PureX
Veteran Member
Oh, C'mon. Get real!
-
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:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
It was 22 years ago today that Clinton was impeached
- Thread starter Stevicus
- Start date
PureX
Veteran Member
I have repeated it a half dozen times, now, that Clinton was deliberately induced to lie by an illegal "investigation" that was nothing more than a morality witch-hunt intended to smear him in public, and if he lied to try and avoid it, then to prosecute him for that, too. It was a deliberate abuse and miscarriage of justice instigated by the republican party. And most of the American public knew it. Which is why they did not turn against Clinton for his cheating on his wife or his lying about. And the whole ugly thing blew up in the republican's faces. As they came off looking even lower and more petty than Clinton did.
I am not a Clinton fan. He was a liar and cheater and con-man in many more ways that just his sexual behavior. But in this specific instance, the republicans stooped even lower than him, and did more harm than him to the dignity of government and to the American people's faith in it. It was the beginning of the republican party turning to the "by any means necessary" method of politics. And they have been sinking ever lower into that mire, ever since.
Why was the investigation illegal?
How do you know the purpose was to induce Bill to lie?
Oh, please answer the question about Martha Stewart...
Was her prosecution wrong too?
PureX
Veteran Member
Because there were no legitimate allegations of a crime, involved.
The purpose was to use his sexual indiscretions to smear him in public. But they couldn't just "out him" without looking like the petty heels that they were, and of course he would just deny it if they tried. So they had to create a legal "investigation", so they could use (abuse) the power of law to "out him", and trap him if he lied.
And I think you already know all of this. Which is why I am perplexed that you seem so insistent on ignoring it, or worse, denying it.
Martha Stewart got caught doing exactly what they all do (profiting from inside information). But she was in the public eye, and without their legal and political clout. So she got "punished" for it so they could all pretend they were "clean" in comparison.
Why is that illegal?
I'm not ignoring your argument.
I'm saying that it's bogus.
And worse, it excuses real crimes by impugning the investigators.
Moreover, you don't use the same apologetics for Trump...just Clinton.
That is untrue. She wasn't found guilty of that.
She was convicted of the same thing Bill did...lying to protect oneself.
Are you saying that she was maliciously prosecuted?
PureX
Veteran Member
Now you're just being absurd.
By asking you how the investigation was illegal?
We just might agree on that.
I think this is apples and oranges. Martha Stewart was a mischievous capitalist, and there's never anything wrong with prosecuting mischievous capitalists.
What Clinton did was bad, but there's no indication that he was doing it for money.
Bill was a mischievous politician.
or mischievous politicians.
Committing crimes for free is exculpatory?
By this standard, Carlos danger was wrongly prosecuted.
This is fun!
McBell
mantra-chanting henotheistic snake handler
Source please.
I ask because I always heard "sexual relations" not "sexual intercourse".
There are penally relevant juridic situations.
And there are penally irrelevant juridic situations.
Being bribed by a foreign head of state is a penally relevant situation. In public law this is called High Treason and is a valid reason for impeachment.
Adultery is a penally irrelevant juridic situation. Meaning...a president cannot be investigated for something irrelevant both a)as for public law and b)as for penal law.
For example, our president can be impeached, by Constitution in 2 cases only . High Treason and Violation of the Constitution.
I never said that. I just said it was different and not comparable.
Even so....
Sexual Intercourse Law and Legal Definition | USLegal, Inc.
Sexual intercourse is defined as “vaginal intercourse or any insertion, however slight, of a hand, finger or object into the vagina, vulva, or labia, excluding such insertion for medical treatment or examination.” Gov't of the V.I. v. Vicars, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 17633 (3d Cir. V.I. Aug. 7, 2009)
McBell
mantra-chanting henotheistic snake handler
And?
I mean, what does this have to do with the claim of "sexual intercourse" as opposed to "sexual relations"?
Which is what I am asking about....
It was 'sexual relations', but the definition given him was 'genital-genital contact'. Oral sex did NOT qualify.
McBell
mantra-chanting henotheistic snake handler
Again, source please.
I still recall when Berlusconi was still married and he said that phrase " I have been working hard as Prime Minister...and if I sometimes happen to stare at some beautiful girl....it is better to be fond of beautiful girls than being gay...
They applauded him...
Evidently a gay affair would have discredited him in our sexist Mediterranean culture.....
They applauded him...
Evidently a gay affair would have discredited him in our sexist Mediterranean culture.....
Last edited:
No one has presented any law that was violated by the investigation.
Actually when Clinton said the truth, he defined his relationship with Miss Lewinsky inappropriate.
He apologized for that.
He did not apologize for perjury.
So apparently it was all about the adultery, not the perjury.
Not exactly that, but it appeared to be the gist of your post.
What's comparable is that both were investigated, but prosecuted
only for lying during the investigation. Both committed crimes,
but only Bill was convicted. You seem to believe that persecuting
capitalists is good, but not politicians. Oh, you socialists.