Impeacheable? Bush?

Seems pretty straight forward, Brandon. These were statements made by Republicans about Clinton.

Do they not apply to Bush as well?

We'll see.

No, Clinton was under oath in a courtroom when he lied.

Brandon9000 wrote:

No, Clinton was under oath in a courtroom when he lied.

No he wasn't.

joefromchicago wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

No, Clinton was under oath in a courtroom when he lied.

No he wasn't.

Correct, Joe. Clinton lied under oath alright, but it was in his deposition in the Paula Jones lawsuit .... which was not taken in a courtroom.



Always a good idea to remind ourselves where these lies took place.

Ticomaya wrote:

joefromchicago wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

No, Clinton was under oath in a courtroom when he lied.

No he wasn't.

Correct, Joe. Clinton lied under oath alright, but it was in his deposition in the Paula Jones lawsuit .... which was not taken in a courtroom.



Always a good idea to remind ourselves where these lies took place.

Yeah, like in real estate: the important thing is location, location, location.

Absolutely. Telling a lie under oath in a nice quiet deposition is hardly the same thing as telling a lie under oath in a big noisy Grand Jury courtroom.

Ticomaya wrote:

Absolutely. Telling a lie under oath in a nice quiet deposition is hardly the same thing as telling a lie under oath in a big noisy Grand Jury courtroom.

Grand jury proceedings may be noisy in your part of the world, but around here judges are capable of maintaining order in their courtrooms.

Your argument is meritless, and you likely know it.

How the vote turned out is irrelevant.

Your charge of hypocrisy for dems is itself a hypocritical claim.

Republicans set impeachment in motion for alleged crimes. Dems may do precisely the same to Bush without valid charge of unique hypocisy.

Your formula would have the Clinton impeachment as proper but ANY subsequent impeachment of a Republican president hypocritical.

Clearly that doesn't make any sense. It would be nice if you played straight and went for the truth/logic of the question here rather than a tired partisan one-upsmanship.

A nod to the facts...ten Republican senators voted "not guilty".

I always play straight.

I am not sure if this is partisan or not. I am just weary of the Democrats viewing the law as "Republicans always guilty; Democrats always innocent".

It does the heart good to note, as I must, that some of those implicated in the Abramoff mess were among the foremost faux moralists of the Clinton years. Two of those are former Tom DeLay aides Tony Rudy and Michael Scanlon, both of whom went on to become satellites of Abramoff, sharing in his largess and, now, his infamy. It was Scanlon who wrote a poetic e-mail to Rudy during the Clinton impeachment proceedings beginning, "God bless you Tony Rudy," and suggesting that instead of mercy, Bill Clinton be beaten "over the head with a baseball bat." The bat's now in other hands.

Oh, for goodness sakes. Your post is nothing but partisan.

And you seem to have the notion that time began in 92. Shall we speak about the Republican encouragement for Ollie North's pardon? Or about that pardon?

Or about Bill Casey or Nixon, his crimes, his pardon?

Shall we discuss the number of investigations into Clinton and his administration launched by Republicans?

Shall we contrast with the refusal of present congressional or senate Republicans to strive for a fair match and investigate Bush equally(over 100 compared to a handful)?

Look at your very last sentence. Clinton's poll numbers reflected that it wasn't just Democrat voters who stood behind him. Why be so uncareful in your statements and thinking?

I suspect the Democrats are just a tad weary of claims your side might make regarding their own moral purity in the light of history.

Apropos the preceding...

Quote:

It does the heart good to note, as I must, that some of those implicated in the Abramoff mess were among the foremost faux moralists of the Clinton years. Two of those are former Tom DeLay aides Tony Rudy and Michael Scanlon, both of whom went on to become satellites of Abramoff, sharing in his largess and, now, his infamy. It was Scanlon who wrote a poetic e-mail to Rudy during the Clinton impeachment proceedings beginning, "God bless you Tony Rudy," and suggesting that instead of mercy, Bill Clinton be beaten "over the head with a baseball bat." The bat's now in other hands.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/04/AR2006010401588.html

Oh, for goodness sakes. Your post is nothing but partisan.

I am unsure how my dislike of Democratic hypocrisy is necessarily partisan.

Shall we discuss the number of investigations into Clinton and his administration launched by Republicans?

I thought Janet Reno launched the investigations.

Or about Bill Casey or Nixon, his crimes, his pardon?

Don't know much about Bill Casey, but when the Republicans saw that Nixon was guilty they went up to the White House to demand his resignation.

That is an ethical standard that post-Clinton Democrats can only dream about.

Oliver North wasn't pardoned. Congress gave him immunity in exchange for his testimony.

Shall we contrast with the refusal of present congressional or senate Republicans to strive for a fair match and investigate Bush equally(over 100 compared to a handful)?

I supported renewal of the Independent Council law. Both the Republicans and the Democrats disagreed with me on that.

I suspect the Democrats are just a tad weary of claims your side might make regarding their own moral purity in the light of history.

Actually, I'm a conservative Democrat. I just don't let my membership in the party get in the way of my dislike of Democratic abuses.

oralloy wrote:

I thought Janet Reno launched the investigations.

Five separate investigations of "whitewater" alone, plus 'filegate', 'travelgate', Vincent Foster and countless others, all resulting in exonerations. These were all launched by Reno? Of course not.

oralloy wrote:

but when the Republicans saw that Nixon was guilty they went up to the White House to demand his resignation.

That is an ethical standard that post-Clinton Democrats can only dream about.

They did? They all marched up there, outraged and full of honor? And they marched up there right at the outset as the horror of what that administration was up to came to light too. Please. After months of revelations and the calculation that Nixon was going to be convicted, then they convinced him to resign.

oralloy wrote:

blatham wrote:

Shall we contrast with the refusal of present congressional or senate Republicans to strive for a fair match and investigate Bush equally(over 100 compared to a handful)?

I supported renewal of the Independent Council law. Both the Republicans and the Democrats disagreed with me on that.

As did I. But again, you leave unaddressed the key issue of unbalanced standard, playing it straight.

Look, oralloy. You really aren't playing it straight in this discussion.

You are consistently ommiting all of the history which doesn't support thesis of unipolar hypocisy.