Young whippersnappers!Hmm, well I was only like 5 when this was going on.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Young whippersnappers!Hmm, well I was only like 5 when this was going on.
I don't remember "rape" ever being mentioned regarding Lewinsky.
Where he really got in hot water was lying about the sex with her,
& then making himself look even worse with this statement....
"It depends upon what the meaning of the word 'is' is."
But again, his impeachment was about the Jones case, not Lewinsky.
I don't know....but if you tell lies (perjury) to prevent justice from being carried out,isn't that obstructing?There's a problem because Wikipedia says Clinton was impeached because of perjury and obstruction.
But the only thing I remember him going to court for was to talk about Monica Lewinsky and he lied about her so that was perjury.
But if it's not against the law to have an affair then why was he dragged into court 2 testify about his affair?
Young whippersnappers!
Of course the question was why was the Lewinsky affair germane to the case. One bill that Clinton signed into law was one making it legal to dig into a the past sexual history of a person accused of sexual harassment. It was later found to be unconstitutional, if I remember correctly. But at the time it was still in effect, which is why they went on a witch hunt for bills actions with any woman. He lied under oath about the Lewinsky affair and that was how they at least got the impeachment to pass. It was a classic case of being hoisted by one's own petard.
Phrasing: The impeachment did not, in fact, pass-- it was voted down, and the GOP was furious.
All the lying, for startersfor what?
All the lying, for starters
All the lying, for starters
Lying on its own is not enough to impeach a president, nor is being criminally stupid. That means Trump is safe for now.
And the Dems have never gotten over the impeachment.Indeed. We took off of work, to watch on Live TV, the vote on Clinton's impeachment process. He was acquitted by that vote. The GOP has never gotten over that loss.
Ahem, "an" affair? And since Trump clearly has no ability to keep it in his pants I wonder if he somehow would have written an exemption for his cheating. Melana does not ever look to happy to be with him. I think she knows what she got herself into and is regretting it.One of the funnier things someone once observed, re: the trump Drama?
Is that it is highly likely trump and Melana have a pre-nup.
And it is now becoming painfully clear, that trump had an extra-marial affair while he was married to Melana.
I betcha that ruins several (if not most) clauses in the pre-nup agreement....
... I'm just waiting for the divorce announcement, myself. And? It would take trump's finances ..... very public.
If this wasn't real life, it'd be laughed out of the green room if proposed as a script for a soap opera....
And the Dems have never gotten over the impeachment.
But this is good.
Politicians should fear prosecution for illegal behavior.
It's the only way to keep'm (mostly) honest.
Investigations of Trump are good for this reason too.
Ahem, "an" affair? And since Trump clearly has no ability to keep it in his pants I wonder if he somehow would have written an exemption for his cheating. Melana does not ever look to happy to be with him. I think she knows what she got herself into and is regretting it.
For violating the emoluments clause, if nothing else.for what?
Yeah a real funny read that after looking at the first one or two I rolled out of my chair because I was laughing so hard. Stopped reading because I could hurt myself falling out again. Lucky I wasn't drinking my coffee at the time.For violating the emoluments clause, if nothing else.
He's still enriching himself personally from foreign governments via his companies.
There was a recent lawsuit about it. It was thrown out, but only because the judge ruled that the plaintiffs didn't have standing and that Congress, not the courts, should be the ones to ajudicate:
Judge dismisses suits claiming Trump violated emoluments clause
Edit: here's a more thorough list of all the things that have been cited in impeachment bills against him. So far, none have been approved by the House:
Here are all the ways Trump has been accused of violating the Constitution
Which could be "quid pro quo", and this is what Kushner especially might have gotten involved in.For violating the emoluments clause, if nothing else.
He's still enriching himself personally from foreign governments via his companies.
So do you disagree with the allegations or do you not think that they're impeachment-worthy?Yeah a real funny read that after looking at the first one or two I rolled out of my chair because I was laughing so hard. Stopped reading because I could hurt myself falling out again. Lucky I wasn't drinking my coffee at the time.
I can neither confirm or deny my position on your questionSo do you disagree with the allegations or do you not think that they're impeachment-worthy?