Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Are you really so biased that you cannot see the difference in significance, the difference in magnitude, in lying about a private sexual relationship, versus lying about, for instance, collusion to undermine the integrity of the national election?
That allegation hasn't been proven. I do not believe there was collusion at all. Why would Putin do all that to assure Trump would win what 99% of the people (including Trump probably) thought was an unwinnable election? It just makes no sense. It seems more likely that if (and that's a big if) the Russians hacked the DNC, it would be so they could undermine Hillary Clinton's presidency. And what motive would Trump have to collude on that?
It takes 67 votes in the Senate to impeach. That is why Andy Johnson completed his term.
Actually it takes 67 votes to remove from office (as a trial result), but impeachment is entirely a House of Representatives matter. Both Bill Clinton and Andrew Johnson were impeached, but neither was removed from office. Once at least one article of impeachment has garnered a passing vote on the full House floor (not just the Judiciary Committee vote) then impeachment has occurred.
It's possible that impeachment proceedings could be brought against Trump. Pretty unlikely that he will be removed from office however. Didn't happen with Clinton, and didn't happen with Nixon - he resigned before it could. That requires a 2/3 vote for removal in the Senate, a very high bar.
That is, based on events through May 20. Each day brings news craziness with Trump, so tomorrow this could surely change.
If more mainstream conservatives/republicans had the choice to remove Trump and make Pence president...you don't think they would?
I bet most Republicans are hoping for impeachment moreso than Democrats. A chance to get Trump out of office and do some image-repairing before likely losing the senate in 2018.
The questions were pertinent to the lawsuit in question, which was sexual harassment. Do you think a president having an affair with a 22-year old White House intern may have fallen under the same umbrella as the other sexual harassment allegations? I'm not saying Monica wasn't willing, but the questions were pertinent. She apparently thought it may come up as she kept the dress and never washed the semen off of it. Kind of a weird situation.
But honestly, I always liked Bill Clinton and thought it was ridiculous what Republicans did to him. However, there were some serious charges against him for the Whitewater deal, which lead to the other stuff. No one was talking about impeaching him until he actually did something impeachable.
Trump may have a bad temperament for being a president, but so far all I've seen is innuendo and rumors tying him to anything impeachable. Despite that, people have been calling for his impeachment before he ever assumed office. All they had to do was wait and see what he did, but instead people starting this nonsense on the same day as the election, which makes it a little hard to take seriously.
Calling him a criminal before he ever had a chance to do anything criminal and calling all the people who voted for him uneducated rubes seems like a bad strategy. It would have been far better to lay off the histrionics and let him be Trump. If he is as bad as they say, he will do something that everyone hates and then go after him. Give him enough rope and eventually he will hang himself.
Overall, I'm happy we aren't getting another Ginsburg on the Supreme Court.
"Originally Posted by Clarallel Oh?
As I said - did you read? - he lied about a private intimate matter, which was legal, about which the questions should have not been asked,"
What many dems like to ignore it was NOT what he did with his private life BUT, what he did while doing his job as president.
Had had his little sex escapades in the private residence of the WH or in somewhere off site of the WH it would not have been such a nig deal.
BUT he didn't. He had his sexual pleasures IN THE OVAL OFFICE WHILE AT WORK.
To me, THAT is a BIG difference.
Any man caught banging his secretary, or any other female employee, IN HIS OFFICE, he would be fired.
The questions were pertinent to the lawsuit in question, which was sexual harassment. Do you think a president having an affair with a 22-year old White House intern may have fallen under the same umbrella as the other sexual harassment allegations? I'm not saying Monica wasn't willing, but the questions were pertinent. She apparently thought it may come up as she kept the dress and never washed the semen off of it. Kind of a weird situation.
But honestly, I always liked Bill Clinton and thought it was ridiculous what Republicans did to him. However, there were some serious charges against him for the Whitewater deal, which lead to the other stuff. No one was talking about impeaching him until he actually did something impeachable.
Trump may have a bad temperament for being a president, but so far all I've seen is innuendo and rumors tying him to anything impeachable. Despite that, people have been calling for his impeachment before he ever assumed office. All they had to do was wait and see what he did, but instead people starting this nonsense on the same day as the election, which makes it a little hard to take seriously.
Calling him a criminal before he ever had a chance to do anything criminal and calling all the people who voted for him uneducated rubes seems like a bad strategy. It would have been far better to lay off the histrionics and let him be Trump. If he is as bad as they say, he will do something that everyone hates and then go after him. Give him enough rope and eventually he will hang himself.
Overall, I'm happy we aren't getting another Ginsburg on the Supreme Court.
"Originally Posted by Clarallel Oh?
As I said - did you read? - he lied about a private intimate matter, which was legal, about which the questions should have not been asked,"
What many dems like to ignore it was NOT what he did with his private life BUT, what he did while doing his job as president.
Had had his little sex escapades in the private residence of the WH or in somewhere off site of the WH it would not have been such a nig deal.
BUT he didn't. He had his sexual pleasures IN THE OVAL OFFICE WHILE AT WORK.
To me, THAT is a BIG difference.
Any man caught banging his secretary, or any other female employee, IN HIS OFFICE, he would be fired.
He LIED in court, but, may on the left don't care because he has a (D) next to his name.
Sorry, but that's absurd. The law traditionally takes into account all kinds of factors - such as intent. And, yes, as you said, the issue was about Clinton lying - about a question that shouldn't have been asked, and was irrelevant to the country.
There's something radically wrong with a country that would impeach President Clinton for lies about a private sexual matter, yet not President Bush for lies that pushed us into a war.
Sexual harassment in the workplace is NOT a private intimate matter. The fact that he was POTUS makes it that much worse - and it absolutely is relevant to the country. I'm appalled how people can simultaneously vilify the right for their so-called "war on women", but casually dismiss Bill Clinton's behavior. The hypocrisy is breathtaking.
However, in relative terms, Trump's negative impact on this country far outweighs anything Clinton did. On the balance, Clinton was a good president. Trump is a disaster and gets worse by the day. It's only a matter of time before he's impeached. As other posters have noted, he's become a liability to his own party and finding something nefarious to pin on him isn't going to be difficult.
I was just thinking about this. It was clear a year ago that Trump was unfit to be president, whether you were considering it in terms of his unstable temperament, his lack of experience, or his general ignorance. But it seems to me that one reason that Democrats were instantly ready to look for reasons to impeach dates back to the Republican treatment of Bill Clinton.
Prior to Bill Clinton, the last discussion of impeachment had been two decades earlier, triggered by Nixon's attempt to undermine the electoral process. By contrast, Bill Clinton was a generally popular president, smart, experienced, presiding over a fairly good period. But Republican were so rabid to undermine him that they latched onto everything they could, finally fixating on a relationship that was tawdry, but certainly not illegal, and certainly not imperiling the country, as had been the case with Nixon. They were fixating on his having lied, under oath, about a purely personal matter that no one should have been asking about.
But I think it may have opened the door for today. Because if Republicans were so quick to go off the deep end for something so inconsequential, surely that gives Democrat the ammunition to immediately object to something that is, again, potentially undermining the basic underpinnings of the country.
Making a big deal about Clinton banging the staff and ignoring Clinton bombing Iraq, which was already blockaded, and more importantly without Congressional approval. Of course many civilians were killed.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
