The Senator Posted September 8, 2008 Share Posted September 8, 2008 Clinton WAS qualified as unfit by The House... Where is the hypocrisy for applying the same standard to McCain\Palin? Now if people would go on record as saying Clinton was fit, I would agree that McCain\Palin is fit. It is all about the standard that was set during the late 1990's. They are either both fit or both unfit. Again the standard WAS set with Clinton being unfit. Which standard now applies? Claiming McCain\Palin is fit while asserting Clinton to be unfit is equally hypocritical. Christ Almighty, I hate to have to give history lessons to this board - especially when the events are as recent as less than 10 years ago. A simple Google or Wikipedia search would have told you that Clinton was impeached for perjury & obstruction of justice, not marital infidelity - FREAKIN' CREEP LIED TO A GRAND JURY... Former President of the United States Bill Clinton was impeached by the House of Representatives on December 19, 1998, and acquitted by the Senate on February 12, 1999. The charges, perjury, obstruction of justice and abuse of power arose from the Monica Lewinsky scandal and the Paula Jones law suit. The trial proceedings were largely party-line, with no Democratic Senators voting for conviction and only five Democratic Representatives voting to impeach. In all, 50 senators voted "not guilty," and 50 voted "guilty" on the obstruction charge. The Senate also acquitted on the charge of perjury with 55 votes cast as "not guilty," and 45 votes as "guilty." It was only the second impeachment of a President in American history, following the impeachment of Andrew Johnson in 1868. Link Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted September 8, 2008 Share Posted September 8, 2008 Christ Almighty, I hate to have to give history lessons to this board - especially when the events are as recent as less than 10 years ago. A simple Google or Wikipedia search would have told you that Clinton was impeached for perjury & obstruction of justice, not marital infidelity - FREAKIN' CREEP LIED TO A GRAND JURY... Link He lied about marital infidelity. The grand jury, IMO, overstepped their bounds. No big deal. You don't think Palin would lie about infidelity, we will see? If it comes out that she was riding one of Todd's business associate's high hard one, can we hold her to the same standard? Unless you a better person... Most people would lie because it is nobody's business. Anyway, questions that should never have been asked, either Clinton or Palin. Yet, Clinton's witchhunt has set the standard... Which is really too bad... Because of that, all this stuff is in play now. You can't just shut if off when it doesn't suite one's taste. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Senator Posted September 8, 2008 Share Posted September 8, 2008 He lied about marital infidelity. The grand jury, IMO, overstepped their bounds. No big deal. You don't think Palin would lie about infidelity, we will see? If it comes out that she was riding one of Todd's business associate's high hard one, can we hold her to the same standard? Unless you a better person... Most people would lie because it is nobody's business. Anyway, questions that should never have been asked, either Clinton or Palin. Yet, Clinton's witchhunt has set the standard... Which is really too bad... Because of that, all this stuff is in play now. You can't just shut if off when it doesn't suite one's taste. If she wants to ride "one of Todd's business associate's high hard one", that's her business (and his). If she lies under oath to a grand jury, then it becomes their business - and mine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted September 8, 2008 Share Posted September 8, 2008 If she wants to ride "one of Todd's business associate's high hard one", that's her business (and his). If she lies under oath to a grand jury, then it becomes their business - and mine. I agree on the first one. Not on the second in these circumstances of power run amuck. You have no business asking or demanding that a Grand jury asks these questions. That is overstepping bounds. The two points you brought up go hand in hand. You do see the connection? If there is no buisness asking these questions and if still the GJ askes...For all purposes one can say anything they like... Since the GJ is overstepping their bounds and not acting in good faith... Why should they be respected? Why would you want to give blind respect to a farce? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Senator Posted September 8, 2008 Share Posted September 8, 2008 I agree on the first one. Not on the second in these circumstances of power run amuck. You have no business asking or demanding that a Grand jury asks these questions. That is overstepping bounds. The two points you brought up go hand in hand. You do see the connection? If there is no buisness asking these questions and if still the GJ askes...For all purposes one can say anything they like... Since the GJ is overstepping their bounds and not acting in good faith... Why should they be respected? Why would you want to give blind respect to a farce? Yes yes, EI2 - I do see the connection - I even agree that scumbag's personal life is not their or my business (although a 50 year-old President of the US taking advantage of a 23-year old intern is pretty freakin' slimy, ya gotta admit). You do understand, however, that perjury is a crime? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted September 8, 2008 Share Posted September 8, 2008 Yes yes, EI2 - I do see the connection - I even agree that scumbag's personal life is not their or my business (although a 50 year-old President of the US taking advantage of a 23-year old intern is pretty freakin' slimy, ya gotta admit). You do understand, however, that perjury is a crime? Perjury for questions they don't have a right to ask? IMO, the GJ then becomes no more than myself asking the questions. Ya, it is a shocker... I am contending they have no legal authority in this case... Basically, it becomes an act of defiance. If one is acting outside of justice... Are they justice? Basically: "I shot the Sheriff, but I did not shoot the deputy." Now, of course we all realize that in writing those words, Bob Marley meant that a person was shot, but that person was no deputy of the law. See what I am saying? The GJ in this case was not the law, as much as you still want to honor it as the law. "If I am guilty I will pay." In this case... Of course Clinton and maybe Palin will have to answer to the creator. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted September 8, 2008 Share Posted September 8, 2008 Yes yes, EI2 - I do see the connection - I even agree that scumbag's personal life is not their or my business (although a 50 year-old President of the US taking advantage of a 23-year old intern is pretty freakin' slimy, ya gotta admit). You do understand, however, that perjury is a crime? Actually the fact that he was getting a BJ in office is very important to us. If a foreign power knew and could put pressure on him in trade agreements, etc... it harms the US. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted September 8, 2008 Share Posted September 8, 2008 Actually the fact that he was getting a BJ in office is very important to us. If a foreign power knew and could put pressure on him in trade agreements, etc... it harms the US. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts