home packing.

Why do you think that excuses him? Anything such things a President engages in are OK with you as long as you agree with his policies? And if you don't excuse him and rather hold him accountable for the man it's only because you disagree with his policies? What a partisan viewpoint.

So it's OK to you for Presidents to commit perjury and obstruction of justice in a federal court? Both felonies.

 

Maybe I missed something, but what was Clinton convicted of again?

BTW, I did not like the guy.

 

No they went looking themselves because they didn't want such a sleaze bag to be President. Paula Jones won her case based on the evidence in spite of Clinton's efforts to deny her justice with his perjury and obstruction of justice and witness tampering and subornation on perjury.

Speak for you own standards do you have any?

Mine is men who sexually molest subordinate employees have no business being President, how about you?
Mine is a Governor who denies a state employee her rightful promotion and raise in order to give the job to his mistress and when that employee files a complaint that the person is not even qualified and wins and so that Governor has the supervisor change the job description to keep his mistress in the job, should not have been elected to higher office, how about you?
Mine is that a President who rewards White House employees who give him sexual favors with special treatment and rewards, and engages in those sexual acts in the Oval Office, have no business in that office.
Mine is Presidents who commit perjury and obstruction of justice in a federal court should be impeached and removed from office, how about you?

- - - Updated - - -

Held in contempt you mean, plea bargained you mean? Why, because he entered a false affidavit into a federal court, perjury and obstruction of justice. Are you denying he did so? You better go speak to federal court which summarily found he did.

 

I think your missing out on the definition of impeached. Did your side convict him of anything? If not, why not?

 

Yes he was impeached, the Senate decided not to remove him from office for it which is the only thing it decides, he remains impeached to this day. What does that have to do with his actually committing perjury and obstruction of justice and being held in contempt of court for it and his treatment of women?

 

Personally, the president getting a blow job is not the biggest deal in the world.

Telling us that Iraq is an "urgent threat" because of supposed WMDs and ties to Al-Queda and wasting thousands of lives and trillions of dollars on a "mistaken" war is.

 

One more time- what was Clinton convicted of?

 

So what. Being impeached is like being charged. If the Senate decided not to remove him from office, it was only because he was convicted of low crimes and tiny misdemeanors that don't rise to the level of removal from office. You boys had no right to ask him if he got a blowjob.

 

when republicans get caught lying, they say it wasn't meant to be a factual statement